03-08-2006 Minutes
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
March 8, 2006
-
Supervisors in Attendancel
Mr. R. M. "Dickie" King, Jr.,
Chairman
Mr. Kelly E. Miller, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mrs. Renny Bush Humphrey
Mr. Arthur S. Warren
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey,
County Administrator
School Board Members
in Attendance I
Mr. Marshall W. Trammell, Jr.,
Chairman
Ms. Elizabeth Davis, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Tom Doland
Dr. James R. Schroeder
-
-
Staff in Attendancel
Colonel Carl R. Baker,
Police Department
Mr. J. Edward Beck,
Asst. Dir., Utilities
Dr. Billy K. Cannaday, Jr.,
Supt., School Board
Ms. Marilyn Cole, Asst.
County Administrator
Ms. Mary Ann Curtin, Dir.,
Intergovtl. Relations
Mr. Jonathan Davis,
Real Estate Assessor
Mr. Wilson Davis, Dir.,
Economic Development
Ms. Rebecca Dickson, Dir.,
Budget and Management
Mr. Robert Eanes, Asst.
to County Administrator
Ms. Lisa Elko, CMC,
Clerk
Ms. Kelly Fried, Strategic
Mgr., Mental Health/Mental
Retard./Substance Abuse
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. H. Edward James,
Dir., Purchasing
Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir.,
Public Affairs
Ms. Mary Lou Lyle, Dir.,
Accounting
Mr. Mike Mabe, Dir.,
Libraries
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
Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Management Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Community Development
06-203
03/08/06
Mr. Mike Westfall, Asst.
Dir., Internal Audit
Mr. King called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at
3:40 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2006 (REGULAR
MEET:r:NG) AND FEBRUARY 23, 2006 (LEGISLATIVE RECEPTION)
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
approved the minutes of February 22, 2006 and February 23,
2006, as submitted.
~,-~~'
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
2. CO'ON'l'Y ADMINISTRATOR I S COMMENTS
o LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Ms. Curtin provided an update on General Assembly activities.
She stated all of the county's bills have completed the
process and passed resoundingly. She further stated Senate
Bill 393, which changed the multiplier for the benefit for
public safety officers, was left in committee, and the
eminent domain bills will end up in a conference committee.
She provided the Board with an overview of the House and
Senate transportation plans. She stated, if nothing changes
wi th transportation funding, the county will recei ve
approximately $16 million in secondary road funds over the
next four years. She stated Governor Warner's introduced
budget would have anticipated approximately $21.6 million for
secondary roads for Chesterfield over the next four years,
and Governor Kaine's changes would increase that to
approximately $43 million. She further stated the House plan
would result in approximately $21.1 million for
Chesterfield's secondary roads over the next four years, and
the Senate plan, approximately $54.2 million. She noted Mr.
McCracken has indicated that $54 million would only improve
approximately nine miles of secondary road.
Mr. Warren stated he participated in a VACo conference call
earlier today regarding the transportation plans. He further
stated the Senate plan represents a considerable increase
over what the county normally receives over a four-year
period. He stated the House plan is primarily front-end
loaded, with general funds that would not necessarily recur
after four years. He further stated the Senate plan would
rely on additions to existing taxes. He stated there are
$108 billion in unmet transportation needs in the state over
the next 20 years. He noted the Senate plan would add $1
billion per year statewide in new funding, indicating that
there would still be a tremendous shortfall with the Senate
plan. He stated the conclusion of the conference call was
that the state's transportation system is broken today.
.--"""
Mr. Barber inquired whether the Board should communicate the
county's position relative to the transportation proposals.
06-204
03/08/06
Mr. Miller expressed concerns relative to the transfer of
road building and maintenance responsibilities from the
Virginia Department of Transportation to localities.
Ms. Curtin stated the
road funding would
proposal.
Richmond District's share of secondary
clearly decrease under the House's
.-~
Mr. Warren stated it was mentioned during the conference call
that Governor Kaine has indicated this is the only year
transportation issues will be emphasized, and education,
public safety, and other issues will be addressed in
subsequent years. He further stated the Governor wants a
transportation package to be approved this year, even if it
requires a special session after the General Assembly
concludes, and it is likely there will be a compromise
between the Senate, House and Governor's transportation
proposals.
Mr. King stated the proposed funding is still a very
insignificant amount to meet localities' needs; therefore,
the burden is still being placed on local jurisdictions.
Mr. Warren stated other localities have indicated they will
use the state funding as seed money to provide leverage for
bond referendums to do more in terms of transportation.
Mr. Barber expressed concerns that the Richmond Region would
receive only 4.3 percent of the funding under the House plan,
as opposed to 12 percent under the Senate plan. He suggested
that the Board consider taking action to communicate the
county's support of the Senate plan.
Mr. King stated he would prefer to discuss the issue further
prior to taking a position on the proposals.
Mr. Miller stated he is reluctant to endorse the Senate plan
without additional details of the plans.
In response to Mrs. Humphrey's question, Ms. Curtin stated
Fauquier and Spotsylvania Counties received impact fee
authority under the existing Northern Virginia code section,
which the County Attorney has determined would not be
functional for Chesterfield. She further stated the City of
Suffolk attempted to gain impact fee authority under the same
code section, but the bill died in committee.
-
Mrs. Humphrey requested that Ms. Curtin provide the Board
with a written explanation of the impact fee authority
granted to Spotsyl vania and Fauquier Counties and also a
written opinion from the County Attorney as to why the code
section that allows impact fee authority in Northern Virginia
is not functional for Chesterfield.
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Ms. Curtin stated when
House Bill 1192 went to the Senate floor, the language of
House Bill 1610 was added to it, giving localities the
authority to say no to development based upon inadequate
transportation. She noted this bill is still sitting on the
Senate floor and has been passed by for the day for three
days in a row.
06-205
03/08/06
Mr. King thanked Ms. Curtin for keeping the Board informed on
General Assembly activities.
3. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Warren updated the Board on the tremendous progress being
made at Richmond International Airport. He stated total
passengers increased by 16.3 percent in 2005, indicating that
the national average was only one percent. He further stated
Air Tran began service last year and Jet Blue will begin
service March 31st, and because of competition with low-cost
carriers, fares at Richmond International have dropped by 50
percent overall.
4. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, ADDIT:r:ONS, OR CHANGES IN
THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
added Item 8. C .12. , Request to Quitclaim a. Twenty-Foot
Ingress/Egress Easement Across the Property of Swift Creek,
LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company; added Item 10.B.,
Closed Session Pursuant to Section 2.2.-3711.A.5., Code of
Virginia, 1950, as Amended, for Discussion Concerning a
Prospective Business in the County Where No Previous
Announcement Has Been Made of a Decision by the Business to
Locate in the County; and adopted the Agenda, as amended.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
-'
5. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
There were no resolutions or special recognitions at this
time.
6. WORK SESSION
o THE CO'ON'l'Y ADMINISTRATOR'S FY2007 PROPOSED BUDGET
INCLUDING PRESENTATIONS FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION
SCHOOL BOARD
Mr. Trammell stated the FY2007 and FY2008 budgets adopted by
the School Board on February 28th were based on action taken
by the Board of Supervisors on the lowering of the tax rate
by one cent each year for 2006, 2007 and 2008. He requested
the Board's commitment to its methodical plan for tax
reductions; rather than trying to leapfrog tax reductions, to
allow for long-term planning for the School Board to address
long-standing issues. He acknowledged the historic increase
in state revenue to fund schools, indicating that the revenue
is outpacing inflation and the rate of student growth and
will allow the School Board to address longstanding deficits
in areas such as teacher compensation, transportation, and
maintenance. He expressed concerns relative to reduction of
retiree health benefits for current employees and elimination
for new employees, indicating that health and retirement
benefi ts used to be among the best strategies for teacher
06-206
03/08/06
.-
recrui ting. He also expressed concerns that state required
Standards of Learning assessments, federal mandates for
special education and the "No Child Left Behind" Act have
never been fully funded by either entity. He further stated
the School Board has taken over additional costs from the
county in the past several years; including the provision of
police officers and nursing staff for schools. He requested
the Board's patience in implementation of a real estate tax
reduction at the rate of one percent per year over the next
several years. He then introduced Dr. Cannaday to provide an
overview of the School Board's approved FY2007-FY2008 budget.
,.~.
Dr. Cannaday reviewed school and student successes as a
result of the focus of past budgets on 21st century
competence. He stated the FY2007 and FY2008 budgets will
focus on ensuring that all students are prepared for their
extended futures beyond high school. He reviewed current
investment allocations and provided details of increased
revenue for FY2006-FY2008 and the status of FY2007 revenue.
He expressed concerns that both the House and Senate budgets
contain actions resulting in loss of revenue or increases in
required expenditures, which will result in a $1 million
negative impact over the next two years. He reviewed
investment allocations for FY2007 and FY2008; teacher funding
status from 1994-2005; and state, federal and local
requirements in various areas. He provided details of various
school/community expectations regarding compensation of
employees. He reviewed teacher salaries from 2001-2002 and
2005-2006; approved teacher salaries for 2006-2007; and
planned teacher salaries for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. He
provided details of the costs associated with various
school/community expectations for FY2007 and FY2008. He
stated the School Board's adopted FY2007 Operating Budget
totals $520,146,800 and the FY2008 Operating Budget totals
$552,064,300. He thanked the Board for its continued support
in the investment of education.
