11-23-2004 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
November 23, 2004
Supervisors in Attendances
Mr. Kelly E. Miller, Chairman
Mr. Edward B. Barber, Vice Chrm.
Mrs. Renny B. Humphrey
Mr. R. M. ~Dickie" King, Jr.
Mr. Arthur S. Warren
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
County Administrator
Staff in Attendances
Colonel Carl R. Baker,
Police Department
Mr. Craig Bryant, Dir.,
Utilities
Ms. Jana Carter, Dir.,
Youth Planning and
Development
Ms. Marilyn Cole, Asst.
County Administrator
Ms Rebecca Dickson, Dir.,
Budget and Management
Mr. James Dunn, Dir.,
Economic Development
Mr William Dupler,
Building Official
Mr Robert Eanes, Asst. to
the County Administrator
Ms Lisa Elko, CMC
Clerk
Ms Kelly Fried, Quality
Improvement Mgr., Mental
Health/Mental Retard./
Substance Abuse Services
Mr. Michael Golden, Dir.,
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Human Services
Mr. John W. Harmon,
Right-of-Way Manager
Mr. Russell Harris, Mgr.
of Community Development
Services
Mr. Rob Key, Asst. Dir.,
General Services
Ms. Kathryn Kitchen, Asst.
Supt. of Schools for
Business and Finance
Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir.,
Public Affairs
Mr. Louis Lassiter, Dir.,
Internal Audit
Ms. Mary Lou Lyle, Dir.,
Accounting
Acting Chief Paul Mauger,
Fire and EMS Dept.
Mr. R. John McCracken,
Dir., Transportation
Mr. Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., Env. Engineering
Mr. Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
04-900
11/23/04
Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Management Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Community Development
Mr. Kirkland A. Turner,
Director of Planning
Mr. Scott Zaremba, Asst.
Dir., Human Resource
Management
Mr. Miller called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at
4:05 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2004
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved the minutes of November 10, 2004, as submitted.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
2.A. CHESTERFIELD BUSINESS COUNCIL'S GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
Mr. Cliff Bickford, Chairman of the Chesterfield Business
Council's (CBC} Government Relations Committee, reviewed
county initiatives during 2004 that were supported by the
CBC, including refinement of the BPOL tax; purchase of
Cloverleaf Mall; an overwhelmingly successful bond
referendum; and opening of Route 288. He stated CBC
initiatives for 2005 include support of public private
transportation proposals and ongoing discussions regarding a
transportation district; the rail initiative, which the CBC
sees as a viable partial solution to future transportation
needs; and an economic development partnership to devise a
strategy to empower the business community with better
knowledge and understanding about the county. He noted a
crime initiative was announced last week at the Greater
Richmond Chamber of Commerce meeting and stated Colonel Baker
will attend the December CBC meeting to pursue that
initiative. He stated a long-term initiative of the Business
Council is to significantly advance support of early
childhood development, indicating that the results of this
initiative are obvious to both the business community and the
county because data indicates that every dollar spent in
early childhood development could potentially result in a
long-term savings of six dollars in time expense.
2.B. RECOONIZING THE BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FOR
RECEIVING THE DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION
AWARD
Mr. Ramsey commended Ms. Dickson and staff of the Budget and
Management Department upon being awarded the Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award by the Government Finance Officers
Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for the
21st consecutive year.
04-901
11/23/04
2.C. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTATION
Mr. Ramsey introduced
partner from KPMG, LLP.
Ms. Elizabeth Foster, engagement
Ms. Foster stated the FY2004 audit is officially complete and
all opinions issued were unqualified. She further stated the
audit revealed no significant findings and clean opinions
were issued on the financial statements as well as the
controls that were tested. She stated a full report was made
to the Budget and Audit Committee earlier today.
Mr. Ramsey noted the audit report will be forwarded to the
State Auditor of Public Accounts, as required by law.
3. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no Board committee reports at this time.
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, ADDITIONS, OR CHANGES IN THE
ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
added Item 8.D.l.c., Adoption of Resolution Requesting the
Virginia Department of Transportation to Accept a Portion of
Marina Drive Into the State Highway System; added Item
8.D.3.b., Conveyance of Easement to Virginia Electric and
Power Company to Install Underground Cable Across County
Property on Chester Road; and adopted the Agenda, as amended.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
5. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
o RECOGNIZING THE YMCA OF GREATER RiC~OND FOR OUTSTANDING
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Ms. Chris Ruth, Assistant Director of Public Affairs
introduced Mr. Barry Taylor, President and CEO of the YMCA of
Greater Richmond, who was present to receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the YMCA was chartered in 1854 and has served
continuously for 150 years; and
WHEREAS, the Manchester YMCA was founded in 1967; the
Midlothian YMCA in 1995 and the Chester YMCA in 1997; and
WHEREAS, the YMCA provides quality services for
individuals and families in a wholesome, safe, caring and
nurturing environment; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the YMCA is to put Christian
principles into practice through programs that build healthy
spirits, minds and bodies; and
04-902
11/23/04
WHEREAS, the YMCA of Greater Richmond is one of the
largest non-profit charitable providers of human services in
Greater Richmond, and in Petersburg, Chesterfield, Goochland,
Hanover, Henrico and Powhatan counties, serving some 130,000
people each year with programs that build strong children,
strong families and strong communities; and
WHEREAS, through the generosity of YMCA friends, the
YMCA of Greater Richmond provides more than $4.4 million each
year in financial assistance to ensure that nearly 18,000
people from all parts of the community are able to
participate in YMCA programs and services; and
WHEREAS, through 25,000 swim lessons taught; 11,000
young people involved in organized sports; 3,000 children
starting school with the supplies they need and 2,500
children participating in YMCA child care each day, the YMCA
is fulfilling its mission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, this 23rd day of November 2004,
publicly recognizes the outstanding community service
provided by the YMCA of Greater Rickmond; expresses, on
behalf of all Chesterfield County residents, gratitude for
the wide variety of services and programs offered by the
YMCA; and proclaims Monday, November 29, 2004 through Monday,
December 6, 2004, as ~YMCA Week" in Chesterfield County,
Virginia.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mr. Miller presented the executed resolution to Mr. Taylor,
expressed appreciation for the many services offered by the
YMCA, and congratulated the organization on its 150th
anniversary.
Mr. Taylor expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and for the strong support provided by the county
to the YMCA.
6. WORK SESSIONS
There were no work sessions at this time.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
7.A. AUTHORIZE THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HEALTH COMMISSION TO
MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR A REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE
TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING UNITS AT
LUCY CORR VILLAGE ON PARCELS OWNED BY THE COUNTY
Mr. Hammer stated that, since the November 10, 2004 meeting,
this request has been amended to delete the parcel bounded by
Government Center Parkway and Courthouse Road Extended and
move the proposed development further into the area adjacent
to the nursing home.
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
authorized the Chesterfield County Health Center Commission
to make an application for rezoning and conditional use to
04-903
11/23/04
permit construction of a convalescence center and detached
and attached residential units on parcels owned by the county
(Tax ID Nos. 769665990300000, 773665252300000 and
771665335400000). (It is noted approval of this agenda item
does not obligate the Board of Supervisors to approve the
requested rezoning or to transfer title of the county
parcels.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
7.B. STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved the following streetlight installation costs:
Bermuda District
In the Amherst Subdivision:
Amherst Oak Lane, vicinity of 16706
Cost to install streetlight: $791.18
Amherst Ridge Way, vicinity of 2900
Cost to install streetlight: $760.29
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.A. FY2004 RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND SET PUBLIC HEARING TO
APPROPRIATE FUNDS
Mr. Allan Carmody presented a summary of FY2004 Results of
Operations. He stated FY2004 ended with a $7.5 million
surplus, after Hurricane Isabel adjustments. He further
stated major revenues that exceeded the budgeted amounts
include the property tax collections, local sales taxes,
recordation taxes and consumer utility taxes. He reviewed
staff's recommendations for both county and schools' use of
the undesignated fund balance in FY2005 and FY2006 for non-
recurring items.
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
appropriated $408,037 in FY2005 for the following: $60,000
for the 2004 referendum expenditures, $257,800 for pay plan
adjustments in three departments and $90,237 for use in the
Comprehensive Services fund to address a year-end shortfall
for FY2004.
And, further, the Board designated $2,163,220 in surplus
revenue and $226,540 in unspent appropriations, totaling
$2,389,760 for non-recurring items for use in FY2006.
And, further, the Board set the date of December 15, 2004 at
7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the appropriation
of $3,077,862 in FY2005 for the following: 1) $48,589 to the
School Fund to address a FY2004 year-end shortfall in the
Comprehensive Services fund; and 2) $3,029,273 for non-
recurring items that will be ordered in FY2005 for use in the
04-904
11/23/0~
2005-2006 school year. (It is noted funding is comprised of
$23,603 in surplus property tax revenue (after contribution
to fund balance); $1,247,157 in surplus state sales tax
revenue; and $1,807,102 in unspent appropriations (including
tax relief), totaling $3,077,862.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. B. APPOINTMENTS
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
suspended its rules at this time to allow for simultaneous
nomination/appointment of a member to serve on the Youth
Services Citizen Board.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
O YOUTH SERVICES CITIZEN BOARD
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Donnell McLean, Sr.,
adult representative of the Matoaca District, to serve on the
Youth Services Citizen Board, whose term is effective
immediately and expires June 30, 2007.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C. STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
approved the following streetlight installation costs:
Bermuda District
In the Rayon Park Subdivision:
o Senate Street, vicinity of 7800
Cost to install streetlight: $484.58
o Botone Avenue and Senate Street
Cost to install streetlight: $491.39
o Congress Road and Senate Street
Cost to install streetlight: $484.58
o Congress Road, vicinity of 2712
Cost to install streetlight: $484.58
Clover Hill District
In the Clarendon Subdivision:
Hollyglen Court, in the cul-de-sac
Cost to install streetlight: $2,167.83
0~-905
11/23/0~
In the Muirfield Green Subdivision
o Muirfield Green Drive and Nuttree Woods Drive
Additional cost to install streetlight:
Dale District
In the Creek Meadow Subdivision:
o Clearview Drive, in the cul-de-sac
Cost to install streetlight: $433.30
Matoaca District
o River Road, vicinity of 8414
Cost to install streetlight: $400.48
Midlothian District
At the entrance to the Edgehill Subdivision:
o Iron Mill Road and Old Bon Air Road
Cost to install streetlight: $585.17
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
$2,094.61
8.D. CONSENT ITEMS
8.D.1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
8.D.i.&. RECOGNIZING SERGEANT NATHAN NECOLETTOS FOR HIS
CONTRIBUTION TO THE WAR A~AINST GLOBAL TERRORISM
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, the United States was
stunned when terrorists hijacked airplanes and attacked the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing and injuring
thousands of people; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these attacks, the United States
military entered into a war against global terrorism; and
WHEREAS, this military response has included "Operation
Noble Eagle," involving homeland defense and civil support
missions; ~Operation Enduring Freedom," formerly known as
~Operation Infinite Justice," to destroy the terrorist
training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the
capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist
activities in Afghanistan; ~Operation Vigilant Resolve," to
isolate and root out the terrorist forces responsible for
repeated attacks on coalition forces in Fallujah, Iraq; and
~Operation Iraqi Freedom," to free the people of Iraq from
years of tyranny under the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who
also sponsored terrorism; and
WHEREAS, each of these operations was conducted to make
the United States, and the world, a safer place; and
04-906
11/23/04
WHEREAS, among the hundreds of thousands of military
personnel mobilized for this war effort were scores of
Chesterfield County residents and employees who serve in the
reserve components of the various military services; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Nathan Necolettos, Army Reserve, is
one of the courageous Americans who answered the call to duty
unflinchingly and honorably; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors supports the
President and our troops, and commends the reserve military
personnel who served in these military operations for their
courageous service and sacrifice; and
WHEREAS, the families of these military men and women
also bear a great sacrifice and uncertainty in the absence of
their loved ones serving in far-off lands; and
~EREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the courage and
sacrifice of our reservists and their families during this
difficult time.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, this 23rd day of November 2004,
recognizes the sacrifice and courage of Sergeant Nathan
Necolettos, and expresses its gratitude to him for making the
world a safer place for freedom-loving people everywhere.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.l.b. CONFIRMING PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $2,000,000
TO ASSIST B AND B PRINTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
IN FINANCING THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF A
PRINTING PRESS AND RELATED PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King,
adopted the following resolution:
the Board
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the
County of Chesterfield (the ~Authority") has considered the
application of B&B Printing Co., Inc., a Virginia corporation
(the "Company"), for the issuance of the Authority's
industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $2,000,000 (the ~Bonds") to assist in financing the
acquisition and installation of a printing press and related
production equipment (the "Project"), in the Company's
commercial printing facility located at 521 Research Road in
Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"), and to pay
certain costs of issuance of the bonds, and has held a public
hearing thereon on October 28, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board to
approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section
147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
~Tax Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended (the ~Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution agreeing
preliminarily to assist the Company with the financing of the
04-907
11/23/04
Project, upon terms to be agreed upon by the Authority and
the Company as expressed in such resolution, a record of the
public hearing at which such resolution was adopted,
reaffirmed and ratified in its entirety, a copy of the
resolution adopted at such public hearing and a "fiscal
impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed
with the Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority of the County of
Chesterfield for the benefit of the Company, to the extent
required by the Tax Code and the Virginia Code, to permit the
Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as
required by the Tax Code and the Virginia Code, does not
constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the
creditworthiness of the Company; and, as required by Section
15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that
neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to
pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident
thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor,
and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the
Commonwealth, the County or the Authority shall be pledged
thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.1.c. REQUESTING VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO
ACCEPT A PORTION OF MARINA DRIVE INTO THE STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the street described below is shown on the plat
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation has advised this Board the
street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street
described below to the secondary system of highways, pursuant
to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements.