Discussion ensued relative to the necessity of preparing
school children for a variety of new skills.
In response to Mr. Miller's question, Dr. Cannaday stated the
$43.1 million increase in state funding from FY2006 to FY2007
was a result of a Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission
(JLARC) study regarding unfunded minimum costs associated
with Standards of Quality over the past five years.
Mr. Barber noted the significance of a quality school system
attracting economic development.
-
Mr. King stated upcoming growth at Fort Lee as a result of
the BRAC realignment will tremendously challenge schools in
the county, perhaps even more so than other school systems in
the region. He recognized members of the School Board who
were present at the meeting and thanked them for their
attendance.
In response to Mrs. Humphrey's question, Dr. Cannaday stated,
at the highest point, there were approximately 50 students
attending county schools who were displaced by Hurricane
Katrina. He further stated he will provide Board members with
data relative to the distribution of these students among
county schools.
06-207
03/08/06
MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVIS:r:ON
Mr. Stegmaier provided an overview of the proposed FY2007
budget for the Management Services Division. He stated the
total Management Services budget for FY2007 is $94.5 million.
He provided details of major increases in the areas of
salaries and benefits; risk management costs; fuel and
energy; vehicle maintenance and replacement; increased
regional jail inmate days; waste and resource recovery
contracts; and the cost of maintaining and providing
utilities for new buildings. He stated Management Services'
scores on the Organizational Climate Assessment in the areas
of values and ethics speak highly about the county's
leadership. He reviewed staffing ratios; growth in total
expenses and other uses compared with full-time employees in
the General Accounting Section; Purchasing annual cost
avoidanc&totals for FY2000-FY2005; parcels per employee from
2003-2005 in the Real Estate Assessment office; Internal
Audit cost savings to budget; hours saved from process
improvements in Accounting; maintenance and repair
expenditures; Management Services customer service
evaluations; and customer service responses for various
departments. He stated Management Services employee scores
on the Organizational Climate Assessment in the area of
employer of choice are higher than those for select high
performance organizations and have consistently improved over
the past six years in every dimension. He reviewed the number
of Workers' Compensation reports in Risk Management from
FY1995-FY2006; and availability of school buses as a result
of the county's maintenance contract with schools. He stated
the Real Estate Assessor's web site has virtually eliminated
walk-in business in the Assessor's office. He reviewed data
relative to the dramatic increase in Purchasing activity with
Chesterfield, minority, and women owned businesses. He stated
a variety of programs in Waste and Resource Recovery have
been highly successful. He provided details of statewide and
international environmental certifications that have been
earned by Fleet Management and Utilities. He stated budgetary
challenges include improved technology; increased energy
costs; implementation of enterprise-wide financial and human
resource systems; and resources for central administrative
functions.
Mr. Miller thanked Mr. Stegmaier for
presentation and stated he is appreciative
leadership that has led to positive results
Services.
his thorough
of the good
in Management
Mr. King thanked
presentation.
Mr.
Stegmaier
for
his
informative
Mr. Miller excused himself from the meeting.
7. DEFERRED ITEM
o STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL DEFERRAL
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request for a streetlight installation in the
vicinity of 2405 Arrowfield Road in the Bermuda District, at
a cost of $2,503.70.
Ayes: King, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Absent: Miller.
06-208
03/08/06
8 . NEW BUSINESS
8.A. STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr.
approved the
installations:
Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
following requests for streetlight
Bermuda District
· DuPont Square Subdivision, in the vicinity of 2817
Brampton Drive, on the existing pole
Cost to install streetlight: $112.68
Midlothian District
· Michaux Creek Subdivision, at the intersection of
Michaux View Way and Michaux View Terrace
Cost to install streetlight: $805.00
· Michaux Creek Subdivision, vicinity of 14139 Michaux
View Way
Cost to install streetlight: $805.00
· Michaux Creek Subdivision, at the intersection of
Michaux View Way and Michaux View Court
Cost to install streetlight: $805.00
.-
Ayes: King, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Absent: Miller.
8 . B. APPOINTMENT
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
suspended its rules at this time to allow for simultaneous
nomination/reappointment of members to serve on the
Chesterfield Community Services Board.
Ayes: King, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Absent: Miller.
o CHESTERFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
simultaneously nominated/reappointed Ms. Frances Hayes Brown,
representing the Matoaca District; and Ms. Gayle K. Skibinski
and Mr. Ivan K. Tolbert, representing the county at-large, to
serve on the Chesterfield Community Services Board, whose
terms are effectively immediately and expire December 31,
2008.
Ayes: King, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Absent: Warren.
Mr. Miller returned to the meeting.
06-209
03/08/06
8. C . CONSENT ITEMS
8. C .1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
On motion of' Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
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
Department of Transportation has advised
street meets the requirements established by
Street Requirements of the Virginia
Transportation.
the Virginia
this Board the
the Subdivision
Department of
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 ChanGe to the Secondary System of State Hlahwavs:
Addition
Basis for Change:
Addition, New subdivision street
Statutory Reference:
133.1-229
Project:
Branders Creek Drive
.
Brander. Creek Drive, State Route Number: 5909
From:
Ironbridge Rd., (At. 10)
To:
Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.13 miles.
Right-ot-way record was tiled on 6111/1992 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Db. 2238 Pg.
1356, with a width of 96 teet
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
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
Department of '!'ransportation has advised
street meets the requirements established by
Street Requirements of the Virginia
Transportation.
the Virginia
this Board the
the Subdivision
Department of
06-210
03/08/06
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.
Tvoe Chanae to the Secondary SYStem of State Hlahwavs:
Addition
Basis for Change:
Addition, Developer Project Adjustment
Statutory Reference:
533.1-229
Project:
Court Yard Road; Remainder of
.
Court Yard Road, State Route Number: 5811
From:
Ironbridge Rd., (At. 10)
To:
0.20 mi. west to cul-de-sac, a distance ot: 0.20 miles.
Right-ot-way record was filed on 1/23/2003 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Db. 48n Pg.
956, with a width of 60 feet
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.2. DONATION OF OUT-OF-SERVICE FIRE TRUCK TO BON AIR
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved the donation of an out-of-service fire truck to Bon
Air Volunteer Fire Department.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.3. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
8. C. 3 . a. RECOGNIZING MR. CHRISTOPHER ALAN HATHCOCK UPON
ATTAINING RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
-
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered
by Congress in 1916; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build
character, provide citizenship training and promote physical
fitness; and
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and
06-211
03/08/06
outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop,
carrying out a service project beneficial to his community,
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Christopher Alan Hathcock, Troop 178,
sponsored by Ivey Memorial united Methodist Church, has
accomplished those high standards of commitment and has
reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned
by only four percent of those individuals entering the
Scouting movement; and
WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and
endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in
society, Christopher has distinguished himself as a member of
a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can
all be very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO'LVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Christopher Alan
Hathcock, extends congratulations on his attainment of Eagle
Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune of the county to
have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.3.b. RECOGNIZING MS. PATRICIA F. NOBLE, UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT, UPON HER RETIREMENT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
__J
WHEREAS, Ms. patricia F. Noble will retire
Chesterfield County Utilities Department. on March 24,
and
from
2006;
WHEREAS, after working as the Senior Analyst in charge
of the Records Management Department with Best Products
Company, Incorporated for ten years, Ms. Noble brought her
extensi ve knowledge and skills to Chesterfield County and
began her public service on August 14, 1989, as the
Engineering Data Manager for the Utilities Department; and
WHEREAS, from 1989 to 2006, Ms. Noble brought
Chesterfield County Utili ties into the new millennium as a
leader in information systems, geographic information
systems, mapping, electronic document management, records
management and customer service; and
WHEREAS, as the Engineering Data Manager, Ms. Noble
stressed professional development, education, continuing
education and participation with professional associations
for all staff members, and her staff serves on the executive
board for all three records and information management
associations; and
WHEREAS, since 1985, Ms. Noble has served the
Association of Records Managers and Administrators as a
member, an Executive Board Member, Richmond Chapter President
and Outstanding Member of the Year, a Region Coordinator and
06-212
03/08/06
the Mid-Atlantic Region Manager, and continues to serve ARMA
at the national level; and
."..,.,....