Change to Secondary System of State Highways:
Basis for Change: Addition, new subdivision street
Statutory Reference: §33.1-229
04-908
11/23/04
Project: Marina Drive
From: Existing intersection of Route 1/301, Jefferson Davis
Highway and Marina Drive, east then north
TO: Terminus, a distance of 0.25 miles
Right of Way was filed on March 19, 1964, with the Office of
Clerk to Circuit Court in Pg.13, Pg. 87; a width of 66 feet.
AND, BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees
a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of
this Resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.2. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.D.2.&. TO CONSIDER THE RECEIPT AND APPROPRIATION OF GRANT
FUNDS FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY TO PURCHASE TERRORISM RELATED EQUIPMENT
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board set
the date of December 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing for the Board to consider the receipt and
appropriation of $839,962.12 in noncompetitive grant funds
from the United States Department of Homeland Security, State
Homeland Security Grant Program.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.2.b. TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE
HAPPY HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board set
the date of December 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing for the Board to consider appropriation of $548,056
($502,700 in cash proffers and $45,356 in interest earnings)
from traffic shed 19 for improvements to Happy Hill Road
between Harrowgate Road and Longmeadow Boulevard.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.2.c. TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE
CENTRALIA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board set
the date of December 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing for the Board to consider appropriation of $1,527,466
in cash proffers from traffic shed 13 for improvements to
Centralia Road between Salem Church Road and Chalkley Road.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04-909
11/23/04
8.D.2.d. TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY
FOR COACHES OF CO-SPONSORED YOUTH ATHLETIC LEAGUES
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board set
the date of December 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing for the Board to consider amending the background
check policy for coaches of co-sponsored youth athletic
leagues.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.3. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS
8.D.3.a. TO VERIZON VIRGINIA INCORPORATED TO INSTALL
UNDERGROUND CABLE ACROSS COUNTY PROPERTY TO SERVE
FIRE STATION NUMBER 20 ON COURTHOUSE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with
Verizon Virginia Incorporated to install underground cable
across county property to serve Fire Station Number 20 on
Courthouse Road. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.3.b. TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO INSTALL
UNDERGROUND CABLE ACROSS COUNTY PROPERTY ON CHESTER
ROAD
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with
Virginia Electric and Power Company to install underground
cable across county property on Chester Road. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.4. ACCEPTANCE OF PARCELS OF LAND
8.D.4.a. ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GENITO PLACE
FROM JMS INVESTMENTS, LLC
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.032
acres along the east right of way line of Genito Place (State
Route 991) from JMS Investments, LLC, and authorized the
County Administrator to execute the deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04-910
11/23/0~
8.D.4.b. ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GENITO PLACE
FROM J. MARK SOWERS
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.210
acres along the east right of way line of Genito Place (State
Route 991) from J. Mark Sowers, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the deed. (It is noted a copy of
the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.4.c. ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BAILEY BRID~E
ROAD FROM GLENN M. HILL
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.647
acres along the south right of way line of Bailey Bridge Road
(State Route 654) from Glenn M. Hill, and authorized the
County Administrator to execute the deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.5. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FROM JOHN D. NORRIS TO INSTALL
A PRIVATE WATER SERVICE WITHIN A PRIVATE EASEMENT TO
SERVE PROPERTY ON MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
approved a request from John D. Norris for permission to
install a private water service within a private easement to
serve property at 7509 Midlothian Turnpike, subject to the
execution of a license agreement, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the water connection agreement. (It
is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the paper's of this
Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.6. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A SIXTEEN-FOOT
SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF R C AND D, LLC
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a
portion of a 16-foot sewer easement across the property of R
C and D, LLC. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with
the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.7. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
04-911
11/23/04
WHEREAS, the street described below is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation has advised this Board the
street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees
a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
TYPe ChanQe to the Secondary System of State HighwaYs: Addition
Basis for Change:
Statutory Reference:
Addition, New subdivision street
§33.1-229
Project:
Ironbridge Boulevard Extension, Phase II
Ironbridge Boulevard, State Route Number: 632
From:
0.03 Mi. N of Arbor Landing Dr., (Rt. 4815)
To:
0.23 Mi. N of Arbor Landing Dr., (Rt. 4815), a distance of: 0.20 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 1/27/1995 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Db. 2650; pg.
71, 79, 82, with a width of 85 Ft.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/06/95 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Db. 2653; pg.
320, with a width of 85 Ft.
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation has advised this Board the
streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements.
04-912
11/23/04
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees
a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Tv~e Change to the $__~condary System of State Highways: Addition
Basis for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Statutory Reference: §33.1-229
Project: Chesdin Landing, Section 5
· Corapeeke Place, State Route Number: 5775
From: Chesdin Green Wy., (Rt. 4496)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.11 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 5/16/2001 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 117; Pg. 72,
with a width of 50 Ft.
· Corapeake Terrace, State Route Number: 5774
From: Chesdin Green Wy., (Rt. 4496)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.68 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 5/16/2001 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 117; Pg. 72,
with a width of 50 Ft.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.8. APPROPRIATION OF STATE CHAPTER 10 AND MEDICAID FUNDS
FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
appropriated $50,000 in State Chapter 10 funds; established
one full time position; and appropriated $130,600 in
additional Medicaid State Plan Option revenue.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.9. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER WITH CHN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY FOR EXPANSION OF ROCKWOOD NATURE CENTER;
APPROPRIATION OF CASH PROFFERS FOR THE LOWES SOCCER
FIELD PROJECT; AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN GENERAL FUND
BUDGET FROM LOWES SOCCER FIELD TO THE ROCKWOOD NATURE
CENTER PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
approved Change Order Number 2 to CHN Construction Company in
the amount of $33,726.67 for the Rockwood Nature Center
Expansion Project; appropriated cash proffers in the amount
of $72,400 for Lowes Soccer Field; and transferred $72,400 in
General Fund Budget from the Lowes Soccer Field Project to
the Rockwood Park Nature Center Project.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04-913
11/23/04
9. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDUL~D MATTERS OR CL~T~S
There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or
claims at this time.
10. REPORTS
10.A. REPORT ON THE DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
10.B. REPORT ON THE STATUS OF GENERAL FUND B~?.~-NCE, R~SERV~.
FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS, DISTRICT IMPROVEmeNT
FUNDS AND LEASE PURCHASES
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
accepted the following reports: a Report on Developer Water
and Sewer Contracts; and a Status Report of the General Fund
Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District
Improvement Funds and Lease Purchases.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
11. DINNER
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
recessed to the Administration Building, Room 502, for
dinner.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
Reconvening:
12. INVOCATION
Reverend Steve Lalk, Senior
Church gave the invocation.
Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist
13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
Members of Boy Scout Troop 897 led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America.
14. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
o RECOGNIZING THE SOUTH OF THE JAMES JAYCEES FOR OUTSTANDING
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Mr. Kappel introduced Mr. Quenton Lee and Mrs. LaTika Lee,
who were present to receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
04-914
11/23/04
WHEREAS, the Jaycees is an organization whose members
are committed to community service; and
WHEREAS, the Jaycees were established in 1920 to provide
young men with the opportunity to develop themselves through
service to others; and
WHEREAS, the program later expanded to include women in
those same development opportunities; and
WHEREAS, at the heart of the Jaycees is the concept of
selfless volunteerism; and
WHEREAS, the Jaycees Creed includes the line, "Service
to humanity is the best work of life"; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is strengthened by the
presence of the diverse membership of the South of the James
Jaycees; and
WHEREAS, the South of the James Junior Chamber is a
local chapter of Junior Chamber International, the U. S.
Jaycees and the Virginia Jaycees; and
WHEREAS, the South of the James Junior Chamber was
founded in March 2004 by Quenton and LaTika Lee; and
WHEREAS, in an environment that fosters true
friendships, personal growth and career advancement, the
South of the James Jaycees offer opportunities in business
management, individual development, international and
community involvement; and
WHEREAS, the South of the James Jaycees build tomorrow's
leaders today; and
WHEREAS, the work of the South of the James Jaycees is
beneficial to Chesterfield County, Virginia and the United
States of America; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, this 23rd day of November 2004,
publicly recognizes the outstanding contributions of the
South of the James Jaycees, commends its founders and members
on their civic-minded spirit, and extends to the South of the
James Jaycees the gratitude of this Board of Supervisors,
along with the gratitude of all Chesterfield County
residents, for the outstanding volunteer efforts of the South
of the James Jaycees, along with best wishes for continued
success.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mr. Barber presented the executed resolution to Mrs. Lee and
expressed appreciation for the outstanding contributions of
the South of the James Jaycees.
Mrs. Lee expressed appreciation to the Board for
acknowledging the accomplishments of the South of the James
Jaycees and stated the organization is building a better
world around us. She thanked police officers for their
assistance in closing the road for the Midlothian Day
Festival Parade after an oversight had been made.
0~-915
11/23/0~
15. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOME PERMITS AND REZONING PLACED ON
THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD IN THE FOLLOWING ORDERs
- WITHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT
ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATION AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION
- CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDATION AND/OR THERE IS PUBLIC OPPOSITION WILL BE
HEARD AT SECTION 17
04SN0226
In Dale Magisterial District, WINDSOR PROPERTIES requests
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12). Residential use of
up to 3.63 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-
12) District. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property
is appropriate for community mixed use. This request lies on
7.6 acres at the western terminus of Mistyhill Road. Tax ID
775-679-Part of 6282 (Sheet 17).
Mr. Turner stated the applicant has withdrawn Case 04SN0226
from consideration.
Ms. Kristen Keatley, representing the applicant, requested
withdrawal of Case 04SN0226.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
acknowledged withdrawal of Case 04SN0226.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04SN0302
In Matoaca Magisterial District, 0MNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CAP
OPERATIONS LLC requests Conditional Use and amendment of
zoning district map to permit a communications tower in an
Agricultural (A) District. The density of such amendment
will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for neighborhood mixed use. This request lies on
2.5 acres and is known as 11010 Winterpock Road. Tax ID 720-
655-5381 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 04SN0302 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Ms. Ambre Blatter, representing the applicant,
recommendation is acceptable.
stated the
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved Case 04SN0302 subject to the following conditions:
The communications tower use shall be permitted only if
it is incorporated into the structure of a water tank.
Antennas shall be mounted on the safety rail of the
04-916
11/23/04
water tank. Ail cabling shall be housed in conduit or
otherwise shielded from view. (P)
The developer shall be responsible for correcting any
frequency problems which affect the Chesterfield County
Communications System caused by this use. Such
corrections shall be made immediately upon notification
by the Chesterfield County Communications and
Electronics staff. (GS)
The color and lighting system for the tower shall be as
follows:
a. The communications equipment (antennas, mounting
hardware, cabling, etc.) mounted on the outside of the
water tank structure shall be the same or similar color
as the water tank.
b. The tower shall not be lighted. (P)
Any building or mechanical equipment shall comply with
Sections 19-595 and 19-570 (b) and (c) of the Zoning
Ordinance relative to architectural treatment of
building exteriors and screening of mechanical
equipment. (P)
(NOTE: Section 19-570 (b) and (c) would require the
screening of mechanical equipment located on the building or
ground from adjacent properties and public rights of way.
Screening would not be required for the tower or tower-
mounted equipment.)
5. The tower shall not exceed a height of 160 feet. (P)
o
At such time that the tower ceases to be used for
communications purposes for a period exceeding twelve
(12) consecutive months, the owner/developer shall
dismantle and remove the tower and all associated
equipment from the property. (P)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04SN0219
In Bermuda Magisterial District, IRONBRIDGE BOULEVARD LLC
requests rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Neighborhood Business (C-2) and Corporate Office (0-2) to
Residential Townhouse (R-TH). Residential use of up to 8.0
units per acre is permitted in a Residential Townhouse (R-TH)
District. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for community mixed use. This request lies on 20
acres fronting approximately 1,100 feet on the north line of
Ironbridge Parkway, also fronting approximately 1,300 feet on
the west line of Ironbridge Boulevard and located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax
ID 775-656-4862 (Sheet 25).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 04SN0219 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions.
04-917
11/23/04
Mr. Larry Horton, representing the applicant,
recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
stated the
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved Case 04SN0219 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. Public water and wastewater systems shall be used. (U)
o
Except for timbering approved by the Virginia State
Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead
or diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the
Property until a land disturbance permit has been
obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department
and the approved devices have been installed. (EE)
The minimum gross floor area of each dwelling unit shall
be 1,750 square feet. (BI & P)
o
Ail exposed portions of the foundation of each dwelling
unit shall be faced with brick or stone veneer. Exposed
piers supporting front porches shall be faced with brick
or stone veneer. (BI & P)
The architectural appearance and materials shall be
similar to the building elevations attached as Exhibits
~A" and nB", dated 8/1/04, and employ the following
materials: brick or stone veneer, composition siding,
hardiplank or vinyl siding and 20 year asphalt shingles.
Within each row of townhouse dwelling units, a minimum
of 30% of the dwelling units shall have front elevations
constructed of brick or stone, excluding windows, doors
and architectural features. A minimum of fifty-one
percent (51%) of the total units shall initially be
constructed with a one (1) car garage. Further, for
townhouse groups containing six (6) or more units, each
unit shall initially be constructed with a one (1) car
garage. (BI & P)
Ail dwelling units shall have paved driveways. The
exact treatment shall be approved at the time of
tentative subdivision plan review. (P)
Light poles shall have a maximum height of fifteen (15)
feet. (p)
The applicant, subdivider or assignee(s) shall pay the
following to the County of Chesterfield prior to the
issuance of a building permit for infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the
property:
a)
$9,000 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1,
2004; or
b)
The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not
to exceed $9,000 per dwelling unit adjusted upward
by an increase in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index between July 1, 2003 and July 1 of the
0A-918
11/23/04
fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid
prior to June 30, 2004.
c)
In the event the cash payment is not used for the
purpose for which proffered within fifteen (15)
years of receipt, the cash shall be returned in
full to the payor. (B&M)
o
The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed
130 units if the recreational amenities outlined in
Proffered Condition 18 are provided on-site; however,
the total number of permitted dwelling units may be
increased to a maximum of 136 units if such recreational
amenities are provided off-site, subject to the
requirements outlined in Proffered Condition 18. (P)
10.