WHEREAS, since 1986, Ms. Noble has served the Virginia
Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators
as a member, on the Executive Board and as President and
Outstanding Member of the Year, and in 2005 was elected by
the membership to serve a second tenure as the Association
President, this distinction being held by only two
individuals in the 26-year history of the association; and
WHEREAS, since 1989, Ms. Noble has served the
Association of Image and Information Management as a member,
on the Executive Board, the Old Dominion Chapter President
and Past President; and
WHEREAS, from 1991, Ms. Noble served the American Water
Works Association as a member and the Chair of the Education
Committee; and
WHEREAS, throughout her career, Ms. Noble has displayed
aptitude, attitude, attention to detail and a unique ability
to plan for the future, that has made Engineering Data
Management a progressive, well-run, well-trained cohesive
team.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
County Board of Supervisors recognizes
extends on behalf of its members
Chesterfield County, appreciation for
of exceptional service to the county.
that the Chesterfield
Ms. patricia Noble and
and the citizens of
her more than 16 years
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. C. 3 . c . HONORING THE LATE SERGEANT SEAN MILES, UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS FOR HIS SELFLESS SACRIFICE AND
SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, America currently is at war with insurgents who
are dedicated to fighting against the establishment of
democracy in Iraq; and
WHEREAS, this military operation is being conducted to
free the people of Iraq from years of tyranny, to bring
democracy to Iraq, and to make the United States, and the
world, safer; and
............
WHEREAS, among the thousands of
mobilized for this war effort have
Chesterfield County residents who serve
reserve components of the various military
military personnel
been scores of
in the active and
services; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Sean Miles, United States Marine
Corps, answered the call to duty in Iraq unflinchingly and
honorably; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Miles was a graduate of Clover Hill
High School in Chesterfield County; and
06-213
03/08/06
WHEREAS, Sergeant Miles was assigned
Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine
Marine Expedi tionary Force, based a t Camp
Carolina: and
to the 2nd
Division, 2nd
Lej eune, North
WHEREAS, Sergeant Miles had told his family that he
believed in what U. S. forces were in Iraq doing, and wanted
to be part of that effort; and
WHEREAS, on January 24,
operations in Karmah, Iraq,
small-arms fire; and
2006, while conducting combat
Sergeant Miles was killed by
WHEREAS, Sergeant Miles' final act was that of pulling a
fellow Marine to safety; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the
extraordinary courage, patriotism, and commitment of Sergeant
Miles, and also the great sacrifice of his family and of all
who knew and loved him.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, with the utmost respect, hereby
honors the late Sergeant Sean Miles, Unit.ed States Marine
Corps, and also recognizes the courage and sacrifice of his
family, expresses its heartfelt gratitude for his selfless
service, and humbly thanks his family for sharing this
dedicated young man with us, and with freedom-loving people
everywhere.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.4. AUTHOR:r:ZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN
8. C. 4 . a. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EASEHBN'l'S FOR THE ROUTE I -
PHASE IV WATERLiNE PRO.:JEcT FROM PANKAJ K. PATEL,
ASHA P. PATEL, BHARATKtlM I. PATEL AND BHAVANA B.
PATEL
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain
and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Sections
15.2-1904 and 1905 of the Code of Virginia, on the property
of Pankaj K. Patel, Asha P. Patel, Bharatkum I. Patel and
Bhavana B. Patel, PINS: 79965190300000 and 799651971800000,
for the acquisition of easements for the Route I - Phase IV
Waterline Project.
And, further, the Board instructed the County Administrator
to notify the owner by certified mail on M.arch 10, 2006, of
the county's intention to take possession of the easements.
(It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of
thi s Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06-214
03/08/06
8.C.4.b. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE ROUTE I _
PHASE IV WATERLI:NE PROJECT FROM HERBERT LEE HILL,
JR.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain
and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Sections
15.2-1904 and 1905 of the Code of Virginia, on the property
of Herbert Lee Hill, Jr., PIN: 800644988900000, for the
acquisition of easements for the Route I - Phase IV Waterline
Project.
And, further, the Board instructed the County Administrator
to notify the owner by certified mail on March 10, 2006, of
the county's intention to take possession of the easements.
(It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of
thi s Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. C. 5 . APPROVAL OF LEASE OF THE GREENFIELD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY BUILDING TO OPERATE A TEEN
CENTER
-
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to enter into a lease
agreement with the Greenfield Community Association for the
use of the Greenfield Community Association Building to
operate a teen center from July 5, 2006 to August 4, 2006.
(It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.6. REQOESTS FOR PERMISSION
8 .C. 6 .a. FROM CALDWELL REESE DlTERPRISES, LLC TO INSTALL A
PRIVATE WATER SERVICE WITHIN A PRIVATE EASEMENT TO
SERVE PROPERTY ON JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Caldwell Reese Enterprises, LLC, for
permission to install a private water service within a
private easement to serve property at 12301 Jefferson Davis
Highway, and authorized the County Administrator to execute
the water connection agreement. (It is noted a copy of the
plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
<,.......
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.6.b. FROM RONA E. EVANS FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH
WITHIN AN EIGHT-FOOT EASEMENT AND A TWENTY-FIVE
FOOT SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 25,
KINGSLAND GLEN, SECTION 1
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Rona E. Evans for permission for a
06-215
03/08/06
proposed fence to encroach within an 8-foot easement and a
25-foot sewer and drainage easement across Lot 25, Kingsland
Glen, Section 1, subject to the execution of a license
agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8 . C . 6 . c . FROM BARTHOL DESIGN ASSOC:r:ATES, P · C . TO :r:NSTALL
PRIVATE SEWER AND WATER SERVICES WITHIN PRIVATE
EASEMENTS TO SERVE TOWNHOUSES :r:N THE VILLAS AT
DOGWOOD, SECTION A
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Barthol Design Associates, P. C. for
permission for Dogwood Villas, Incorporated to install
private sewer and water services within private easements to
serve townhouses in The Villas at Dogwood, Section A, and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the sewer and
water connection agreement. (It is noted a copy of the
vicinity sketch i.s filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. C. 6. d. FROM AMBERLEIGH, LLC TO INSTALL PRIVATE SEWER AND
WATER SERVICES WITHIN PRIVATE EASEMENTS TO SERVE
TOWNHOUSES IN AMBERLEIGH, SECT:r:ON 3 AND A
RESUBDIVISION COMMON AREA RAR, SECT:r:ON 2
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Amberleigh, LLC for permission to
install private sewer and water services within private
easements to serve townhouses in Amberleigh, Section 3 and a
Resubdivision Common Area "A", Section 2, and authorized the
County Administrator to execute the sewer and water
connection agreement. (It is not.ed a copy of the vicinity
sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.6.e. FROM KEVIN W. AND BRIDGET M. HAZEL FOR A PROPOSED
FENCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN AN EIGHT-FOOT EASEMENT
ACROSS LOT 34, RUTHERFORD V:r:LLAGE AT CHARTER COLONY
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Kevin W. Hazel and Bridget M. Hazel
for permission for a proposed fence to encroach within an 8-
foot easement across Lot 34, Rutherford village at Charter
Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It
is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board. )
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06-216
03/08/06
8 . C . 6. f . FROM STEPHEN C. THOMPSON, JR. AND DAVID S. RYDER
FOR A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, WOODEN STOOP, STEPS AND
LANDING TO ENCROACH WITHIN A TWENTY-FOOT SEWER
EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 34, MALLORY VILLAGE SECTION A
AT CHARTER COLONY
-
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Stephen C. Thompson, Jr. and David S.
Ryder for permission for a concrete driveway, wooden stoop,
steps and landing to encroach within a 20-foot sewer easement
across Lot 34, Mallory Village Section A at Charter Colony,
subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is
noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board. )
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. C .6. g. FROM SUSAN AND RITA PRATHER FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO
ENCROACH WITHIN AN E:r:GHT-FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS LOT
77, EDGEWATER AT THE RESERVOIR, SECTION 4
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Susan Prather and Rita Prather for
permission for a proposed fence to encroach within an 8-foot
easement across Lot 77, Edgewater At The Reservoir, Section
4, subj ect to the execution of a license agreement. (It is
noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board. )
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. C. 7 . AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO GODSEY AND SON,
INCORPORATED FOR THE ROUTE 1 AND 301 PHASE IV WATER
LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
awarded a construction contract to Godsey and Son,
Incorporated, in the amount of $3,991,616.45, for County
Project Number 96-0175R, Route 1 and 301 Phase IV Water Line
Replacement Project.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.8. REQUESTS TO AID IN THE ACQUISITION OF OFFSITE RIGHT
OF WAY
8.C.8.a. FOR WESTERLBIGH
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized Right of Way staff to aid Westerleigh, LLC in the
acquisition of offsite right of way for Westerleigh, subject
to the developer executing a contract to pay all costs. (It
is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06-217
03/08/06
8. C. 8 . b. FOR RAMBLEWooD FOREST
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized Right of Way staff to aid Boyd Corporation in the
acquisition of o:Efsite right of way for Ramblewood Forest,
subject to the developer executing a contract to pay all
costs. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. C. 9 . CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND
POWER COMPANY FOR UNDERGROmm CABLE ACROSS COUNTY
PROPERTY FOR THE LUCY CORK MODEL HOME COTTAGE SITE
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, 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 for underground cable
across county property for the Lu.cy Corr model home cottage
site. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8. C .10 . APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FROM LEE A. AND CHERYL B.
FARMER FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE USE OF PUBLIC WATER
FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE LOCATED ON
BELMONT ROAD
'-
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Lee A. and Cheryl B. Farmer for an
exception to the use of public water for a proposed
residential structure located at 7552 Belmont Road (County
Project Number 06-0031). (It is noted a copy of the vicinity
sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.ll. ACCEPTANCE OF FOUR PARCELS OF LAND FROM J. MARK AND
DEBORAH K. SOWERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HARPER'S
MILL
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
accepted the conveyance of four parcels of land, containing a
total of 43.652 acres, from J. Mark Sowers and Deborah K.
Sowers for the development of Harper's Mill, and authorized
the County Administrator to execute the deed. (It is noted
copies of the plats are filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06-218
03/08/06
8.C.12. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A TWENTY-FOOT INGRESS/EGRESS
EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF SWIFT CREEK, LLC,
A LIMITED LI:ABILITY COMPANY
c,........
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a
20-foot ingress/egress easement across the property of Swift
Creek, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. (It is
noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board. )
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
9 . HEARINGS OF CJ:TIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAJ:MS
o COLONEL RONALD E. HALL REQUESTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
TO THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THE CHARTER FL:r:GHT IN DECEMBER
2005
-
Colonel Ronald Hall expressed concerns that he was not
allowed to speak at the February 22nd Board of Supervisors
meeting regarding the charter flight taken by Mr. Ramsey
because his request to speak was not received prior to the
deadline, yet the Chamber of Commerce was allowed to speak to
the issue at the Chairman's prerogative. He inquired why
members of the Board of Supervisors demanded Mr. Ramsey's
return, indicating that crisis management is one of the
duties of Board members. He also inquired why Mr. King flew
to Kansas, indicating that electronic communications are used
around the world to solve problems much larger than this. He
stated it is imperative that the county reassess the methods
it will use in the future regarding problem solving
procedures. He inquired why public comments were muted at
the last Board meeting, yet the Chamber of Commerce was
allowed to make a presentation. He expressed concerns that
some members of the Board may still believe that sound
judgments were made surrounding this issue. He stated he
believes it is time for a charter change in one of two ways:
1) allow an independent chief executive to run the county so
as to provide the necessary checks and balances between the
executives and the Board; or 2) if citizens want to keep the
current organization structure in place, allow an
independently elected inspector general, whose mission would
be to question expenditures and issues of entitlement, thus
protecting against waste and abuse. He thanked Mr. Warren for
providing a reasonable degree of oversight in this matter and
stated the public does not believe the county has lived up to
its goal of being exemplary stewards of the public trust.
10. REPORTS
-
10.A. REPORT ON STATUS OF GENERAL FUND BALANCE, RESERVE FOR
FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS, DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
AND LEASE PURCHASES
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted a Report on the Status of General Fund Balance,
Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement
Funds and Lease Purchases.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06-219
03/08/06
10.B. CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECT:r:ON 2.2-3711.A.5.,
CODE OP VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AMENDED, FOR D:r:SCUSSION
CONCERNING A PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS :r:N THE COUNTY WHERE
NO PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT HAS BEEN MADE OF A DECISION
BY THE BUSINESS TO LOCATE IN THE COUNTY
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
went into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2. 2-3711.A. 5.,
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for discussion concerning
a prospective business in the county where no previous
announcement has been made of a decision by the business to
locate in the county.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Reconvening:
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned
into Closed Session in accordance with a formal vote of the
Board and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
effective July 1, 1989 provides for certification that such
Closed Session was conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors
does hereby certify that to the best of each member's
knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted
from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of
Information Act were discussed in the Closed Session to which
this certification applies, and
ii) only such public business matters as were identified
in the Motion by which the Closed Session was convened were
heard, discussed, or considered by the Board. No member
dissents from this certification.
The Board being polled, the vote was as follows:
Mr. Barber:
Ms. Humphrey:
Mr. Warren:
Mr. Miller:
Mr. King:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
11. DINNER
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
recessed to the Administration Building, Room 502, for dinner
with members of the School Board.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Reconvening:
06-220
03/08/06
12. INVOCATION
Reverend Patricia Daniel,
Church, gave the invocation.
Minister,
Tabernacle Baptist
13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
Mr. Stith led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America.
14. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
There were no resolutions or special recognitions at this
time.
15. REQUESTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND REZONING
PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD IN THE
FOLLOWING ORDERI - WITHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS - CASES WHERE
THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATION AND THERE :r:S NO
OPPOSITION - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ACCEPT
THE RECOMMENDATION AND/OR THERE IS PUBLIC OPPOS:r:TION
WILL BE HEARD AT SECTION 17
05SN0329
-
In Midlothian Magisterial District, LBV INVESTMENTS requests
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricul tural (A) to Residential (R-12) with Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit exceptions to Ordinance
requirements. 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
residential use of one (1) dwelling or less per acre. This
request lies on 50.7 acres fronting approximately 2,990 feet
on the east line of Route 288 approximately 2,600 feet north
of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax IDs 716-713-Part of 5414 and 717-
708-Part of 2972 (Sheets 1 and 5) .
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 05SN0329 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Mr. Andy Scherzer, representing the applicant, stated the
Planning Commission's recommendation is acceptable.
,-
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved Case 05SN0329 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. Master Plan. The Textual Statement dated June 16, 2005,
and revised October 25, 2005, shall be considered the
Master Plan. (P)
2. Buffers. All required buffers shall be located within
recorded open space. (P)
3. Density. The maximum density of this development shall
not exceed forty-six (46) lots. (P)
06-221
03/08/06
4. Foundations. All exposed portions of the foundation and
exposed piers supporting front porches of each dwelling
unit shall be faced with brick or stone veneer or
exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS)
materials. (P)
5. Driveways. All private driveways shall be hardscaped.
The exact treatment shall be approved at the time of
plan review. (P)
6. Street Trees. Street trees shall be provided along both
sides of all public roads within the development. (P)
7.
Sidewalks.
pedestrian
sidewalks
roads. (P)
Sidewalks shall be provided that facilitate
access within the development. Generally,
shall be located on both sides of public
8. Focal Point. A minimum of 0.75 acres of open space
shall be provided within the development to provide a
\\ focal point". Part of the focal point area shall be
"hardscaped" and have benches and other amenities that
accommodate and facilitate gatherings. A portion of the
focal point may include an area devoted to best
management/storm water facilities. The focal point
shall be developed concurrent with the phase of
development that the focal point is intended to serve.
9 .
Garages. Front loaded garages
closer to the street than the
dwelling unit. (P)
shall
front
be located
facade of
no
the
'-
10. Age Restriction. Except as otherwise prohibited by the
Virginia Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Act,
and such other applicable federal, state or local legal
requirements, dwelling units designated as age-
restricted shall be restricted to "housing for older
persons; as defined in the Virginia Fair Housing Law and
no persons under 19 years of age shall reside therein."
( P)
11. Senior Housing. Any dwelling units designated for
senior housing as outlined in Proffered Condition 10
shall be noted on the subdivision plat. Such dwelling
uni ts shall be grouped together as part of the same
development section(s). (P)
12. Impacts on Capital Facilities. The applicant,
subdivider, or assignee (s) shall pay the following to
the County of Chesterfield, for infrastructure
improvements wi thin the service district for the
property:
A.
The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay
to the County of Chesterfield prior to the time of
issuance of a building permit for each dwelling
unit, the following amounts for infrastructure
improvements wi thin the service district for the
property:
~.........'
1.
If payment
$6,685.00
is
per
made prior
dwelling
to July
unit. At
1, 2006,
time 0 f
06-222
03/08/06
payment $6,685.00 will be allocated pro-rata
among the facili ty costs as follows: $602.00
for parks and recreation, $348.00 for library
facilities, $5,331.00 for schools, and $404.00
for fire stations; or
-
ii. If payment is made after June 30, 2006, the
amount approved by the Board of Supervisors
not to exceed $6,685.00 per dwelling unit pro-
rated as set forth in Proffered Condition
12.A.i. above and adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index between July 1, 2005, and July 1 of
the fiscal year in which the payment is made
if paid after June 30, 2006.
B. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each
dwelling unit that is designated "age-restricted",
the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay
to the County of Chesterfield the following amounts
for infrastructure improvement within the service
district for the property:
i. If payment is made prior to July 1, 2006,
$1,354.00 per dwelling unit. At time of
payment $1,354.00 will be allocated pro-rata
among the facility costs as follows: $602.00
for parks and recreation, $348.00 for library
facilities, and $404.00 for fire stations; or
-
ii. If payment is made after June 30, 2006, the
amount approved by the Board of Supervisors
not to exceed $1,354.00 per dwelling unit pro-
rated as set forth in Proffered Condition
12.B.i. above and adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index between July 1, 2005, and July 1 of
the fiscal year in which the payment is made
if paid after June 30, 2006.
C.
Cash proffer payments
purposes proffered or
law.
shall be spent for the
as otherwise permitted by
D. Should any impact fees be imposed by the County of
Chesterfield at any time during the life of the
development that are applicable to the property,
the amount paid in cash proffers shall be in lieu
of or credited toward, but not be in addition to,
any impact fees, in a manner determined by the
County. (B&M)
-
13. Timbering. 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
permi t has been obtained from the Environmental
Engineering Department and the approved devices
installed. (EE)
14. Access. Direct vehicular access from the property to
the north/south collector ("North Otterdale Road
Extended") shall be limited to one (1) public road. The
06-223
03/08/06
exact location of this access shall be approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
15.