No direct access shall be provided from the property to
Ironbridge Boulevard. Direct access from the property
to Ironbridge Parkway shall be limited to two (2) public
roads. The exact location of these accesses shall be
approved by the Transportation Department. (T)
11.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, an
eastbound left turn lane shall be constructed along
Ironbridge Parkway at the existing crossover located
approximately 1,000 feet west from the Ironbridge
Boulevard intersection. The developer shall dedicate to
and for the benefit of Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, or any additional right-of-way (or
easements) required for this improvements. (T)
12. Ail roads that accommodate general traffic circulation
through the property, as determined by the
Transportation Department, shall be designed and
constructed to State standards and taken into the State
System. Setbacks from these public roads shall be
identified for special access streets pursuant to
Section 19-505(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. This
condition may be modified by the Transportation
Department if it is determined that the roads or any
part of such roads cannot be designated for State
acceptance. For any roads which accommodate general
traffic circulation through the development that are not
be a part of the State System, a plan that insures the
continual maintenance of the private streets shall be
submitted to, and approved by the Transportation
Department. (T)
13.
Areas shall be provided within the development to
accommodate a minimum of ten (10) overflow parking
spaces generally as shown on the conceptual site plan
Exhibit "C" dated 10/8/04. Such parking shall be in
addition to Ordinance requirements and may be provided
within right of way subject to VDOT approval or within
common areas. The exact treatment and location of the
parking shall be addressed at the time of tentative
subdivision review. (P)
14.
Within the area designated as ~additional landscaping
areas" shown on conceptual site plan Exhibit "C" dated
10/8/04, landscaping in addition to Ordinance
requirements shall be provided to minimize view of the
units from Ironbridge Parkway and Ironbridge Boulevard.
0~-919
11/23/04
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The exact species, size and spacing shall be approved at
the time of subdivision review. (P)
Any project identification sign shall be a monument
design and shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet.
(p)
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided along the
western property boundary. This buffer shall be located
within recorded open space and shall comply with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (p)
The tentative subdivision plat shall be submitted for
Planning Commission review and approval, as set forth in
Section 17-23 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
applicant shall notify the last know President of the
Arbor Landing Homeowners Association, the Bel Arbor
Homeowners Association and the Ironbridge Parkway Owners
Association on file with the Planning Department at
least twenty-one (21) days prior to the Planning
Commission's consideration of the tentative subdivision,
of the time and date of tentative plan consideration.
(p)
Prior to the issuance of building permits for more than
fifty (50) dwelling units, at a minimum, the following
recreational facilities shall be completed as determined
by the Planning Department:
a)
b)
c)
A twenty (20) foot by forty (40) foot swimming
pool;
A 1,000 gross square foot accessory building for
the pool; and,
One (1) tennis court or basketball court.
The Planning Commission may modify this condition at the
time of tentative subdivision review provided an
acceptable alternative agreement exists to provide for
active recreational facilities off-site.
(Note: Recreational area required by the Zoning
Ordinance, Section 19-105(o), must still be provided on-
site.)
Any on-site recreational facilities shall be subject to
the following restrictions:
a)
There shall be no outside public address systems or
speakers.
b)
With the exception of playground areas which
accommodate swings, jungle gyms, or similar such
facilities, all outdoor play fields, courts,
swimming pools and similar active recreational
areas shall be located a minimum of one hundred
(100) feet from any existing detached single family
residential lot lines and a minimum of thirty-five
(35) feet from any existing public road.
c)
Any playground areas (i.e., areas accommodating
swings, jungle gyms or similar such facilities)
shall be located a minimum of forty (40) feet from
all property lines. A forty (40) foot buffer shall
0~-920
11/23/0A
be provided along the perimeter of these
recreational facilities except where adjacent to
any existing or proposed roads. This buffer shall
conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for fifty (50) foot buffers.
d)
The location of all active recreational uses shall
be identified in conjunction with the submittal of
the first tentative subdivision plan.
e)
In conjunction with the recordation of any lot
adjacent to active recreational area(s), such
area(s) shall be identified on the record plat
along with the proposed recreational uses and
required conditions. (P)
20.
The following shall be recorded as restrictive covenants
in conjunction with the recordation of any subdivision
plat for the Property:
a)
Ail lots shall be subject to all the covenants,
conditions, and restrictions currently in effect
for the Ironbridge Property Owners Association;
b)
The storage of boats and recreational vehicles
(RVs) on the public streets shall be prohibited.
c) No curbside trash pickup will be permitted.
d)
No garage shall be converted to permanent living
space. (P)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04SN0320
In Dale Magisterial District, KENNETH MORRIS requests
Conditional Use and amendment of zoning district map to
permit a pet grooming shop in an Agricultural (A) District.
The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of
2.51 to 4.0 units per acre. This request lies on 2.3 acres
and is known as 8501 Hopkins Road. Tax ID 785-672-0630
(Sheet 18).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 04SN0320 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Mr. Kenneth Morris stated the recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
approved Case 04SN0320 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
04-921
11/23/0~
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Kenneth
or Cleta Morris only and shall not be transferable or
run with the land. (p)
o
There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use.
(p)
3. There shall be no outside holding pens or runs. (p)
This use shall not be open to the public before 8:00 AM
and after 6:00 PM, Monday through Saturday or on Sunday.
(p)
Grooming services shall not include dipping (i.e., flea
and/or tick removal) services or any other services that
would result in disposal of pesticides. (p)
Pet grooming services shall be restricted to within the
residence and to an accessory building of no more than
350 square feet in area. Any new structure shall have a
residential architectural appearance. (p)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04SN0322
In Bermuda Magisterial District, TONY & ATHENA S. AGAPIS
request rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Residential (R-7) to General Business (C-5). The density of
such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for residential use of 2.51 to 4.0
units per acre. This request lies on 0.2 acre fronting
approximately fifty (50) feet on the north line of Osborne
Road, approximately 130 feet east of Elokomin Avenue. Tax ID
798-659-0550 (Sheet 26).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 04SN0322 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and
acceptance of proffered conditions.
Mr. Dean Hawkins, representing the applicant,
recommendation is acceptable.
stated the
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved Case 04SN0322 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
Prior to any site plan approval, thirty-five (35) feet
of right of way along the south side of Osborne Road,
measured from the centerline of that part of Osborne
Road immediately adjacent to the property, shall be
dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit
of Chesterfield County. (T)
o
No direct access shall be provided from the request
property to or from Osborne Road. (T)
04-922
11123/04
There shall be no parking between the rear line of the
Building and the eastern property line. (P)
The uses permitted shall be limited to offices and
medical clinics. (P)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
04SN0279
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BRUCE M. GALLAGHER AND
RHONDA B. GALLAGHER request Conditional Use and amendment of
zoning district map to permit a business (lawn care) in an
Agricultural (A) District. The density of such amendment
will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 1.0 - 2.5 dwelling units
per acre. This request lies on 2.0 acres and is known as
5710 Qualla Road. Tax ID 746-675-9350 (Sheet 16).
Mr. Miller inquired whether anyone was present to speak to
Case 045N0279.
Seeing no one come forward, Mr. Warren stated a presentation
of the case by staff was not necessary.
Mrs. Rhonda Gallagher, accompanied by Mr. Bruce Gallagher,
stated the proffered conditions are acceptable.
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved Case 04SN0279 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Bruce
M. Gallagher and/or Rhonda B. Gallagher, exclusively,
and shall not be transferable or run with the land. (P)
The lawn care contractor's shop shall be located within
the two (2) existing detached accessory structures
(garage structure and shed). There shall be no further
additions or expansions to the existing buildings to
accommodate this use. (P)
o
The lawn care contractor's shop shall be permitted for a
maximum of eighteen (18) months from the date of
approval of this request. (P)
There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use.
(P)
Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 7 a.m.
and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No Sunday operation
shall be permitted. (P)
04-923
11/23/04
Except for a 400 square foot area used for mulch storage
adjacent to the existing garage and for storage within
the existing open carport structure attached to the
garage, outside storage shall not be permitted. (p)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
03S~0332 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, FAIRWEATHER INVESTMENTS, LLC
requests rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-88) with Conditional Use
to permit recreational facilities on up to 20 acres.
Residential use of up to 0.5 unit per acre is permitted in a
Residential (R-88) District. The Comprehensive Plan suggests
the property is appropriate for residential use with 1-5 acre
lots suited to Residential (R-88) zoning. This request lies
on 1,430 acres fronting approximately 11,600 feet on the east
line of Nash Road across from Reedy Branch Road, also
fronting in three (3) places for a total of approximately
7,050 feet on the west line of Cattail Road across from Reedy
Branch and Rowlett Roads. Tax ID 759-636-6377 (Sheets 33
and 40).
Ms. Darla Orr presented a summary of Case 03SN0332 and stated
a proffered condition limits development to a maximum of one-
half unit per acre, yielding approximately 715 dwelling
units. She further stated the applicant intends to use
public water and a privately operated wastewater treatment
facility to serve the development and has applied for a
Conditional Use Permit to permit a wastewater treatment
facility on 30 acres of the subject property, indicating that
the request is scheduled to be heard by the Planning
Commission in January 2005. She stated proffered conditions
require a right of way dedication and construction of two
lanes of Reedy Branch Road Extended across the subject
property from Cattail Road to Nash Road, and also establish
standards for the location of the recreational facilities on
the property and also preclude manufactured homes. She
further stated the developer has proffered to correct
substandard alignments along Nash Road. She stated proffered
conditions address typical road improvements such as shoulder
and lane improvements, turn lanes, right of way dedications
and construction of Thoroughfare Plan roads. She further
stated the applicant has also proffered to contribute cash
towards area road improvements within the traffic shed for
this development, noting that the proffered condition
provides that the money must first be used to correct the
existing substandard alignment along Nash Road. She stated
staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the
applicant adequately addressing the impacts on capital
facilities. She noted the request complies with the Southern
and Western Area Plan. She stated that, while a cash
contribution is offered to defray the cost of the road
improvements in an amount equivalent to the dollar value that
would be appropriate to accept as a cash proffer in the case,
the proffered condition varies from that which has been
consistently accepted in accordance with the Board's policy,
noting that it does not adequately address the impacts of the
development on schools, fire services, libraries and parks.
She further stated, on a four to one vote, the Planning
04-924
11/23/04
Commission recommended approval and acceptance of the
proffered conditions, finding that the transportation
contribution addresses needed road improvements. She stated
the Commission noted that Fire and EMS response times are
adequate in the case and that area schools are under
capacity. She further stated the Board has received an
addendum noting a difference in capacity at Matoaca High
School and providing a memorandum from School Administration
reiterating their position that the impact on schools should
be addressed in this case.
Mr. John Cogbill, representing the applicant, stated the
proposal complies with the Southern and Western Area Plan,
and he believes it provides a new and quicker way to address
important infrastructure issues. He further stated the
proposal addresses concerns of the citizens who attended
community meetings regarding the development and improves the
quality of life of area residents by improving the road
system in the area. He stated staff has recommended
approval, noting that there are unique circumstances relative
to the case that justify acceptance of the proffered
conditions. He noted that all of the schools in the area of
the proposed development are currently under capacity and
projections for this year exceeded the actual enrollment. He
stated the need for a new Fire and EMS facility is not
anticipated until after 2022. He further stated the proposed
Eppington expansion will provide additional trails in the
Matoaca District and the proposed development provides a
number of trails and amenities available to the residents.
He stated the two libraries that would potentially be
affected by the development are Ettrick-Matoaca and Central,
indicating that Central Library was recently expanded and
there is no need for those facilities at this time. He
further stated there is a current need for transportation
improvements in the area and the proposal offers an
opportunity for a partnership between the private developer
and the county to make funds available for use in Traffic
Shed 17 to solve the problems that the citizens have
indicated are most pressing in this area. He stated the case
provides over 101 acres of road right of way, including
approximately 65 acres for the proposed east-west expressway.
He further stated the case also provides for approximately $2
million in road improvements on Nash and Cattail Roads,
including widening, adding and improving shoulders, and
making improvements necessary at the access points. He
stated the applicant has also agreed to build two lanes of
Reedy Branch Road from its current terminus at the property
line to the other side of the property where it would connect
with the other existing portion of Reedy Branch, at a cost of
approximately $1.2 million, and to extend two water lines to
the property at a cost of approximately $700,000, which would
serve this property, improve water pressure in the area and
possibility provide opportunities for area residents to
connect to the public water system. He further stated the
case is unique in that it complies with the Plan, addresses
the most important issue in the county in this area and
provides a fund that makes money readily available in the
short term to address many transportation concerns.
In response to Mr. Barber's inquiry, Mr. Cogbill stated at
this point, private septic systems are planned for the
development, consistent with The Highlands and other cases
that have been approved in the area. He further stated
04-925
11/23/04
discussions have begun regarding use of a private wastewater
treatment facility to serve the property, but this proposal
is not ready to be brought forward.
After brief discussion, Mr. Micas stated, if the applicant
requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a private
wastewater treatment facility on the subject property, the
request must be approved by the Health Department as well as
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
Mr. Greg Tarver, representing the Deerfield Estates Civic
Association, expressed concerns relative to the impact of
extending Nash Road to Route 10. He stated Deerfield
residents have just been made aware of this proposal in the
past few weeks and requested a deferral of the case until the
residents can understand how the extension of Nash Road will
affect their neighborhood.
Mr. Miller stated area residents will be afforded the
opportunity to provide input when the issue of extending Nash
Road arises.
Mr. Turner stated the applicant has agreed to provide money
that can be allocated towards transportation improvements in
Traffic Shed 17. He further stated one of the options that
may be considered would be a Nash Road extension, but the
case is not dependent upon this.
Mr. Jerry Jernigan, a Matoaca District resident, stated he
supports the proposed development.
Mr. Rich Carroll, a resident of Cattail Road, stated he
supports the proposal and believes it should be approved
because of the road improvements it will provide.
There being no one else to speak to the request, the public
hearing was closed.