Road Improvements. To provide an adequate roadway
system, the developer shall provide the following: road
improvements with the initial development of the
property:
A. construction of additional pavement along North
Otterdale Road Extended at the approved access to
provide right and left turn lanes, if warranted,
based on Transportation Department standards;
B. Construction of two (2) lanes of North Otterdale
Road Extended, to VDOT Urban Collector Standards
(40 mph) with modifications approved by the
Transportation Department, from its current
terminus, located north of the property, to just
east of the western property line of the parcel
identified as Tax ID 7197123765. The exact length
and location of this improvement shall be approved
by the Transportation Department;
C. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, any additional right-of-way (or
easements) required for the improvements identified
above. In the event the developer is unable to
acquire any "off-site" right-of-way that is
necessary for any improvement described in
Proffered Condition 15, the developer may request,
in writing, that the County 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 developer. 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 shall
provide the road improvements within available
right-of-way, as determined by the Transportation
Department. (T)
16. Transportation Contribution. The applicant, his
successor(s), or assignee(s) (the "Applicant") shall
pay, prior to recordation of the initial subdivision
section, the amount of $215,090 if paid prior to July 1,
2006, or $215,090 adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1,
2005 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment
is made if paid after June 30, 2006. The payment shall
be used for road improvements in accordance wi th the
Board's cash proffer policy. (T)
17. Architectural Treatment. The architectural treatment of
all dwelling uni ts shall at a minimum have brick or
stone veneer on the front and side facades of the main
structure. (P)
18. Open Space. All required buffers and the required 200'
sound setback, adjacent to the Route 288 right of way,
shall be wi thin recorded open space. In addition to
these areas, open space shall be recorded in the general
location as shown on the attached Exhibit A. (P)
06-224
03/08/06
.-
19. Prior to tentative subdivision approval, the developer
shall submi t certi fication to the Planning Department
that all adjacent property owners, the last known
representative of Rosemont Homeowners Association and
the last known representative of the Midlothian
Volunteer Coalition have been notified in writing of the
submission of the tentative plan to the County for
review and approval. The tentative subdivision
application shall not be considered complete until such
certification has been submitted to the Planning
Department. The fifteen (15) day period for referral to
the Planning Commission shall not commence until such
certification has been provided. (P)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0167 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, STEMMLE ENTERPRISES LLC
requests amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development
(Case 87S0l6) and amendment of zoning district map to permit
an automobile service station. The density of such amendment
will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for light industrial use. This request lies in a
Light Industrial (I-I) District on 1.1 acres fronting
approximately 170 feet on the west line of Oak Lake Boulevard
approximately 450 feet south of Oak Lake Court. Tax ID 735-
690-6552 (Sheet 10).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 06SN0167 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
subject to one condition.
Mr. John Easter, representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
approved Case 06SN0167, subject to the following condition:
The Textual Statement, dated February 2, 2005, shall be
considered the plan of development. (P)
(This condition is in addition to the conditions of approval
of Case 87S016.)
-
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0168
In Midlothian Magisterial District, JEFF SMALL requests
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Community
Business (C-3) to Community Business (C-3). The density of
such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
06-225
03/08/06
property is appropriate for community mixed use. This
request lies on 2.2 acres and is known as 8220 Midlothian
Turnpike. Tax rD 758-706-9917 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 06SN0168 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval.
Mr. Andy Scherzer, representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. Jeff Small thanked the Board for hearing his request.
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
Mr. Barber made a motion, seconded by Mr. King, for the Board
to approve Case 06SN0168.
Mrs. Humphrey stated she appreciates Mr. Small being present
at the meeting.
Mr. King called for a vote on the motion of Mr. Barber,
seconded by Mr. King, for the Board to approve Case 06SN0168.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0170
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ROGER L. TUTTLE requests
a Conditional Use and amendment of zoning district map to
permit a two (2) family dwelling in a Residential (R-7)
District. Residential use of up to 4.84 units per acre is
permitted in a Residential (R-7) District. The Comprehensive
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for single family
residential use of 2.0 units per acre or less. This request
lies on 0.3 acre and is known as 13624 Northwich Drive. Tax
ID 729-679-7489 (Sheet 15).
-;~.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 06SN0170 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Mr. Roger Tuttle stated the recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
approved Case 06SN0170, subject to the following conditions:
1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited
to: the occupants of the principal dwelling unit,
individuals related to them by blood, marriage, adoption
or guardianship, foster children, guests and any
domestic servants. (P)
2. For the purpose of providing record notice, within
thirty (30) days of approval of this request, a deed
restriction shall be recorded setting forth the
06-226
03/08/06
limitation in Condition 1 above. The deed book and page
number of such restriction and a copy of the restriction
as recorded shall be submitted to the Planning
Department. (P)
3. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Roger
L. Tuttle or his immediate family only and shall not be
transferable nor run with the land. (P)
-
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0175
In Matoaca Magisterial District, HERON POINTE NEIGHBORHOOD,
LLC requests amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development
(Case 99SN0255) and amendment of zoning district map relative
to setbacks and garage orientation. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for single family residential use of
2.0 units per acre or less. This request lies in a
Residential (R-15) District on 39.5 acres fronting
approximately 1,350 feet on the south line of Genito Road
approximately 1,360 feet east of Otterburn Road. Tax IDs
715-684-7167 and 716-684-4492 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 06SN0175 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Mr. Andy Scherzer, representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation is acceptable.
In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. Scherzer stated the
applicant is requesting the amendment because of a change in
county policy relative to garage orientation since approval
of the Conditional Use Planned Development. He further stated
the new policy will allow garages to face the front if they
are receded and do not dominate the streetscape.
Mr. King 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 06SN0175 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
,;OIIiIlIIIIaO..
1. Front loaded garages shall be located no closer to the
street than the front facade of the dwelling unit. (P)
(STAFF NOTE: This proffered condition supersedes
Proffered Condition 11 of Case 99SN0255.)
2. Side Yard. Each lot shall have side yards of a minimum
of five (5) feet in width or each lot shall have one (1)
side yard not less than ten (10) feet in width and one
(1) side yard not less than zero (0) feet in width. (P)
(STAFF NOTE: This proffered condition supersedes Item
#4 of the Textual Statement for Case 99SN0255.)
06-227
03/08/06
(STAFF NOTE: All other proffered conditions of Case 99SN0255
remain applicable.)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0183
In Bermuda Magisterial District, SPRINT requests a
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 su.ggests the property is appropriate for
public use. This request lies on 1.0 acre fronting
approximately twenty (20) feet on the nort.h line of Ecoff
Avenue approximately 1,980 feet east of Ivywood Road. Tax ID
783-656-Part of 7299 (Sheet 26).
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 06SN0183 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Mr. Richard Nayduch, representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. King called for public comment
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
approved Case 06SN0183, subject to the following conditions:
,-
1. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use.
( P)
2. The base of the tower shall be enclosed by a minimum six
(6) foot high fence I designed to preclude trespassing.
The fence shall be placed so as to provide sufficient
room between the fence and the property line to
accommodate evergreen plantings having an initial height
and spacing to provide screening of the base of the
tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment or
structures from adjacent properties. In conjunction
with site plan submission, or prior to release of a
building permit, whichever occurs first, a landscaping
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval. (P)
3. The color and lighting system for the tower shall be as
follows:
a.
The tO~ler shall be gray or another neutral color,
acceptable to the Planning Department.
~~
b. The tow'er shall not be lighted.
c. The tower shall be a monopole structure (P)
4. Any buildin9 or mechanical equipment shall comply with
Sections 19--595 and 19-570 (b) and (c) of the Zoning
06-228
03/08/06
Ordinance
building
equipment.
relative
exteriors
(P)
to
and
architectural
screening
treatment of
of mechanical
(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 180 feet.
( P)
6. 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: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0187
In Dale Magisterial District, CHIMENTO PROPERTIES, LLC
requests rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Light Industrial (I-l) 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 general commercial
use. This request lies on 9.0 acres fronting approximately
200 feet on the south line of Hull Street Road approximately
550 feet east of Speeks Drive. Tax ID 747-684-0045 (Sheet
10) .
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 06SN0187 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Mr. William Shewmake, representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. King called for public comment.
Mr. Barber excused himself from the meeting.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved Case 06SN0187 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
-~
1.
Within 200 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Hull
Street Road, uses permitted shall be restricted to those
permitted by right or with restrictions in the Community
Business (C-3) District. (P)
2. The rear yard setback for all buildings, parking and
drives shall be a minimum of 100 feet depth. This 100
foot area shall be landscaped so as to minimize the view
of the development from the adjacent property to the
south. The exact species, size and location shall be
determined at the time of site plan review. (P)
06-229
03/08/06
3. Unless modified by the Planning Commission at the time
of site plan review based upon a determination that an
alternative design or other measures would provide
effective screening comparable to that required herein,
buildings located within 150 feet of the southern
property line shall be oriented generally parallel to
the southern property line with no openings within the
rear (southern) wall of the buildings, except for fire
exits, as specifically required by the Fire Department.