In response to Mrs. Humphrey's questions, Mr. Cogbill stated
the applicant currently plans to develop the subject property
using private septic systems, and is still considering
whether or not a privately operated wastewater treatment
facility is viable. He further stated, in order for the
Board to consider a Nash Road extension, it would probably
need to be recommended as part of the Thoroughfare Plan,
indicating that this has not been done. He stated improving
Beach Road could be very expensive and very difficult;
therefore, a new route to bring Nash Road to Route 10 might
be preferable to improve the traffic flow, but no proposal
has been made for this. He further stated this is only one
of many options that is being considered for use of the funds
being proffered by the developer, indicating that the Board
would have jurisdiction relative to allocating the traffic
funds. He stated the developer has agreed to make payments
of $300,000 at a minimum annually for ten years once the
first building permit is received, which will allow the Board
to use the money more quickly to provide the improvements it
feels are necessary.
Mrs. Humphrey stated she believes the proposal represents a
unique and timely effort to generate transportation dollars.
0&-926
11/23/0g
She further stated all issues have been addressed consistent
with the county's development standards and the proposal is
consistent with R-88 zoning.
Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for
the Board to approve Case 03SN0332 and accept the proffered
conditions.
Mr. Barber stated he understands that transportation is an
immediate issue in the area, but noted that School
Administration has communicated concerns relative to the
applicant not providing for the impact of the proposed
development on Schools. He inquired how $300,000 per year
can be turned into a substantial road project.
Mr. McCracken stated the idea was to have a revenue stream
that would be significantly more than payment for each lot;
but, at this time, staff cannot guarantee how the proffer
money would turn into a substantial road project. He further
stated staff is studying the possibility of revenue bonds to
address transportation needs more rapidly. He stated one of
the difficulties with the cash proffer system is that the
county must wait until a significant amount of money is
accumulated, at least $1 million, before moving forward on a
major project unless the money can be combined with state
funding. He expressed concerns relative to the necessity for
improvements at the intersection of Beach Road and Route 10,
indicating that Beach Road itself will be a challenge to
improve. He stated extending Nash Road through undeveloped
property would be a much easier option than widening Beach
Road. He further stated, if the county were to use the cash
proffers from this development to extend Nash Road, he would
still look at developers of future projects in the area to
contribute to the road extension as they come forward.
He stated extension of Nash Road to Route 10 would probably
require a combination of funding from the private sector, the
county, and possibly even the state.
Mr. Barber inquired how much money would be required from the
developer if an extension of Nash Road were required to be
built as part of the development.
Mr. McCracken stated staff has not determined a cost to
extend Nash Road to Route 10, but the developer has indicated
he believes it would cost approximately $3.5 million. He
further stated, in his opinion, this estimate seems
reasonable. He stated improvement of seven designated areas
of Nash Road, which will be the first use of the cash
proffers, will cost approximately $1 million. He further
stated the county would decide which improvements would be
made with the remaining cash proffers.
Mr. King expressed concerns relative to road conditions on
Nash Road, south of Beach Road, and inquired whether any
improvements would be made in this area.
Mr. McCracken stated there is a project scheduled for 2008 in
the Secondary Road Six-Year Plan that will start on Nash Road
where the last project ended and continue further south
towards The Highlands.
0~-927
11/23/0~
Mr. King inquired when improvements will be made between
Cattail and Beach Roads and between Woodpecker and Nash
Roads.
Mr. McCracken stated unless staff can find a way, such as
through revenue bonds, to use cash proffers earlier, then it
will be 2010 at the earliest before these issues are
addressed.
In response to Mr. King's question, Mr. Ramsey stated the
General Assembly has granted localities authority to issue
revenue bonds against cash proffers. He further stated staff
is studying the financial impact of the revenue bonds on the
county and is also looking for ways to accelerate road
projects using the proffers or the cash proffer system.
Mr. King stated he just became aware of the school's position
today regarding the cash proffers, but he knows
transportation is an extremely pressing issue in the county.
He further stated he will support the motion, although he
realizes school issues are significant.
Mr. Miller called for a vote on the motion of Mrs. Humphrey,
seconded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to approve Case
03SN0332 and accept the following proffered conditions:
The Developer (the "Developer") in this zoning case, pursuant
to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as
amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for
himself and his successors or assigns, proffers that the
development of the property known as Chesterfield County Tax
Identification Number 759-636-6377 (the "Property") under
consideration will be developed according to the following
conditions if, and only if, the rezoning request for R-88
with Conditional Use is granted. In the event the request is
denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the
Developer, the proffers and conditions shall immediately be
null and void and of no further force or effect. If the
zoning is granted, these proffers and conditions will
supersede all proffers and conditions now existing on the
Property.
Utilities. In the event that the Developer is unable to
acquire the easements necessary for installation of an
extension of the public water line, the Developer may
request, in writing, the County to acquire such
easements. If eligible, County staff shall pursue such
authorization to assist the Developer in the acquisition
of such easements. (U)
Timbering. With the exception of timbering which has
been approved by the Virginia State Department of
Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or diseased
trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until
a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the
Environmental Engineering Department and the approved
devices have been installed. (EE)
Density. The total number of single family residential
units shall not exceed 0.5 single family residential
units per acre. (P)
04-928
11/23/04
o
Dedications of Right-of-Way. In conjunction with
recordation of the initial subdivision plat or prior to
any site plan approval, whichever occurs first, the
following rights-of-way shall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County:
Forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way on the east
side of Nash Road, measured from a revised
centerline of Nash Road based on VDOT Urban Minor
Arterial (50 MPH) standards with modifications
approved by the Transportation Department,
immediately adjacent to the Property.
bo
Forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way on the west
side of Cattail Road, measured from a revised
centerline of Cattail Road based on VDOT Urban
Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards with
modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, immediately adjacent to the Property.
C ·
A ninety (90) foot wide right-of-way for the
extension of Reedy Branch Road (~Reedy Branch
Extended") from Nash Road at the Reedy Branch Road
intersection through the Property to Cattail Road
at the Reedy Branch Road intersection, based on
VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards with
modifications approved by the Transportation
Department. The exact location of this right-of-
way shall be approved by the Transportation
Department.
A two hundred (200) foot wide limited access right-
of-way for an east/west freeway ("East/West
Freeway") from Nash Road through the northern part
of the Property to the northern Property line based
on VDOT Rural Principal Arterial (60 MPH) standards
with modifications approved by the Transportation
Department. In addition, a variable width right-
of-way for an interchange for the East/West Freeway
with Nash Road, totaling approximately forty (40)
acres. The exact location of both the East/West
Freeway and the interchange right-of-way (the
~Rights-of-Way") shall be approved by the
Transportation Department. There shall be no
requirement to dedicate the Rights-of-Way if, prior
to recordation of the initial subdivision plat or
site plan approval, whichever occurs first, the
Board of Supervisors approves an alternative
location for the East/West Freeway that does not
extend across the Property. (T)
Access.
so
Direct access from the Property to Nash Road shall
be limited to five (5) public roads including Reedy
Branch Extended. Direct access from the Property
to Cattail Road shall be limited to three (3)
public roads including Reedy Branch Extended. The
Transportation Department may modify this condition
to allow additional public road access to Nash Road
and/or Cattail Road. The exact location of these
accesses shall be approved by the Transportation
Department.
0~-929
11/23/0&
bo
do
Prior to any tentative subdivision plat or prior to
any site plan approval, whichever occurs first, an
access plan for Reedy Branch Extended shall be
submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department. Access from the Property to Reedy
Branch Extended shall conform to the approved
access plan. (T)
Road Improvements.
To provide for an adequate roadway system, the Developer
shall be responsible for the following:
C o
Construction of two (2) lanes of Reedy Branch
Extended to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH)
standards with modifications approved by the
Transportation Department, from Nash Road at its
intersection with Reedy Branch Road through the
Property to Cattail Road at its intersection with
Reedy Branch Road.
Widening/improving the east side of Nash Road to an
eleven (11) foot wide travel lane, measured from
the centerline of Nash Road with an additional one
(1) foot wide paved shoulder plus a seven (7) foot
wide unpaved shoulder and overlaying the full width
of the road ,except in the locations described in
Proffered Condition 8.b.iii through 8.b.vii, with
one and one-half (1.5) inches of compacted
bituminous asphalt concrete, with modifications
approved by the Transportation Department, for the
entire Property frontage.
Widening/improving the west side of Cattail Road to
an eleven (11) foot wide travel lane, measured from
the centerline of Cattail Road with an additional
one (1) foot wide paved shoulder plus a seven (7)
foot wide unpaved shoulder and overlaying the full
width of the road with one and one-half (1.5)
inches of compacted bituminous asphalt concrete,
with modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, for the entire Property frontage. If
full development of the Property, as determined by
the Transportation Department, occurs within eight
(8) years from the date the Board of Supervisors
approves this request, the Developer shall not be
required to overlay the full width of Cattail Road.
Construction of additional pavement along Nash
Road, along Cattail Road and along Reedy Branch
Extended at each approved access to provide left
and right turn lanes, based on Transportation
Department standards.
Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, of any additional right-of-way (or
easements) required for the road improvements
described above. In the event the Developer is
unable to acquire the ~off-site" right-of-way
necessary for the road improvements described
above, the Developer may request, in writing, the
County to acquire such ~off-site" right-of-way as a
0~-930
11/23/0~
public road improvement. Ail costs associated with
the acquisition of the right-of-way shall be borne
by the Developer. The cost shall be determined
through the public right-of-way acquisition
process. In the event the County chooses not to
assist the Developer in acquisition of the "off-
site" right-of-way, the Developer shall be relieved
of the obligation to acquire the "off-site" right-
of-way, and only be required to provide the road
improvements that can be accommodated within
available right-of-way as determined by the
Transportation Department. (T)
Transportation Phasing Plan. Prior to any construction
plan or site plan approval, whichever occurs first, a
phasing plan for the required road improvements, as
identified in Proffered Condition 6, shall be submitted
to and approved by the Transportation Department. (T)
Transportation Contribution.
The Developer, its successor, or its assigns shall
pay to Chesterfield County either: 1) prior to
issuance of the first building permit, the sum of
$300,000 and each year from the date of that
initial payment thereafter shall pay another
$300,000, until all the lots on the Property have
been recorded or until these cumulative payments
equal to $3,000,000, whichever occurs first; or 2)
prior to issuance of the initial building permit
within each recorded subdivision section, the sum
of $9522 multiplied by the number of lots in that
subdivision section. The Developer, its successor,
or its assigns shall pay the one of these two
options that provides a greater dollar amount to
Chesterfield County each year. In no event shall
the total amount paid by the Developer, its
successor, or its assigns be less than $3,000,000;
however, the total amount paid shall not exceed
$3,000,000 until after the recordation of the 315th
lot on the Property. After recordation of the
initial 315 lots on the Property, the Developer,
its successor or its assigns shall pay the sum of
$9522 for every lot recorded thereafter.
bo
The payments shall be used for road improvements
within Traffic Shed 17 or for road improvements
that provide relief to that Traffic Shed, as
determined by the Transportation Department.
Unless the following improvements have been
provided by others, the payments shall first be
used to correct existing substandard alignments on
Nash Road south of Woodpecker Road based on VDOT
Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH) standards, with
modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, in the following locations:
i. 0.4 mile south of the intersection of Nash
Road and Woodpecker Road;
ii. 0.5 mile south of the intersection of Nash
Road and Woodpecker Road;
iii. 1.5 miles south of the intersection of Nash
Road and Woodpecker Road;
04-931
11/23/04
10.
11.
iv. 1.6 miles south of the intersection of Nash
Road and Woodpecker Road;
v. 2.3 miles south of the intersection of Nash
Road and Woodpecker Road;
vi. 2.4 miles south of the intersection of Nash
Road and Woodpecker Road; and
vii. 2.7 miles south of the intersection of Nash
Road and Woodpecker Road.
If, upon the mutual agreement of the Transportation
Department and the Developer, its successor or its
assigns, the Developer, its successor or its
assigns provides any of the improvements listed in
Proffered Condition 8.b.i. through 8.b.vii., then
the Developer, its successor or its assigns shall
receive a reduction in the payments as set forth in
Proffered Condition 8.a. The reduction shall be
equal to the costs, as approved by the
Transportation Department, of the Developer, its
successors or its assigns providing such
improvements. For the purposes of this proffer,
the costs shall include, but not be limited to, the
cost of right-of-way acquisition, engineering
costs, costs of relocating utilities and actual
costs of construction (including labor, materials
and overhead) ("Work"). Before any Work is
performed, the Developer, its successor or its
assigns, shall receive prior written approval by
the Transportation Department for any reduction(s)
in payment(s). (T)
Manufactured Homes. Manufactured homes shall not be
permitted on the Property. This proffered condition
shall not be interpreted to prohibit the installation of
any mobile real estate sales office permitted on the
Property by an approved Conditional Use, which shall not
be used for dwelling purposes. (p)
Covenant Regarding Manufactured Homes. The following
shall be recorded as restrictive covenants in
conjunction with recordation of any subdivision plat for
the Property: "No manufactured homes shall be allowed
to become a residence, temporary or permanent." (p)
Recreational Facilities. Any recreational facilities
shall be subject to the following restrictions:
bo
There shall be no outside public address systems or
speakers.
With the exception of playground areas which
accommodate swings, jungle gyms, or similar such
facilities, all outdoor play fields, courts,
swimming pools and similar active recreational
areas shall be located a minimum of one hundred
(100) feet from any proposed or existing single
family residential lot line and a minimum of fifty
(50) feet from any existing or proposed public
road.
Within the one hundred (100) foot and fifty (50)
foot setbacks, a fifty (50) foot buffer shall be
provided along the perimeter of all active
0~-932
11/23/0~
recreational facilities except where adjacent to
any existing or proposed roads. This buffer shall
conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for fifty (50) foot buffers.
do
Any playground areas (i.e., areas accommodating
swings, jungle gyms or similar such facilities)
shall be located a minimum of forty (40) feet from
all property lines. A forty (40) foot buffer shall
be provided along the perimeter of these
recreational facilities except where adjacent to
any existing or proposed roads. This buffer shall
conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for fifty (50) foot buffers.
Nothing herein shall prevent development of indoor
facilities and/or parking within the one hundred
(100) foot setback.
f o
The location of all active recreational uses shall
be identified in conjunction with the submittal of
the first tentative subdivision plan.
In conjunction with the recordation of any lot
adjacent to active recreational area(s), such
area(s) shall be identified on the record plat
along with the proposed recreational uses and
required conditions. (P)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mr. Warren expressed appreciation to Mr. Cogbill for his
efforts, as a member of the Commonwealth Transportation
Board, in securing the funding for the Route 288 opening.
04SN0182 (Amended)
In Dale Magisterial District, GEORGE P. EMERSON, JR. requests
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40). Residential use of
up to 1.09 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-
40) District. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property
is appropriate for residential use on 1-5 acre lots suited to
Residential (R-88) zoning. This request lies on 438 acres
fronting approximately 1,100 feet on the south line of Nash
Road approximately 3,100 feet northeast of East Fair Drive,
also fronting 1,400 feet on the east line of East Fair Drive
approximately 450 feet north of Regalia Drive. Tax ID 768-
654-1587 (Sheet 25).
Ms. Orr presented a summary of Case 04SN0182 and stated
proffered conditions provide for a trail in a private
easement along Swift Creek; preclude manufactured homes; and
also provide that restrictive covenants will be recorded with
the development consistent with the same restrictive
covenants as The Highlands development. She further stated
staff recommended denial, indicating that the request fails
to comply with the Southern and Western Area Plan, which
suggests the subject property is appropriate for residential
use of one to five acre lots, suited for Residential (R-88)
zoning. She further stated, although the applicant has
04-933
11/23/04
offered a contribution to assist in defraying the cost of the
proposed development on road infrastructure within the
traffic shed, the remaining proffered conditions do not
adequately address the impact of the development on schools,
fire services, libraries and parks. She stated the Planning
Commission, on a four to one vote, recommended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions, noting that the
proposed zoning will result in a development that is
compatible with existing area development and that the
transportation contribution will address needed road
improvements. She further stated the Board has received an
addendum, which provides the memorandum from School
Administration reiterating their position that the
development should be required to address its impact on the
school system.
In response to Mr. Barber's question, Ms. Orr stated the
proffered condition allows the developer to determine whether
the proposed trail is dedicated as a public easement or is
owned privately by the homeowners' association.
Mr. Barber stated the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
anticipates a trail along Swift Creek that would be open to
the public.
Mr. Oliver "Skitch" Rudy, representing the applicant, stated
the proposal is basically an extension of The Highlands. He
further stated the applicant requested R-40 zoning so that
the number of lots possible could be increased in order to
increase the amount of money envisioned to be proffered to
the county to address transportation concerns. He stated the
applicant has agreed to provide $400,000 per year beginning
with the first building permit to address roads. He stated
he knows schools are important, but everyone will benefit
from improved roads. He further stated that, between this
case and the Fairweather case, the county will receive
$700,000 annually, which should support a bond issue to
address the road concerns now. He stated, although the
proposal is not consistent with the Board's cash proffer
policy, sometimes imagination needs to deal with a serious
problem. He further stated Mr. McCracken was very accurate
in his description of trying to improve Beach Road without
another outlet. He stated the applicant is providing a way
to address the necessary transportation issues, and noted
residents of The Highlands support the project because it
will be consistent with their subdivision and thereby enhance
property values. He further stated homeowners do not
necessarily desire public access across their property, and
therefore the easement could be dedicated to the homeowners'
association and then the association, in conjunction with the
county, could deal with the future of the trail. He stated
the applicant is carefully developing the area so that
property values will continue to increase, and requested the
Board's support of the development.
In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. Rudy stated the
applicant anticipates that approximately 260 homes will be
built on the subject property.
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
Mr. Jerry Jernigan corrected Mr. Rudy's statement, indicating
that he did not voice his opinion at the Planning Commission
04-934
11/23/0g
regarding this case because it was not in the Matoaca
District.
Mr. Brian Patterson, a resident of The Highlands, stated he
supports the proposed development.
Mr. Greg Tarver, representing the Deerfield Civic
Association, stated he is still confused on the issue of
extending Nash Road.
Mr. Miller stated approval of the zoning request is not
contingent upon the extension of Nash Road. He assured Mr.
Tarver that Deerfield residents would have an opportunity to
address the extension of Nash Road, when and if it occurs.
Mr. Tarver requested a deferral or denial, indicating that
the road conditions are not good and he believes the
improvements should be addressed before the developments are
approved.
Mr. Miller made a motion for the Board to approve Case
04SN0182. He stated, although the request fails to comply
with the Southern and Western Area Plan, the R-40 zoning is
compatible with The Highlands development and the developer
has proffered the same restrictive covenants that are present
in The Highlands.
Mrs. Humphrey seconded Mr. Miller's motion. She noted for
the record that the subject property is adjacent to a
landfill, which is a very vital facility in the county.
Mr. Miller called for a vote on his motion, seconded by Mrs.
Humphrey, for the Board to approve Case 04SN0182 and accept
the following proffered conditions:
George P. Emerson, Jr. (the "Applicant"), pursuant to Section
15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the
Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself and its
successors or assigns, proffers that the development of the
parcel known as Chesterfield County Tax Identification
Numbers 768-654-1587 (the "Property") under consideration
will be developed according to the following conditions if,
and only if, the rezoning request for R-40 is granted. In
the event the request is denied or approved with conditions
not agreed to by the Applicant, the proffers and conditions
shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or
effect. If the zoning is granted, these proffers and
conditions will supersede all proffers and conditions now
existing on the Property.
1. (a)
If the existing dam and pond straddling an adjacent
property line is used for the project's BMP, then
it shall be retrofitted to meet current day
standards as outlined in the Environmental
Engineering reference manual to include, but not
limited to, property primary spillways, emergency
spillways, and structural stability. The retrofit
design shall be performed by a qualified
professional and all remedial action shall take
place in conjunction with that phase of development
which is located within the dam's contributory
drainage way.
0~-935
11/23/0~
o
(b)
If the proper easements can not be obtained to
retrofit the existing facility, identified in item
l(a), upstream BMPs shall be constructed to render
the existing primary spillways adequate to pass the
ten (10) year storm. (EE)
Timbering. With the exception of timbering which has
been approved by the Virginia State Department of
Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or diseased
trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until
a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the
Environmental Engineering Department, and the approved
devices have been installed. (EE)
Transportation
Accesses. Direct access from the Property to Nash
Road shall be limited to no more than one (1)
public road (the "Nash Road Access"). Direct
access from the Property to Eastfair Drive shall be
limited to no more than two (2) public road (the
"Eastfair Drive Accesses"). The exact location of
these accesses shall be approved by the
Transportation Department.
Nash Road Improvements. If the Nash Road Access is
constructed, the Applicant shall be responsible for
the following:
(±)
Widening/improving the east side of Nash Road
to an eleven (11) foot wide travel lane,
measured from the centerline of Nash Road with
an additional one (1) foot wide paved shoulder
plus a seven (7) foot wide unpaved shoulder
and overlaying the full width of the road with
one and one half (1.5) inches of compacted
bituminous asphalt concrete, with
modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, for the entire property frontage.
(ii) Construction of additional pavement along Nash
Road at the Nash Road Access to provide left
and right turn lanes.
(iii) Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, of any additional right-of-way
(or easements) required for the improvements
identified above. In the event the Applicant
is unable to acquire the right-of-way
necessary for the road improvements identified
in Proffered Conditions 3(b) (i) and 3(b) (ii),
the Applicant may request, in writing, the
County to acquire such right-of-way as a
public road improvement. All costs associated
with the acquisition of the right-of-way shall
be borne by the Applicant. In the event the
County chooses not to assist the Applicant in
acquisition of such ~off-site" right-of-way,
the Applicant shall be relieved of the
obligation to acquire such ~off-site" right-of
way, and shall only be obligated to provide
the road improvement than can be accommodated
within available right-of-way as determined by
0~-936
11/23/0&
the Transportation Department.
Eastfair Drive Improvements. If one or both of the
Eastfair Drive Accesses are constructed, the
Applicant shall be responsible for the following:
(i)
Construction of additional pavement along
Eastfair Drive at the Eastfair Drive Accesses
to provide left and right turn lanes, based on
Transportation Department standards.
(ii) Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, of any additional right-of-way
(or easements) required for the improvements
identified in Proffered Conditions 3(c) (i).
Transportation Phasing Plan. Prior to any
construction plan approval, a phasing plan for the
required road improvements, as identified in
Proffered Conditions 3(b) and 3(c) (i), shall be
submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department.
Transportation Contribution. The Applicant, his
successor, or his assigns shall pay to Chesterfield
County either: 1) prior to issuance of the first
building permit, the sum of $400,000 and each year
from the date off that initial payment thereafter
shall pay another $400,000 until all the lots on
the Property have been recorded or until these
cumulative payments equal to $2,000,000, whichever
occurs first; or 2) prior to issuance of the
initial building permit within each recorded
subdivision section, the sum of $9522, multiplied
by the number of lots in that subdivision section.
The Applicant, his successor, or his assigns shall
pay the one of these two options that provides a
greater dollar amount to Chesterfield County each
year. In no event shall the total amount paid by
the Applicant, his successor, or his assigns be
less than $2,000,000; however, the total amount
paid shall not exceed $2,000,000 until after the
recordation of the 210th lot on the Property. After
the recordation of the initial 210 lots on the
Property, the Applicant, his successor, or his
assigns shall pay the sum of $9,522 for every lot
recorded thereafter. The payments shall be used
for road improvements within Traffic Shed 17 or for
road improvements that provide relief to that
Traffic Shed, as determined by the Transportation
Department. The payments could be used towards
road improvements such as the reconstruction of
Nash Road or an extension of Nash Road from Beach
Road to Iron Bridge Road (Route 10).
If, upon the mutual agreement of the Transportation
Department and the Applicant, his successor, or his
assigns, the Applicant, his successor, or his
assigns constructs an extension of Nash Road from
Beach Road to Iron Bridge Road (Route 10), then the
Applicant, his successor, or his assigns shall
receive a reduction in the payments as set forth
above in Proffered Condition 3(e). The reduction
0~-937
11/23/0~
shall be equal to the costs, as approved by the
Transportation Department, to the Applicant, his
successor, or his assigns in providing such road
improvements. For the purposes of this proffer,
the costs shall include, but not be limited to, the
cost of right-of-way acquisition, engineering
costs, costs of relocating utilities and actual
costs of construction (including labor, materials,
and overhead) (~Work"). Before any Work is
performed, the Applicant, his successor, or his
assigns, shall receive prior written approval by
the Transportation Department for any reduction(s)
in payment(s).
Dedication of Right-of-Way. In conjunction with
recordation of the initial subdivision plat or
within sixty (60) days from a written request by
the County, whichever occurs first, forty-five (45)
feet of right-of-way on the east side of Nash Road,
measured from a revised centerline of Nash Road
based on VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH)
standards with modifications approved by the
Transportation Department, immediately adjacent to
the Property shall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of
Chesterfield County. (T)
o
Trail/Open Space along Swift Creek. An open space area,
a minimum of 150 feet in width shall be provided along
the length of Swift Creek from the northern to the
southern parcel boundaries. Within this area the
developer shall provide a trail. The exact length,
width, and treatment of the trail shall be submitted to
the Department of parks and Recreation for comments.
The open space/trail shall be owned and maintained by
the homeowners Association. (P&R)
Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions. It is the
intention of the Applicant to incorporate the lots in
this parcel into the Community known as the Highlands
and to that end, restrictive covenants shall be recorded
in conjunction with the recordation of any subdivision
plat for the Property, which will subject said lots to
all the covenants, conditions, and restriction currently
in effect in all sections of the Highlands. (p)
6. Manufactured Homes.
Manufactured homes shall not be permitted on the
Property. This proffered condition shall not be
interpreted to prohibit the installation of any
mobile real estate sales office permitted on the
property by an approved Conditional Use, which
shall not be used for dwelling purposes.
The following shall be recorded as a restrictive
covenant in conjunction with the recordation of any
subdivision plat for the property: UNo manufactured
homes shall be allowed to become a residence,
temporary or otherwise." (p)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
0~-938
11/23/0~
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
16.A. TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AM~~S TO THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
Mr. Micas stated in 2002, the state extended the
requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance to
require that the Board map intermittent and perennial
streams and to apply the same building restrictions to
perennial streams that have been in existence since 1989.
He further stated the Board expressed concerns in January
and February 2004, relative to the effect of the state
mandate on property owners and a number of changes were made
between February and May 2004, including allowing developers
to map their own property rather than being required to use
county mapping; extending certain exceptions to the
perenniality standards; and eliminating any restrictions
that were not strictly mandated by state law. He stated
when the Board considered the issue in May 2004, continuing
concerns were expressed relative to whether the ordinance
amendments would limit building on certain properties within
the county, and the public hearing was deferred until this
date. He further stated additional changes have been made
since the May 2004 public hearing, including expanding the
exception process for people who might be affected by the
new perenniality standards; the Board of Supervisors
considering exceptions to the ordinance rather than the
Planning Commission; and additional language to clarify that
the ordinance should not affect vested rights or should not
result in the taking of property without compensation. He
stated the proposed ordinance also includes changes related
to buffer areas requested by the farming community. He
further stated staff recommends adoption of the amended
Chesapeake Bay Ordinance.
In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. Micas stated
grandfathering exists for lots recorded prior to March 2002.
He further stated lots recorded after that date are subject
to the new perenniality requirements. He stated anyone with
an interest in property that might be affected by the new
buffer standards could request an exception to the ordinance
from the Board of Supervisors if they were not granted an
administrative exception.
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
Mr. Greg Coombs expressed concerns relative to
grandfathering of tentatively approved subdivisions or
projects that have been underway for years, in which no lots
have yet been recorded.
Mr. Micas stated if lots are recorded after March 1, 2002,
the developer might be vested if he could show that he has
diligently pursued the development and has invested
substantial expenses.
Mr. Coombs expressed concerns that recording of lots is the
last step after everything else has been approved,
indicating that a large number of projects will be affected
by the proposed ordinance amendments.