Where there are breaks between the buildings located
within 150 feet of the southern property line, a solid
wall constructed of materials compatible with the
buildings shall be installed between the buildings.
Unless modified by the Planning Commission as discussed
herein, there shall be no driveway or parking areas
located between the buildings and the southern property
line. (P)
4. Direct vehicular access from the property to Hull Street
Road (Route 360) shall be limited to one (1) existing
entrance/exit (i .e., Hendricks Road), located at the
western property line. (T)
5.
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement shall be constructed along Route 360 at the
Hendricks Road intersection to provide a right turn
lane, based on Transportation Department standards. The
developer shall dedicate to Chesterfield County, free
and unrestricted, any addi tional right-of-way (or
easements) required for this road improvement.
Provided, however, in the event the developer is unable
to acquire any "off-site" right-of-way that is necessary
for such improvement, the developer may request, in
writing, that the County acquire such right-of-way as a
public road improvement. All costs associated with the
acquisi tion of the right-of-way shall be borne by the
developer. 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
shall provide the road improvements within available
right-of-way, as determined by the Transportation
Department. (T)
-..-
Ayes: King, Miller, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Absent: Barber.
Mr. Barber returned to the meeting.
06SN0208
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GREGG W. BECK requests -.-
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Corporate
Office (0-2) to Light Industrial (I-I) plus Conditional Use
to permit use exceptions. 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 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre. This
request lies on 2.1 acres and is known as 413 Branchway
Court. Tax IDs 742-705-5897 and 742-706-8009 (Sheet 6).
06-230
03/08/06
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 06SN0208 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
subject to one condition.
Mr. Gregg Beck stated the recommendation is acceptable.
Mr. King 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 06SN0208, subject to the following condition:
In addition to Light Industrial (I-I) uses, the following
uses shall be permitted:
a. contractor's offices and display rooms;
b. electrical, plumbing and heating supply sales,
service and related display rooms; and
c. repair services, excluding motor vehicle repair
(P)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0242
........
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JEANETTE A. AND JOHN M.
YOUNG request a temporary manufactured home permit to park a
temporary manufactured home in a Residential (R-7) District
and amendment of zoning district map. The density of such
amendment is approximately 1.25 units per acre. The
Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for
residential use of 2.51-4 units per acre. This property is
known as 3032 Freedom Lane. Tax ID 787-688-2995 (Sheet 12).
Mr. Mike Janosik presented a summary of Case 06SN0242 and
stated staff recommended denial because the temporary
manufactured home does not meet traditional single-family
dwelling design standards, and the applicants have not
provided information that would justify allowing a
manufactured home to be placed on the same parcel as an
existing dwelling in a residential district.
Mr. Kevin Boynton, representing the applicant, stated he
wants to place a mobile home on the property of his in-laws
to assist his partially disabled father-in-law with yard
maintenance and provide convenience and affordability for he
and his wife. He stated the request is strictly temporary,
while his father-in-law is going through rehabilitation.
He displayed a photo of the manufactured home he wants to
place on the property, indicating that the location is ideal
because it is at the end of a dead-end street and is
surrounded by dense woods. He provided photos depicting the
condition of other properties in the surrounding
neighborhood, indicating that the manufactured home will not
have an adverse impact on the area. He stated the subject
property is zoned Residential (R-7), and is designated for
2.5 to 4 units per acre, indicating that the 1.5 acre parcel
is more than adequate for a manufactured home along with the
existing single-family dwelling. He further stated, should
06-231
03/08/06
the Board approve the request, Planning staff has recommended
the imposition of conditions, indicating that the conditions
are acceptable to the applicant. He stated the permit would
only be needed for a maximum of three to four years, rather
than the seven-year period suggested by staff.
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the request.
Mr. King stated he appreciates Mr. Boynton's desire to help
his father-.in-law.
Mr. King then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, for the
Board to approve Case 06SN0242 for a three-year period,
subject to the conditions.
Mr. Miller stated it is important for single- family
neighborhoods to maintain their integrity, but the applicant
has demonstrated a good reason for the Board to deviate from
staff's policy regarding the placement of manufactured homes
in residential districts.
Mr. King called for a vote on his motion, seconded by Mr.
Miller, for the Board to approve Case 06SN0242, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicants' daughter and her immediate family shall
be the o\~ers and occupants of the temporary
manufactured home.
2. This temporary manufactured home permit shall be granted
for a period not to exceed three (3) years from date of
approval.
3. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a
temporary manufactured home site nor shall any temporary
manufactured home be used for rental property.
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added
onto a temporary manufactured home. All temporary
manufactured homes shall be skirted but shall not be
placed on a permanent foundation.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06SN0189
In Bermuda Magisterial District, HUNT INVESTMENTS I L. L. C.
requests rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricultural (Ali and Residential (R-7) to Multifamily
Residential (R-MF) with Conditional Use Planned Development
to permit exceptions to Ordinance requirements. Residential
use of up to 10.00 units per acre is permitted in a
Multifamily Residential (R-MF) District. The Comprehensive
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential use
of 2.51-4 units per acre and 7.01 or more units per acre.
This request lies on 5.2 acres located in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of Chippenham Parkway and
06-232
03/08/06
Strathmore Road. Tax IDs 787-685-1792, 6487 and 6794; and
787-686-6406 (Sheet 12).
-
Mr. King stated he plans to recommend that the request be
remanded to the Planning Commission for further review
because of the fast track it has taken in coming to the
Board, unless there are objections that cause him to change
his mind. He inquired whether anyone present would like to
speak to the case being remanded to the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Easter, representing the applicant, stated this is a
rehabilitation case with very important tax credits. He
further stated the reason for the urgency of a Board decision
tonight is the March 10, 2006 annual deadline for applying
for tax credits, indicating that the applicant does not
support remanding the case to the Planning Commission.
Mr. King stated the Board will honor the applicant's request
and hear the case at this time.
.'~
Ms. Beverly Rogers presented a summary of Case 06SN0189 and
stated the Planning Commission recommended denial, indicating
that area residents' concerns had not been adequately
addressed. She further stated staff recommended approval,
subject to the applicant fully addressing the impact of the
development on capital facilities. She stated the request
complies with the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor Plan on
that portion of the property suggested as appropriate for
residential use of 7.01 or more units per acre and provides
an opportunity to revitalize the area. She further stated the
applicant has only agreed to address the impact of the
additional units on capital facilities, noting that the
Board's cash proffer policy states that credit should not be
gi ven unless a development proposal gi ves substantial
upgrades to current design or development standards and
ordinance requirements.
In response to Mr. Miller's question, Ms. Rogers stated the
current development consists of 44 units that were built in
the 1960s with few amenities like those that are seen with
new multi-family residential development. She further stated
the current ordinance requires a certain amount of
landscaping, open space and green space that is not present
in the current project. She stated there are 78 units
proposed for the new development.
Mr. Miller inquired about the proposed development being
given to the Bensley Civic Association at some point in time
in the future.
Mr. John Easter, representing the applicant, stated at the
end of a 15-year period, there is a provision giving the
first option of acquiring the proposed development to a non-
profit organization, but it is not the Bensley Civic
Association. He further stated, since the Planning Commission
meeting, a meeting was held with a group of tenants in the
existing units, who have indicated they want assurance that
they will be able to move directly from the existing units
into the new units. He stated the Bensley Civic Association
has requested that the proposed development not include 3-
story buildings, and the developer has agreed that none of
the buildings on the site would be more than 2 stories. He
further stated he has provided Mr. King with language for two
06-233
03/08/06
condi tions to address the concerns of both the tenants and
the civic association.
Mr. Ron Hunt, developer of the proposed development, stated
Genesis Properties and Hunt Investments, LLC has renovated
over 400 homes in the past 10 years in the Richmond area and
provided details of numerous awards that Genesis and Hunt
have won for renovations. He further stated he plans to
demolish the current 44 units on 1.8 acres and the
uninhabi table house next door t.o it and replace them wi th 78
units on 5.2 acres. He expressed concerns relative to the
condition of the current development and stated
rehabilitating thE~ units would not be in the best interest of
the county or the neighborhood. He stated concerns expressed
by the neighborhood include the addition of 33 units and
construction of 3-story buildings rather than 2-story. He
stated the developer has agreed to building 2-story
buildings, but cannot agree to building less than the 33 new
units because it is not a viable economic option. He further
stated, after meE~ting with existing tenants, the developer
has decided to construct two buildings before any demolition
occurs, so they will have the option to move into their new
units. He stated the developer has agreed to pay for each
tenant to move either into a new unit or into other housing
within 10 miles.. He further stated the residents who
attended the meeting support the project. He provided
details of various amenities that will be included in the new
development and the rental cost of the current and proposed
new units. He stated the developer could renovate the
existing units and build approximately 30 new units on the
addi tional 3.3 acres, but this would not be in the best
interest of the county. He further stated Planning staff
supports the project because it makes practical sense and is
in the best interest of the county and the neighborhood. He
requested the Board's approval of the proposed development.
In response to Mr. King's question, Mr. Hunt stated the tax
credits produce so much equity to the property that the rents
can remain low and amenities can be provided for the tenants.