0~-939
11/23/0g
Mr. Stuart Jones, a Dale District resident representing the
Chesterfield County Farm Bureau, stated staff has addressed
three of the issues raised in the letter that the Farm
Bureau sent to the Board last week. He further stated the
Farm Bureau supports the proposed ordinance, as long as
staff will continue to work with members of the farming
community to iron out the final details relative to
agricultural issues.
Mr. William Shewmake, a resident of the Midlothian District,
expressed concerns relative to the definition of
~perenniality," indicating that, in his opinion, it is not
defined by the ordinance, so the common usage applies. He
stated it is important that if a developer provides direct
evidence that a stream is not perennial, then it is not
necessary for him to go through the scientific method to
determine perenniality, indicating that the scientific model
should only be used in absence of direct evidence. He
expressed concerns relative to the length of time it takes
to receive staff's approval on construction plans and
inquired whether having a private engineer certify
perenniality would speed up the process.
Ms. Diana Parker, representing the Falls of the James Group
of the Virginia Sierra Club, expressed concerns that the
county has been noncompliant with the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act since June 2004 and provided details of the
benefits of adopting the ordinance amendments. She stated
the environmental community worked with other interested
parties on the ordinance amendments for months and expressed
concerns that they were not made aware of the changes
suggested by the agricultural community until tonight.
Dr. Betty Hunter-Clapp, a resident of the Clover Hill
District, also expressed concerns that the environmental
community was not notified of the changes suggested by the
agricultural community. She further expressed concerns that
the county has taken so long in adopting the state mandated
regulations to protect the Chesapeake Bay. She stated she
hopes the Board will take a better or different course of
action, on behalf of the environmental community, when
considering exceptions to the ordinance.
Mr. David Root, representing the Richmond Homebuilding
Association, stated he has found in dealing with other
jurisdictions that if the grandfathering provisions are not
dealt with appropriately, tremendous problems have occurred.
He referenced Hanover County, where compliance with the new
Chesapeake Bay Ordinance has nullified many of the proffered
conditions for specific projects. He stated, although he
understands the county's need to become state compliant, the
homebuilding industry believes the county will be moving
blindly when adopting this ordinance because no one knows
the effect of its passage.
Mr. Howard Nester, resident of the Dale District, thanked
the Board for the opportunity provided to the agricultural
community to work with staff on changes to the ordinance.
He stated he believes landowners who lose the use of their
property as a result of the ordinance should not be required
to pay taxes on the property lost. He expressed concerns
that the farmers will be required to fund the cost of
04-940
11/23/0g
nutrient studies and BMPs, indicating that developers can
pass this cost on to the homebuyers.
Mr. Tom Pakurar, Co-Chair of Hands-Across-the-Lake, stated
he believes the proposal represents a compromise where
nobody gets everything they want. He further stated he is
still confused as to why the county would allow all-terrain
vehicles running through resource protection areas. He
stated he is hopeful that developers will continue to be
able to achieve the proffered number of home lots, even with
the restrictions of the proposed ordinance. He further
stated he supports the ordinance and encouraged the Board to
adopt it.
Mr. George Bryant, a resident of the Matoaca District,
expressed concerns relative to the grandfathering issue,
indicating that a lot of business decisions have been made
based on approved zoning cases that will be affected by the
proposed ordinance.
In response to Mrs. Humphrey's question, Mr. Micas stated
the development community has been on notice since 2002 that
the ordinance amendments were going into effect. He further
stated the exception process must be based on scientific or
environmental information and cannot be based on the Board's
desire to change the grandfathering date.
Mrs. Humphrey expressed concerns that the county has not
been able to acquire its own separate Soil and Water
Conservation Board. She suggested that the cost of nutrient
studies for county farmers be explored as a part of the
budget process.
Mr. King expressed concerns that he still does not know the
impact of the ordinance amendments on property owners. He
stated he is bothered by the county being mandated by the
state to adopt this ordinance without the streams first
being charted. He further stated new development will adapt
to the proposed amendments, but expressed concerns relative
to homeowners who may lose the use of their property. He
further stated he is opposed to the state mandating that the
county condemn a person's property, but still tax them;
therefore, he will abstain from voting on the issue.
Discussion ensued relative to determination of perennialityo
In response to Mr. Barber's question, Ms. Joan Salvati,
Water Quality Administrator stated the ordinance states
there must be a scientifically valid method for determining
perenniality, and the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board
has guidance that defines several scientifically valid
methods, one of which is empirical evidence, referred to by
Mr. Shewmake, indicating that the burden of proof is on the
developer.
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Ramsey stated the
proposed changes to the ordinance were a result of input
from individual Board members, not as a result of any
special interest groups.
Mr. Warren stated he would have hoped that the proposed
changes had been communicated to all interested parties.
04-941
11/23/04
Mr. Barber stated he had asked staff to provide mapping of
both the Meadowville and Route 288 areas because they are
vital to the future economic development of the county,
indicating that it would have been unwise to adopt the
ordinance until the Board had an idea of its impact on these
two properties. He further stated he will support the
ordinance amendments, although, like most mandates required
by the state, it is not what he would do for Chesterfield
County on his own volition.
Mr. Miller stated he believes this is a perfect example of
bad legislation that is being mandated on localities. He
further stated no one questions the desirability of making
the Chesapeake Bay pollution-free, but he is very concerned
about the rights of agricultural property owners who have
streams running through their property. He stated he will
reluctantly support the ordinance even though it is vague,
has no discernible standards, and delegates too much
authority.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO A~END THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-228, 19-229, 19-230, 19-231,
19-232, 19-233, 19-234, 19-235, 19-236, 19-241, 19-242
AND 19-301 RELATING TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
PRESERVATION PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Sections 19-228, 19-229, 19-230, 19-231, 19-232,
19-233, 19-234, 19-235, 19-236, 19-241, 19-242 and 19-301 of
the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, are
amended and re-enacted to read as follows:
DIVISION 4. CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREAS
Sec. 19-228. Resource protection area boundaries.
(a) At a minimum, resource protection areas shall
consist of lands adjacent to water bodies with perennial flow
that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the
ecological and biological processes they perform or are
sensitive to impacts which may cause significant degradation
to the quality of state waters. In their natural condition,
these lands provide for the removal, reduction or
assimilation of sediments, nutrients and potentially harmful
or toxic substances in runoff entering the bay and its
tributaries, and minimize the adverse effects of human
activities on state waters and aquatic resources.
(b) Resource protection areas shall consist of:
(1) Tidal wetlands.
(2)
Nontidal wetlands connected by surface flow
that are contiguous to (i) tidal wetlands or
(ii) water bodies with perennial flow.
(3) Tidal shores.
04-942
11/23/04
A vegetated RPA buffer area a minimum of 100
feet in width, located adjacent to and
landward of the environmental features listed
in subsections (1) through (3) above, and
along both sides of any water body with
perennial flow. The full RPA buffer area
shall be designated as the landward component
of the resource protection area.
(5)
Such other lands determined by the department
of environmental engineering to meet the
provisions of subsection (a) of this section
and to be necessary to protect the quality of
state waters..
(c) Designation of the components listed in subdivision
(5) of subsection (b) shall not be subject to modification
unless based on a reliable, site specific information as
provided for in 9 VAC 10-20-105.
Sec. 19-229. Resource management area boundaries.
(a) Resource management areas shall include land types
that, if improperly used or developed, have a potential for
causing significant water quality degradation or for
diminishing the functional value of the resource protection
area.
(b) A resource management area shall be provided
contiguous to the entire inland boundary of the resource
protection area. Resource management areas consist of one or
more of the following:
(1) One-hundred-year floodplains.
(2) Highly erodible soils, including steep slopes.
(3) Highly permeable soils.
(4)
(5)
Nontidal wetlands not included in ~esource
protection areas.
Land areas a minimum of 100 feet in width that
are located adjacent to and landward of every
resource protection area.
Sec. 19-230. Chesapeake Bay preservation areas maps.
Chesapeake Bay preservation areas include resource
protection areas and resource management areas. Subject to
any adjustments by the director of environmental engineering
pursuant to section 19-231, the boundaries of these areas are
included as a map layer in the County's Geographic
Information System (GIS) which is available for viewing in
the department of environmental engineering. This GIS map
layer shall serve as the general determination of the extent
of the resource protection area boundary as defined in 9 VAC
10-20-80.
Sec. 19-231. Site-specific refin_~ments of Chesapeake Bay
Area ho,,-~ies and boundary adjustments.
(a) As part of, or prior to, the zoning application or
plan review processes, or during the review of a water
quality impact assessment pursuant to subsection 19-232(e), a
04-943
11/23/04
reliable, site-specific evaluation shall be conducted or
approved by the county office of water quality to determine
whether water bodies on or adjacent to the proposed
development site have perennial flow. The Resource
Protection Area boundaries for the site shall then be
adjusted, as necessary, based on this evaluation. Upon the
completion of a county wide map depicting streams with
perennial flow, as identified utilizing a scientifically
valid method approved by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Board, the site-specific evaluations shall no longer be
required.
(b) The director of environmental engineering may
adjust the delineation of any resource protection area
boundaries when an environmental site assessment prepared by
a qualified expert indicates a need for change based on the
environmental features listed in section 19-228(b) (1) through
(4). The environmental site assessment shall be drawn to
scale and shall clearly delineate such environmental
features. Wetlands delineations shall be performed in
accordance with the procedures specified in the most recently
approved edition(s) of the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
(c) The director of environmental engineering may
adjust the delineation of any resource management area
boundaries when an environmental site assessment prepared by
a qualified expert indicates a need for such change based on
the environmental features listed in section 19-229(b) (1)
through (5). The environmental site assessment shall be drawn
to scale and shall clearly delineate such environmental
features. Wetlands delineations shall be performed in
accordance with the procedures specified in the most recently
approved edition(s) of the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
(d) Any person aggrieved by the director of
environmental engineering's decision concerning the
boundaries of a resource protection area or a resource
management area may appeal such decision in accordance with
section 19-268(d).
(e) Boundary adjustments shall not be available to
property that is undergoing redevelopment if, due to previous
development of the property, the Chesapeake Bay preservation
area features listed in section 19-228(b) (1) through (5) or
section 19-229(b) (1) through (5) cannot be determined.
Sec. 19-232. Resource protection area regulations.
In addition to the general performance criteria set
forth in section 19-233, the criteria in this section are
applicable in resource protection areas.
(a) Land development may be allowed in a resource
protection area, subject to the approval of the department of
environmental engineering, only if it (i) is water dependent;
(ii) constitutes redevelopment; (iii) is a permitted
encroachment established pursuant to subdivision (d) of this
section; (iv) is a road or driveway crossing satisfying the
conditions set forth in subdivision (a) (4) of this section;
or (v) is a flood control or stormwater management facility
satisfying the conditions set forth in subdivision (a) (5) of
this section.
04-944
11/23/04
(~)
A water quality impact assessment in
accordance with section 19-232(e) (1) shall be
required for any proposed land disturbance.
(2) A new or expanded water-dependent facility may
(5)
be permitted, provided that:
a.
(3)
(4)
It does not conflict with the
comprehensive plan;
It complies with the performance criteria
set forth in sections 19-232(b) and 19-
233;
C ·
Any nonwater-dependent component is
located outside any resource protection
area; and
Access shall be provided with minimum
disturbance necessary. If possible, a
single point of access shall be provided.
Redevelopment shall be permitted in the
Resource Protection Area only if there is no
increase in the amount of impervious cover and
no further encroachment within the Resource
Protection Area, and it shall conform to
applicable erosion and sediment control and
stormwater management criteria set forth in
section 10-233, as well as all applicable
stormwater management requirements of other
state and federal agencies.
Roads and driveways not exempt under section
19-235 (a) (1) may be constructed in or across
Resource Protection Areas only if each of the
following conditions are met:
a o
The department of environmental
engineering makes a finding that there
are no reasonable alternatives to
aligning the road or driveway in or
across the Resource Protection Area.
The alignment and design of the road or
driveway are optimized, consistent with
other applicable requirements, to
minimize the encroachment in the Resource
Protection Area and adverse impacts on
water quality.
C o
The design and construction of the road
or driveway satisfies all applicable
criteria of this chapter, including
submission of a water quality impact
assessment.
The department of environmental
engineering reviews the plan for the road
or driveway proposed in or across the
Resource Protection Area.
Flood control and stormwater management
facilities that drain or treat water from
04-94,5
11123/04
multiple development projects or from a
significant portion of a watershed may be
allowed in Resource Protection Areas, provided
that (i) the department of environmental
engineering has conclusively established that
the location of the facility within the
Resource Protection Area is the optimum
location; (ii) the size of the facility is the
minimum necessary to provide necessary flood
control, stormwater treatment, or both; (iii)
the facility must be consistent with the
Watershed Management Plan for the Swift Creek
Reservoir or any other stormwater management
program that has been approved by the
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board as a
Phase I modification to the county's
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act program; (iv)
all applicable permits for construction in
state or federal waters must be obtained from
the appropriate state and federal agencies,
such as the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,
and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission;
(v) approval must be received from the
department of environmental engineering prior
to construction; and (vi) routine maintenance
is allowed to be performed on such facilities
to assure that they continue to function as
designed. It is not the intent to allow a best
management practice that collects and treats
runoff from only an individual lot or some
portion of the lot to be located with in a
Resource Protection Area.
(b) RPA buffer area requirements. The 100-foot RPA
buffer area shall be the landward component of the Resource
Protection Area as set forth in subsection 19-228 (b) (4).
Notwithstanding permitted uses and encroachments, as set
forth in 19-232 (c) and (d), the 100-foot RPA buffer area
shall not be reduced in width. To minimize the adverse
effects of human activities on the other components of the
Resource Protection Area, state waters, and aquatic life, a
100-foot wide RPA buffer area of vegetation that is effective
in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering
nonpoint source pollution from runoff shall be retained if
present and established where it does not exist. The
following criteria shall apply to the 100-foot RPA buffer
area.
(1)
(2)
The 100-foot wide RPA buffer area shall be
deemed to achieve a 75% reduction of sediments
and a 40% reduction of nutrients.
Where land uses such as agriculture or
silviculture within the area of the RPA buffer
area cease and the lands are proposed to be
converted to other uses, the full 100-foot
wide RPA buffer area shall be reestablished.
In reestablishing the RPA buffer area,
management measures shall be undertaken to
provide woody vegetation that assures the RPA
buffer area functions set forth in this
chapter.
0&-946
11/23/04
(c)
(3)
Existing vegetation in the RPA buffer area
shall not be cleared or disturbed except (i)
as provided in section 19-232(c) and (d) and
(ii) with the prior approval of the water
quality administrator.
Permitted modifications of the RPA buffer area.
(1)
In order to maintain the RPA buffer area's
functional value, existing vegetation may be
removed, subject to the approval of the water
quality administrator, only to provide for
reasonable sight lines, access paths, general
woodlot management and best management
practices, including those that prevent upland
erosion and concentrated flows of stormwater,
as follows:
Trees may be pruned or removed if
necessary to provide for sight lines and
vistas. If trees are removed, they shall
be replaced with other vegetation that,
in the judgment of the water quality
administrator, is equally effective in
retarding runoff, preventing erosion and
filtering nonpoint source pollution from
runoff.
Any path shall be constructed and
surfaced to effectively control erosion.
Dead, diseased or dying trees or
shrubbery and noxious weeds (such as
Johnson grass, kudzu, and multiflora
rose) may be removed and thinning of
trees may be allowed, pursuant to sound
horticultural practices.
For shoreline erosion control projects,
trees and woody vegetation may be
removed, necessary control techniques
employed and appropriate vegetation
established to protect or stabilize the
shoreline in accordance with the best
available technical advice and applicable
permit conditions or requirements.
(2)
On agricultural lands, the RPA buffer area
shall be managed to prevent concentrated flows
of surface water from breaching the RPA buffer
area and appropriate measures may be taken to
prevent noxious weeds (such as Johnson grass,
kudzu, and multiflora rose) from invading the
RPA buffer area. Agricultural activities may
encroach into the RPA buffer area only as
follows:
Agricultural activities may encroach
within the landward 50 feet of the 100-
foot wide RPA buffer area when at least
one agricultural best management practice
which, in the opinion of the local soil
and water conservation district board,
04-947
11/23/04
(d)
addresses the more predominant water
quality issue on the adjacent land is
being implemented on the adjacent land
provided that the combination of the
undisturbed RPA buffer area and the best
management practice achieves water
quality protection, pollutant removal,
and water resource conservation at least
the equivalent of the 100-foot RPA buffer
area. If nutrient management is
identified as the predominant water
quality issue, a nutrient management
plan, including soil tests, must be
developed consistent with the Virginia
Nutrient Training and Certification
Regulations (4 VAC 5-15) administered by
the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation.
Agricultural activities may encroach
within the landward 75 feet of the 100-
foot wide RPA buffer area when
agricultural best management practices
which address erosion control, nutrient
management, and pest chemical control,
approved by the James River soil and
water conservation district, are being
implemented on the adjacent land. The
erosion control practices must prevent
erosion from exceeding the soil loss
tolerance levels, referred to as "T," as
defined in the ~National Soil Survey
Handbook" of November 1996 in the ~Field
Office Technical Guide" of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural
Resource Conservation Service. A
nutrient management plan, including soil
tests, must be developed, consistent with
the Virginia Nutrient Management Training
and Certification Regulations (4 VAC 5-
15) administered by the Virginia
Department of Conservation and
Recreation. In conjunction with the
remaining RPA buffer area, this
collection of best management practices
shall be presumed to achieve water
quality protection at least the
equivalent of that provided by the 100-
foot RPA buffer area.
C ·
The RPA buffer area is not required for
drainage ditches associated with
agricultural land if the adjacent
agricultural land has in place at least
one best management practice which, in
the opinion of the James River soil and
water conservation district, addresses
the predominant water quality issues on
the adjacent land.
Permitted encroachments into the RPA buffer area.
When the application of the RPA buffer area
would result in the loss of a buildable area
04-948
o
on a lot or parcel recorded prior to October
1, 1989, encroachments into the RPA buffer
area may be allowed through an administrative
process, in accordance with the following
criteria:
so
Encroachments into the RPA buffer area
shall be the minimum necessary to achieve
a buildable area for a principal
structure and necessary utilities.
bo
Where practicable, a vegetated area that
will maximize water quality protection,
mitigate the effects of the RPA buffer
area encroachment, and is equal to the
area of encroachment into the RPA buffer
area shall be established elsewhere on
the lot or parcel.
C o
The encroachment may not extend into the
seaward 50 feet of the RPA buffer area.
do
A written request for an exception to
this division's requirements shall be
made to the director of environmental
engineering. It shall identify the
impact of the proposed exception on water
quality, on public safety and on lands
within the resource protection area
through the completion of a water quality
impact assessment that complies with
section 19-232 (e).
When the application of the RPA buffer area
would result in the loss of a buildable area
on a lot or parcel recorded between October 1,
1989 and March 1, 2002, encroachments into the
RPA buffer area may be allowed through an
administrative process in accordance with the
following criteria:
so
The lot or parcel was created as a result
of a legal process conducted in
conformity with the county's subdivision
ordinance;
bo
Conditions or mitigation measures imposed
through a previously approved exception
shall be met;
C ·
If the use of a best management practice
(BMP) was previously required, the BMP
shall be evaluated to determine if it
continues to function effectively and, if
necessary, the BMP shall be reestablished
or repaired and maintained as required;
do
The requirements of section 19-232(d) (1)
shall be met.
When the application of the RPA buffer area
would result in the loss of a buildable area
on a lot or parcel created as the result of
04-949
11/23/04
bankruptcy, condemnation or threat of
condemnation, judicial partition or judicial
action relating to a decedent's estate,
encroachments into the RPA buffer area may be
allowed through an administrative process in
accordance with the requirements of 19-
232(d)(2) (b), (c) and (d).
(e) Water quality impact assessments
protection area restoration plans.
and resource
(1)
A water quality impact assessment shall be
submitted to, and approved by, the water
quality administrator for any proposed
development within a resource protection area,
including any RPA buffer area modification or
encroachment authorized as provided by section
19-232(d), and may be required by the director
of environmental engineering for any other
development in Chesapeake Bay preservation
areas based on the site's unique
characteristics or the intensity of the
proposed use or development. The purpose of
the water quality impact assessment is to
identify and, where applicable, quantify the
impacts of proposed development on water
quality and lands in the Resource Protection
Areas consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, this
chapter, and to identify specific measures for
the mitigation of those impacts. There shall
be two types of water quality impact
assessments: a minor assessment and a major
assessment.
Minor water quality impact assessment. A
minor water quality impact assessment
shall be required for development or
redevelopment which involves 2,500 square
feet or less of land disturbance. The
minor water quality assessment must
demonstrate that the combination of
undisturbed RPA buffer area, restoration
plantings and identified best management
practices or measures will be effective
in retarding runoff, preventing erosion,
and filtering nonpoint source pollution
from runoff. The minor water quality
impact assessment shall include a site
drawing, to scale if practicable, which
shows the following:
(i) The location of the resource
protection area;
(ii) The location, nature and quantifi-
cation of proposed encroachments
into the resource protection area,
including type of material proposed
to be used for access paths, areas
of clearing or grading, location of
any structures, drives or other
impervious surfaces;
0&-950
11/23/0g
(iii) Justification
encroachment;
for the proposed
(iv) Type and proposed location of any
best management practice facilities
or measures;
(v) Existing and proposed runoff
outfalls from the property;
(vi) Location and density of existing
vegetation on site, including the
number and type of trees and other
vegetation to be removed in the RPA
buffer area as a result of the
encroachment or modification; and
(vii) A restoration plan that includes the
replacement of vegetation that has
been removed from the RPA buffer
area. The type, quantity and
density of vegetation shall be
capable of retarding runoff,
preventing erosion, and filtering
nonpoint source pollution from
runoff.
Major water quality impact assessment. A
major water quality impact assessment
shall be required for a development which
exceeds 2,500 square feet of land
disturbance. The major water quality
impact assessment shall be prepared by a
qualified expert and shall include:
(i)
Ail information required for a minor
water quality impact assessment;
(ii) A description of the
encroachment including:
proposed
A description of the proposed
improvements, including struc-
tures (including the type and
size), roads, access paths,
irrigations systems, lighting
systems, and utilities;
o
If an access path is proposed,
an identification of the
location of the path and the
materials that will be used for
the path.
(iii) A description of the encroachment
site's physical characteristics
including:
The site's existing topography,
soil characteristics, erosion
potential and hydrology;
04-951
11/23/04
A description of wetland areas
including their functions and
values;
A description of streams and
other water bodies;
Location and density of
existing vegetation on site,
including the number and type
of trees and other vegetation
categorized by type (e.g.
shrubs, trees, groundcover)
within 50 feet of the proposed
land disturbance.
(iv) A discussion of the potential water
quality impacts of the proposed
encroachment, including:
A quantification of any
identified impacts on streams
or other water bodies,
including potential erosion and
sedimentation that could enter
those waters as a result of the
encroachment;
An identification and quantifi-
cation of any impacts on
wetlands, including impacts on
wetland hydrology;
An identification of temporary
or permanent impacts to streams
or other water bodies;
o
An identification of any areas
to be disturbed outside the
resource protection area that
have the potential to adversely
affect the resource protection
area;
o
The limits of clearing, grading
and the percent of the site to
be cleared;
o
Where applicable, an estimation
of the pre-construction and
post-construction pollutant
loads;
o
Estimation of the percent
increase in impervious cover;
o
A discussion of the number and
type of trees and other
vegetation to be removed in the
RPA buffer area as a result of
the encroachment or
modification;
04-952
11/23/04
o
A discussion of proposed
changes to the site topography
and hydrology and the impacts
of those changes on water
quality;
10.
A construction schedule,
including the anticipated
duration of construction.
{v) A discussion of measures to mitigate
the identified impacts, including:
A Restoration Plan that
includes the replacement of
vegetation that has been
removed from the RPA buffer
area. The Plan shall include
the schedule for replanting,
which shall take into account
the appropriate season for
replanting. The type, quantity
and density of vegetation
specified shall be capable of
retarding runoff, preventing
erosion, and filtering nonpoint
source pollution from runoff.
The vegetation specified
plantings shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, consist of
native species.
A listing of proposed erosion
and sediment control measures,
including additional measures
that are beyond those required
in chapter 8 of the Code of
Chesterfield County;
A listing of best imanagement
practices and measures to
reduce impacts on water
quality;
A discussion that demonstrates,
in a quantifiable manner, that
the combination of revegetation
and best management practices
will achieve pollutant removal
that is equivalent to that
which is achieved without the
encroachment.
A listing of other mitigation
measures that may be required
by the director of environ-
mental engineering or the water
quality administrator.
(f) When a person has violated the requirements of this
subsection, the violator shall submit a resource protection
area restoration plan to the water quality administrator for
review and approval. The intent of the restoration plan is
to ensure that the resource protection area function are
0~-953
11/23/0g
restored in a manner that will achieve the pollutant removal
requirements as defined in 19-232(b) (1). The restoration
plan shall specify the types and number of vegetation to be
planted and a schedule for the installation of the plantings.
When determined to be necessary by the water quality
administrator, the violator shall provide surety in an amount
sufficient, as determined by the water quality administrator,
to purchase and reinstall any vegetation required by the
restoration plan that has not survived for one year from date
of installation. The surety must be in a form approved by
the county attorney's office and may consist of a certified
check, cash escrow, a surety bond, or a letter of credit from
a financial institution.
Sec. 19-233. ~eneral Derformance criteria.
Any use, development or redevelopment of land within a
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area shall meet the following
performance criteria:
(a)
No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary
to provide for the proposed use or development.
(b)
Indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the
maximum extent practicable consistent with the use
or development allowed.
(c)
Land development shall minimize impervious cover
consistent with the use or development allowed.
(d)
Ail development exceeding 2,500 square feet of land
disturbance shall be subject to the site plan or
subdivision review processes.
(e)
Any land disturbing activity that exceeds an area
of 2,500 square feet (including construction of all
single family houses, septic tanks and drainfields,
but other wise as defined in § 10.1-560 of the Code
of Virginia) shall comply with the requirements of
the local erosion and sediment control ordinance.
(f)
Stormwater management criteria consistent with the
water quality protection provisions (4 VAC 3-20-71
et. seq.) of the Virginia Stormwater Management
Regulations (4 VAC 3-20) shall be satisfied.
(i)
The following stormwater management options
shall be considered to comply with the
requirements of this subsection:
Incorporation on the site of best
management practices that meet the water
quality protection requirements set forth
in this subsection. For the purposes of
this subsection, the "site" may include
multiple projects or properties that are
adjacent to one another or lie within the
same drainage area where a single best
management practice will be utilized by
those projects to satisfy water quality
protection requirements;
Compliance with the Watershed Management
Plan for the Swift Creek Reservoir which
04,-954,
11/23/04
(g)
(h)
has been found by the Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Board to achieve water
quality protection equivalent to that
required by this subsection;
Compliance with a site-specific VPDES
permit issued by the Department of
Environmental Quality, provided the
department of environmental engineering
specifically determines that the permit
requires measures that collectively
achieve water quality protection
equivalent to that required by this
subsection.
(2)
Any maintenance, alteration, use or
improvement to an existing structure that does
not degrade the quality of surface water
discharge, as determined by the director of
environmental engineering, may be exempted
from the requirements of this subsection. Any
person aggrieved by a decision of the director
of environmental engineering under this
subsection may appeal such decision in
accordance with the procedures provided in
section 19-268(d).
(3) Stormwater management criteria for
redevelopment shall apply to any
redevelopment.
Where the best management practices utilized in a
commercial development require regular or periodic
maintenance in order to continue their functions,
such maintenance shall be ensured by a
maintenance/easement agreement, commercial surety
bond, bank letter of credit or other assurance
satisfactory to the director of environmental
engineering. Where the best management practices
utilized for a residential development require
regular or periodic maintenance in order to
continue their functions, such maintenance shall be
ensured by a commercial surety bond, bank letter of
credit or cash escrow in an amount equal to $100.00
for each dwelling unit in a residential
development. The requirement excludes apartment
developments outside the Swift Creek Reservoir
Watershed. The form of any bond or letter of credit
provided pursuant to this section shall be subject
to approval by the county attorney.