Mr. King called for public comment.
Mr. David Day stated he supports the proposed development as
long as the residents are able to move directly into the
units.
Mr. C. L. Morrissette, Jr. stated the project represents
affordable housing, which is necessary for the future of
county residents" He further stated the development will
also help the county to adhere to state mandates for
providing affordable housing.
Ms. Monique Lane stated she supports the proposed development
as long as the residents can remain in their current homes
until it is built.
Ms. Margaret Davis, President of the Bensley Area Civic
Association, stated the association is very concerned that
the current tenants of Parkway Gardens not be displaced. She
further stated area residents would like to see two-story
buildings with no more than 50 units. She expressed concerns
that the application was filed November 10, 2005, but no
attempt was made for the developer to meet with area
06-234
03/08/06
~_...,
residents until the end of January. She requested that the
Board deny the case.
Ms. Renee Eldred provided a map depicting apartment complexes
in the area and expressed concerns that the majority of the
apartment complexes are located in the Bermuda District. She
stated the County Code requires 20 acres for new apartment
complexes with 10 units per acre, and the proposal calls for
78 units on 5.2 acres. She further stated the Bensley area
does not need any more apartment complexes. She expressed
concerns relative to granting the applicant credit for the 44
current units under the Board's cash proffer policy,
indicating that this money could be used to address
transportation needs. She stated the project could be good
for the neighborhood if the density was reduced to 50 units,
thereby not impacting the area with too much additional
traffic.
Mr. Brian Howard, who lives across the
current development, expressed concerns
traffic would be bad for the neighborhood.
street
that
from the
additional
Ms. Rose Witt, a resident who lives directly across from the
proposed development, stated no more apartments are needed in
the neighborhood. She inquired why the county has not taken
action to bring the current units up to County Code
standards. She expressed concerns relative to the impact of
the development on traffic and schools and inquired whether
the current residents are guaranteed that their rent will not
substantially increase if they move into the new units.
Mr. Dave Anderson, a Board member of Partnership for
Workforce Housing, expressed concerns relative to references
that have been made about low income being tied to crime,
indicating that this is not true. He stated other communities
would be thrilled to have someone like Mr. Hunt revitalizing
their area. He further stated this is a great opportunity
for the county.
~
Ms. Ree Hart, Vice-President of the Jefferson Davis
Association and Chairman of its Redevelopment Committee,
expressed concerns that the organization has not had an
opportuni ty to review the proposal in detail. She also
expressed concerns relati ve to the proposed density,
indicating that 14 units per acre is too high as compared to
the county standard of 10 uni ts. She stated concerns have
been expressed about an exception to the 20-acre minimum for
apartment complexes and an exception to the minimum
requirement for open space. She further stated there is a
great deal of affordable housing in the Jefferson Davis
Corridor that is in need of attention. She stated the
proposal could be good for the area, but there has not been
enough time to work out the details of the development. She
further stated she supports Mr. King's suggestion to remand
the case to the Planning Commission, indicating that tax
credits will be available for the developer next year.
Mr. Rick Young, President of the Jefferson Davis Association,
stated there needs to be a valid reason for fast tracking a
development, but he does not see it in this case. He further
stated, although he is impressed with the development, the
original intention of the developer was to displace the
current tenants, and it was only after the associations got
06-235
03/08/06
involved that the tenants' needs were considered. He stated
he sees no reason to be hasty in approving the request,
indicating that he supports remanding the case to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Tom Wilkinson stated affordable housing is necessary for
police officers, teachers and others who provide services in
the county. He further stated this proposal represents an
opportuni ty to bring federal funding to the county to help
residents in need of affordable housing.
Mr. Ron Hunt apologized for the fast track of the project.
He further stated the applicant has addressed the
neighborhoods' concern relative to height of the proposed
development, as well as all of the tenants' concerns. He
stated the density cannot be reduced and the project remain
feasible. He further stated the amenities and rental figures
are guaranteed in writing in the application to the Virginia
Housing Development Authority. He stated the traffic issue is
not with the current or future apartments, but a result of
the Defense Supply Center closing its main entrance on
Jefferson Davis Highway. He further stated the neighborhood
expressed concerns about densi t:y of the proposed development,
yet was supportive of his proposal to purchase a 19-acre
trailer park on ,Jefferson Davis Highway and convert it into
an affordable housing development for seniors, and also
indicated they would support t:he proposed development if it
were age-restricted. He statE!d density is not the problem,
but who is going to live there.. He further stated he is proud
to be able to :provide affordable housing for people who
cannot live in decent housing because they don't make enough
money.
-~
There being no one else to speak to the request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Barber stated he sees a lot more good in the proposal
than he does bad, indicating that, in spite of the fact that
there will be more units, the area will receive a significant
visual improvement and the tenants will receive an improved
standard of living. He further stated, if there was no
deadline for the tax credit, he would support remanding the
case to the Planning Commission.
Mr. King inquired whether there are conditions in place that
will guarantee the residents that they can remain in place
until the new units are ready for occupancy.
Ms. Rogers stated Proffered Condition 8 would require that
all existing units be removed prior to additional units being
constructed. ShE! further stated the applicant has agreed to
the Board imposing a condition that all existing dwelling
units would be removed within 60 days of the issuance of a
final certificate of occupancy, indicating that the condition
does not guarantee that the current dwelling units would --<
remain until the new dwelling units are constructed.
Mr. King stated he cares greatly about improving the quality
of life for county residents. He expressed concerns relative
to the short amount of time to study this proposal. He stated
the Board is very sensitive to the needs of low-income
residents, and he agrees that more affordable housing is
needed in the county. He further stated he has an uneasiness
06-236
03/08/06
about the development and feels that moving on the request at
this time would preempt the revitalization work that has been
done by the Jefferson Davis Association. He stated county
residents are more important than federal dollars, and he is
not satisfied that the issue of the current tenants having a
place to live has been addressed. He further stated he does
not have enough information to make an intelligent decision
at this time, indicating that the Planning Commission needs
to further review the request.
Mr. King then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, for the
Board to remand Case 06SN0189 to the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Humphrey stated diverse affordable housing is going to
be necessary in older neighborhoods. She further stated,
although the proposed development is exceptional, the
residents need additional time to have their concerns
addressed. She implored the Jefferson Davis Association to
work to address the prejudice of the citizens towards
affordable housing in the Jefferson Davis Corridor.
Mr. King called for a vote on his motion, seconded by Mr.
Miller, for the Board to remand Case 06SN0189 to the Planning
Commission.
Ayes: King, Miller, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
Abstain: Barber.
Mr. King requested a ten-minute recess.
Reconvening:
06SN0120
In Dale Magisterial District, CP COURTHOUSE LLC requests
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricultural (A) to Residential Townhouse (R-TH) with
Condi tional Use Planned Development to permi t exceptions to
Ordinance requirements. 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 light industrial and regional mixed uses.
This request lies on 116.0 acres fronting in two (2) places
for a total of approximately 650 feet on the east line of
Courthouse Road fronting approximately 1,970 feet on the west
line of Newbys Bridge Road and approximately 320 feet on the
south line of Burnett Drive. Tax IDs 754-676-4609 and 755-
677-2504 (Sheets 16 and 17).
Ms. Rogers presented a summary of Case 06SN0120 and stated
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests
for rezoning and waiver to street connectivity requirements,
indicating that the proposal represents a quality project and
the prohibi tion of road connection to Burnet t Drive would
minimize the traffic impact of the development on Burnett
Drive. She stated staff recommended denial of the rezoning
request because the proposed zoning and land uses do not
conform to the Central Area Plan, and residential development
would be an encroachment into an area designated for future
06-237
03/08/06
economic development.
opinion that standards
not been met.
She further stated it is staff's
for the waiver to connectivity have
Mr. John Cogbill, representing the applicant, introduced Mr.
Bill Slenker, Mr. Rick Saunders and Mr. Dave Saunders,
members of the Slenker Land Team who were present at the
meeting to request the Board's approval of the proposed
development, which has been in the works for over two years.
He stated, although a portion of the subject property lies
within the area designated by the Plan for light industrial,
another part is in the area designated for regional mixed-
use. He further stated t:he proposed development is
consistent with regional mixed-use, and if you slightly
expanded the area designated for regional mixed-use, the
entire property would be within that designation. He noted
there should be some flexibility with a Plan that is nine
years old. He stated Burnett Road is a prescriptive road with
only homes along its narro~r boundaries, and access is
restricted by preexisting development constraints, including
documented wetlands. He further stated the project, by its
design, already provides adequate access from two
intersections with the new arterial road to be developed by
Slenker Land, so that there would be no direct access from
this property onto Courthouse Road or Newbys Bridge Road. He
stated providing connectivi ty to Burnett Road would change
the character of this quiet, country road by adding
additional traffic.