Land on which agricultural activities are being
conducted, including but not limited to crop
production, pasture, and dairy and feedlot
operations, shall have a soil and water quality
conservation assessment conducted that evaluates
the effectiveness of existing practices pertaining
to soil erosion and sediment control, nutrient
management, and management of pesticides and, where
necessary, results in a plan that outlines
additional practices needed to ensure that water
quality protection is being accomplished consistent
with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and this
0~-955
11/23/04
division. RMA performance criteria shall not apply
to land used for agricultural purposes.
(i)
The director of environmental engineering may
authorize the developer to use a retention or
detention basin or alternative best management
practice facility to achieve the performance
criteria set forth in this chapter.
The department of environmental engineering shall
require evidence of all wetlands permits required
by law prior to authorizing grading or other on-
site activities.
Sec. 19-23&. Exemptions in resource protection areas.
(a) The following land disturbances in resource
protection areas may be exempt from the criteria of section
19-232 provided that, in the judgment of the director of
environmental engineering, they comply with subdivisions 1
through 4 below: (i) water wells; (ii) passive recreation
facilities such as boardwalks, trails and pathways; and (iii)
historic preservation and archaeological activities.
(i)
Any required permits, except those to which
this exemption specifically applies, shall
have been issued;
(2)
Sufficient and reasonable proof is submitted
that the intended use shall not result in an
adverse impact on water quality;
(3)
The intended use-does not conflict with nearby
planned or approved uses; and
(4)
Any land disturbance exceeding an area of
2,500 square feet shall comply with all
erosion and sediment control requirements of
chapter 8 and the Code of Chesterfield County.
(b) Silvicultural activities in Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas shall be exempt from this division's
requirements, provided that such activities adhere to water
quality protection procedures prescribed by the department of
forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for
Forestry Operations," as amended. The Virginia Department of
Forestry will oversee and document installation of best
management practices and will monitor in-stream impacts of
forestry operations in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.
This exemption shall not apply to land disturbing activities
on land in an agriculturally zoned district which is not used
directly for the management of agricultural crops, forest
crops and livestock, or land which has been rezoned or
converted, or proposed to be rezoned or converted, at the
request of the owner or previous owner, from an agricultural
to a residentially, commercially or industrially zoned
district or use.
(c) Nonresidential uses which are located over 100 feet
from and are not adjacent to R, R-MF or R-TH Districts or any
property used for residential purposes, schools, child care
centers, playgrounds, shopping centers, libraries, hospitals,
public institutions or similar facilities shall be exempt
from the provisions of section~ 19-241.
04-956
11/23/0g
Sec. 19-235. gxen~ions and exceptions.
(a) Public utilities,
facilities exemptions.
railroads, public roads, and
(1)
Construction, installation, operation and
maintenance of electric, natural gas, fiber-
optic and telephone transmission lines,
railroads and public roads and their
appurtenant structures in accordance with (i)
the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Va. Code
§10.1-560 et seq.), and the Stormwater
Management Act (Va. Code § 10.1-603.1 et
seq.), or (ii) an erosion and sediment control
plan and stormwater management plan approved
by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation. The exemption of public roads is
further conditioned as follows: optimization
of the road alignment and design, consistent
with other applicable requirements, to prevent
or otherwise minimize encroachment in the
Resource Protection Area and adverse impacts
on water quality.
(2)
Construction, installation and maintenance of
water, sewer, natural gas, and underground
telecommunications and cable television lines
owned, permitted, or both, by the county or a
regional service authority shall be exempt
from this division's requirements, provided
that:
so
To the degree possible, the location of
such utilities and facilities should be
outside resource protection areas.
bo
No more land than necessary shall be
disturbed to provide for the proposed
utility installation.
Ail construction, installation and
maintenance of such utilities and
facilities shall be in compliance with
any applicable federal, state and local
requirements and permits and designed and
conducted in a manner that protects water
quality.
Any land disturbance exceeding an area of
2,500 square feet shall comply with all
erosion and sediment control requirements
of chapter 8 and this division.
(b) Exceptions.
(1)
Exceptions to the requirements of sections 19-
232 and 19-233 may be granted, subject to the
procedures set forth in 19-235(b) (2), provided
that a finding is made that:
The requested exception is the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
04-957
11/23/04
(2)
bo
Granting the exception shall not confer
any special privileges upon the applicant
that are denied by this division to other
property owners who are subject to its
provisions and who are similarly
situated.
C ·
The exception is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of this division and
will not result in a substantial
detriment to water quality.
do
The exception request is not based on
conditions or circumstances that are
self-created or self-imposed.
e o
Reasonable and appropriate conditions are
imposed, as warranted, that will ensure
that the permitted activity will not
cause a degradation of water quality.
The request is being made because of the
particular physical surroundings, use,
shape or topographical conditions of the
specific property involved or property
adjacent to or within 100 feet of the
subject property, or a particular
hardship to the owner will occur, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience,
if the strict letter of this division is
carried out.
Exception process.
a o
Exceptions to requirements of section 19-
232.
A request for an exception to the
requirements of section 19-232,
except for an encroachment permitted
under 19-232(d), shall be made in
writing to the planning department
for action by the board of
supervisors. It shall identify the
impact of the proposed exception on
water quality, on public safety and
on lands within the resource
protection area through development
of a water quality impact assessment
which complies with section 19-232
(e). Exception requests seeking
relief from the best management
practice facility safety measures
and design criteria required in
sections 19-241 and 19-242 shall not
require the completion of a water
quality impact assessment if the
request is supported by
documentation which demonstrates
that the request will not be
detrimental to public safety and
welfare.
0&-958
11/23/0~
The planning department shall notify
the affected public of any such
exception requests and the board of
supervisors shall consider these
requests during a public hearing in
accordance with Va. Code § 15.2-
2204, except that only one hearing
shall be required.
The board of supervisors shall
review the request for an exception
and the water quality impact
assessment and may grant the
exception with such conditions and
safeguards as deemed necessary to
further the purpose and intent of
this division only if the board
makes the findings set forth in
section 19-235(b) (1).
If the board of supervisors cannot
make the required findings or
refuses to grant the exception, it
shall return the request for an
exception together with the water
quality impact assessment and the
written findings and rationale for
the decision to the applicant.
bo
Exceptions to the requirements of section
19-233. Upon written request, the
director of environmental engineering may
approve exceptions to the requirements of
section 19-233 when the director finds
that the criteria of section 19-235(b) (1)
have been satisfied.
Sec. 19-236.
exceptions.
Non-conforming uses, vested rights and other
(1)
In addition to the requirements of this chapter, no use
which is nonconforming to the requirements of this
division, in a Chesapeake Bay preservation area, shall
be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted or
structurally altered unless the director of
environmental engineering grants an exception pursuant
to section 19-235, and also finds that:
so
There will be no net increase in the nonpoint
source pollution load; and
bo
Any development or land disturbance exceeding an
area of 2,500 square feet complies with all erosion
and sediment control requirements of chapter 8 and
division 4 of article IV of this chapter.
(2)
This division shall not be construed to prevent the
reconstruction of pre-existing structures within
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas from occurring as a
result of casualty loss unless otherwise restricted by
applicable ordinance.
(3)
The provisions of this division shall not affect the
vested rights of any landowner under existing law.
04-959
11/23/04
(4)
The provisions of this division shall not be construed
to require or allow the taking of private property for
public use without just compensation.
o o o
Sec. 19-241. Design criteria for all basins.
Ail basins required by the director of environmental
engineering as either a stormwater management facility or a
Best Management Practice for water quality improvement or
designed as a retention or detention facility for any new
development or redevelopment of property shall conform to the
following criteria:
(1) Safety criteria.
a. Outflow device safety measures.
If a vertical sided weir box is located
within the basin's embankment, a six-foot
fence or dense vegetative barrier, or a
combination thereof, shall be installed
as prescribed by the director of
environmental engineering. If a dense
vegetative barrier is used, it shall be
designed and installed in accordance with
professionally accepted landscaping
practices and procedures. The director of
environmental engineering shall approve
plans for the vegetative barrier,
including the size and description of
proposed plant materials. The dense
vegetative barrier shall be a minimum of
six feet in width. If a fence or
vegetative barrier is to be established
around the entire basin facility in
accordance with subsection (1) (b), then
no barrier or fence is required around
the weir box. If a developer uses a
concrete weir for either the principal or
emergency spillway and the concrete weir
is greater than three feet in depth, a
pedestrian crossing or access structure
shall be established across the weir. A
fence or vegetative barrier, or
combination thereof, may be substituted
if the pedestrian crossing is not
practicable.
b. Basin safety measures and dimensions.
The following safety measures shall be
required for that portion of each basin
that has a side slope above the normal
water surface that is steeper than 6:1
over a horizontal distance of 20 feet or
more.
o o o
If a fence is used, the minimum height of
the fence shall be six feet. The fence
may be made of a dense vegetative
barrier. If the fence is made of a
04-960
11/23/04
vegetative barrier, it shall be designed
and installed in accordance with
professionally accepted landscaping
practices and procedures. The director
of environmental engineering shall
approve plans for the vegetative barrier,
including the size and description of
proposed plant materials. If a
vegetative barrier is used, the property
owner or developer shall provide to the
county a form of surety for the cost of
materials and installation for the
proposed plant materials. Provisions for
maintenance of and access to the fence or
vegetative barrier shall be included in
the best management practice easement
dedication.
o o o
Side slopes. The side slopes above the
normal water surface elevation in basins
shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal
to vertical). If the excavation of the
slope to 3:1 will result in the removal
of dense vegetation or woodland that is
acting to stabilize the slope, the
developer may seek an exception from the
director of environmental engineering
pursuant to the provisions of section 19-
235 to leave the slope in its existing
condition.
o o o
Sec. 19-242. Minimum criteria for basins serving as a best
management practice for water ~uality improvement.
(a) Depth. Basins sized solely as best management practice
facilities in conformance with the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act shall have a range in depth of three to
eight feet to prevent stratification. For those basins which
have been designed with sections which exceed eight feet in
depth, only those portions which are less than eight feet in
depth shall be included as part of the best management
practice facility volume. Basins that are less than one acre
in surface area shall not exceed eight feet in depth.
o o o
Sec. 19-301. Definitions.
Conservation area: An area of natural or established
vegetation managed to protect other components of a resource
protection area and state waters from significant degradation
due to land disturbances. Referred to as an "RPA buffer
area" in Division 4 of this chapter.
o o o
Nontidal wetlands: Those wetlands other than tidal
wetlands "that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
04-961
11/23/04
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions", as defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of
the federal Clean Water Act in 33 CFR 328.3b.
o o o
Resource protection area: That component of the
Chesapeake Bay preservation area comprised of lands adjacent
to water bodies with perennial flow that have an intrinsic
water quality value due to the ecological and biological
processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts that may
result in significant degradation to the quality of state
waters.
o o o
RPA buffer area: See ~conservation area."
Silvicultural activities: Forest management activities,
including but not limited to the harvesting of timber, the
construction of roads and trails for forest management
purposes, and the preparation of property for reforestation
that are conducted in accordance with the silvicultural best
management practices developed and enforced by the State
Forester pursuant to Va. Code § 10.1-1105 and are located on
property defined as real estate devoted to forest use under
Va. Code § 58.1-3230.
o o o
Tidal wetlands: Vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands as
defined in Va. Code § 28.2-1300.
o o o
Water Body with Perennial Flow: A body of water that
flows in a natural or man-made channel year-round during a
year of normal precipitation. This includes, but is not
limited to streams, estuaries, and tidal embayments and may
include drainage ditches or channels constructed in wetlands
or from former natural drainage ways, which convey perennial
flow. Lakes and ponds, through which a perennial stream
flows, are a part of the perennial stream. Generally, the
water table is located above the streambed for most of the
year and groundwater is the primary sources for stream flow.
o o o
Water-dependent facility: A development of land that
cannot exist outside of a resource protection area and must
be located on the shoreline because of the intrinsic nature
of its operation. These facilities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Ports.
(2)
The intake and outfall structures of power plants,
water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants and
storm sewers.
(3) Marinas and other boat docking structures.
(4)
Natural beaches and other water-oriented recreation
areas.
04-962
11/23/04
(5) Fisheries or other marine resources facilities.
o o o
(2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon adoption.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Abstain: King.
16.B. TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIVITY
POLICY TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR ACCESS TO AND
BETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Turner presented a brief overview of the proposed
residential connectivity policy. He stated staff has met
with the development community regarding the policy. He
further stated the Planning Commission recommended adoption
of the policy on a four to one vote. He stated, in an effort
to address the Board's concerns that provisions should be
made to allow exceptions under specified circumstances, staff
was unable to develop quantifiable criteria, which could be
consistently applied in all circumstances to guide when such
connections should not be made; therefore, staff has amended
the policy to allow the Board and Planning Commission the
authority to waive such connections at their discretion and
to emphasize their action by requiring such waivers to be
granted only by separate motion from any other approval such
as zoning or subdivision. He further stated the policy does
not eliminate cul-de-sacs.
In response to Mr. King's question, Mr. Turner stated
developers will be required to post a sign to indicate that a
stub road exists and that future extension is possible.
Mr. Miller called for public comment.
Mr. David Root, representing the Richmond
Association, stated he supports the policy.
Homebuilders
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the Residential Connectivity Policy. (It is noted a
copy of the policy is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
17. REMAINING MOBILE HOME PERMITS AND ZONING REQUESTS
There were no remaining mobile home permits
requests at this time.
or zoning
18. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
adjourned at 9:28 p.m. until December 1, 2004 at 5:30 p.m.
for a meeting in Room 502 of the Administration Building
04-963
11123/04
with the School Board and the county's
Delegation.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey, King and Warren.
Nays: None.
Legislative
Lan~" B. Ramsey
County Ad_ministrato~
Chairman
04-964
11123104