Mr. Rick Saunders stated the proposed development provides
for an age restriction of 55 or better for one resident of
each unit and no permanent residents under the age of 19. He
further stated the proj ect will not impact county schools,
will generate less traffic, and will be a positive tax
generator. He provided details of the amenities and
archi tectural elements for the proposed development. He
noted the county" s population in excess of 55 is growing by
32% from 2005 to 2010, and there is no fully amenitized
active adult community in Chesterfield today. He stated the
subject property is surrounded by existing residential
communities and is not located within the flight zone of the
County Airport. He provided details of the fiscal impact of
the proposed development and compared daily vehicular trips
for light industrial use with those of the proposed
development. He stated the developer has agreed to extend
sewer from its existing terminus at the Airport Industrial
Park through five property owners to serve the subject
property, thus opening up additional properties for
development as light industrial. He further stated
Transportation staff supports the proposal, indicating that
the developer will provide improvements on Newbys Bridge Road
and Courthouse Road, as well as provide the first leg of the
east-west arterial road that will ultimately extend to
Whi tepine Road. He stated the developer has avoided the
wetlands by not connecting to Burnett Drive. He noted area
residents do not want a connection to Burnett Road, and
neither Transportation staff nor the Fire Department
requested the connection. He stated the proposed development
will include a mixture of single family homes, villa homes,
and luxury condominiums, indicating that there is wide
community support for the proposal.
Mr. King called for public comment.
06-238
03/08/06
-
Mr. Ira Crouch, a resident of 5801 Courthouse Road and part
owner of the subj ect property, stated the proposed
development will be a vital addition to the area and a more
preferable use than light industrial. He further stated he
has had no success in selling his property for light
industrial use because there is no market for light
industrial in the area. He stated he believes the proposal
will provide a greater tax revenue than any other use, and
requested the Board's approval.
Ms. Grace King, an owner of the subject property and resident
of 5821 Courthouse Road, stated she supports the rezoning
because she feels the proposed development would be more
suitable than an industrial zoned development.
Ms. Irene Eagles, an owner of the subject property, stated
she feels the project is the best use for the property.
Ms. Amber Cole, a resident of Newbys Bridge Road, stated she
agrees this is probably the best use for the property. She
expressed concerns that the access to the proposed
development will be just north of her driveway in the
vicinity of a blind curve and a hill, and she feels it would
better benefit the area if the road were located further
north on Newby's Bridge Road. She stated she is also
concerned about the proposed connection between Whitepine
Road and the new development, which would include her
property, indicating that she has no intention of selling or
developing the property. She suggested that the condominiums
proposed to back up to Newbys Bridge Road be moved further
within the development so that only single-family homes would
be seen, consistent with what is currently in the area.
Ms. Lydia Ballard, a resident of Creekwood Subdivision,
stated she supports the proposed development and does not
want the property developed as light industrial.
Mr. Ed DeGennaro, representing the Newbys Bridge Road Area
Coali tion, stated the county needs senior friendly housing.
He further stated the proposal provides for walking trails,
green space and open space. He stated, when you balance the
benefits of the proposed first-class development, he sees it
as a better use than light industrial, noting that the
ci tizens in his neighborhood do not want light industrial
development. He further stated approval of the project will
set the architectural tone for this stretch of Newbys Bridge
Road.
-
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. DeGennaro stated
the overwhelming majority and leadership team of the Newbys
Bridge Area Coalition supports the project and sees it as a
focal point for future development.
Mr. Dave Kochheiser, representing Southside Nazarene Church,
stated he supports the rezoning and feels it is an
appropriate use of the property.
Mr. Dennis Pace, a resident of Celestial Lane, stated he
supports the project and believes it will set a very vital
tone for the future of the area.
06-239
03/08/06
Mr. Charles Greenburg, representing the property owners
immediately south of the subject property, stated the
proposed road improvements and utilities will jump start the
entire area economically and make it easier to develop. He
further stated there is enough industrial zoned property in
the county to meet the demands for many years, indicating
that the adjoining property owners support the proposed
development.
Ms. Joan woodcock-Valente requested the Board's approval of
the proposed development, indicating that it will be an asset
to the community.
Mr. John Cole, a property owner on Newbys Bridge Road, stated
he supports the proposed development.
There being no one else to speak to the request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. John Cogbill stated he believes vehicular traffic will
avoid the area Ms. Cole was concerned about. He further
stated the applicant has moved the condominiums further back
into the development and increased landscaping to address
aesthetic concerns. He noted the Central Area Plan is a guide
that is in need of updatin9. He stated the proposed
development represents a great use for the subject property.
In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. McCracken stated he
is satisfied wit.h the road improvements proposed by the
developer.
In response to Mr. Miller's question, Ms. Rogers confirmed
that the property is not located within the typical flight
pattern of the County Airport.
Mr. Miller stated, when the Central Area Plan was formulated,
this property was designated as light industrial to protect
and enhance the area around the airport. He further stated
the proposed transportation enhancements will improve the
area, and the sewer easements will provide assistance for
future development. He expressed concerns relati ve to
deviating from the Plan, but indicated he has had nothing but
support from area residents. He stated he believes the
developer will provide a first-class project, and he is proud
to have it in the Dale District.. He further stated, although
the proposal represents an infringement into the outside
portion of the area designated for light industrial, it will
complement future regional mixed uses, and he sees it as an
economic plus to the county.
Mrs. Humphrey stated she never thought this property was
destined for light industrial. She further stated the project
will enhance the area much more than a light industrial
project would. She requested that t.he proposed access be
realigned during the site planning process so as to not
interfere with Ms. Cole's visibility when accessing her
property.
Mr. Miller stated, until a determination is made that light
industrial is no longer appropriate for the area, he does not
intend to make this case a precedent for other projects,
indicating that he intends to look at every proposal
individually, in terms of quality development.
06-240
03/08/06
Mr. Miller then made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, for
the Board to approve Case 06SN0120.
Mr. King stated he lives in an age-restricted community and
agrees with the applicant that there is an incredible need in
the county for projects such as this.
-
Mr. King then called for a vote on the motion of Mr. Miller,
seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, for the Board to approve Case
06SN0120 and accept the following proffered conditions:
The Developer (the "Developer") in this zoning case, pursuant
to ~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
Numbers 755-677-2504 and 754-676-4609 (the "Property") under
consideration will be developed according to the following
conditions if, and only if, the rezoning request for R-TH
with Conditional Use Planned Development 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.
1. Master Plan. The Textual Statement dated November 30,
2005 and the Zoning Plan prepared by Timmons Group dated
July 22, 2005 (the "Zoning Plan") shall be considered
the Master Plan. (P)
;~
2. Number of Dwellings. The maximum number of dwellings to
be permitted on the Property shall be five hundred and
twenty five (525). A minimum of one hundred (100)
Cluster Residential dwellings and a minimum of one
hundred (100) Townhouses, as defined in the Textual
Statement, shall be provided within the development and
a maximum of two hundred and twenty five (225) Multi-
family Condo dwellings, as defined in the Textual
Statement, shall be provided within the development. No
more than one hundred and twenty five (125) building
permit applications shall be submitted for Multi-family
Condo dwellings until one hundred (100) building permits
have been issued for Cluster Residential dwellings
and/or Townhouses. (P)
3. Utilities. Public water and wastewater systems shall be
used. (U)
4.
Timbering. With the exception of timbering that 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)
-
5. Age Restriction. Except as otherwise prohibited by the
Virginia Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Act,
and such other applicable federal, state, or local legal
requirements, dwelling units shall be restricted to
"housing for older persons" as defined in the Virginia
06-241
03/08/06
Fair Housing Law and no persons under 19 years of age
shall reside therein. (P)
6. Cash Proffer. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s)
shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield
prior to the issuance of a building permit for each
dwelling unit for infrastructure improvements within the
service district for the Property:
a.
$10,269 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July
2006. At the time of payment, the $10,269 will
allocated pro-rata among the facility costs
follows: $602 for parks and recreation, $348
library facilities, $8,915 for roads, and $404
fire stations; or
1,
be
as
for
for
b. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not
to exceed $10,269 per dwelling unit prorated as set
forth above and adjusted upward by any increase in
the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between
July 1, 2005 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which
the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2006.
c. At the option of the Transportation Department, the
cash proffer payment may be reduced for road
improvements by an amount not to exceed the amount
that would be paid in cash proffers for the road
component as identified in Proffered Conditions 6.
(a) above, exclusive of those road improvements
identified in Proffered Condition 14, performed by
the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s), as
determined by the Transportation Department.
d. Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the
purposes proffered or as otherwise permitted by
law. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees
at any time during the life of the development that
are applicable to the Property, the amount paid in
cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited
toward, but not in addition to, any impact fees, in
a manne!r as determinE~d by the county. (B&M)
7. Stormwater Management. The developer shall provide
onsite retention, culvert improvements in Newbys Bridge
Road, or a combination of both in order to provide
drainage capacity across Newbys Bridge Road that meets
State criteria. Al ternative stormwater measures may be
approved by the Director of Environmental Engineering at
the time of subdivision or site plan submission if shown
that these measures provide adequate protection of the
road crossing. (EE)
8. Buffers and Screening.
a. All required buffers shall be located within
recorded open space.
b. A decorative screening fence a minimum of six (6)
feet in height shall be installed along the
perimeter of the residential portions of the
Property where the Property does not abut a public
road; provided that, in lieu of the screening fence
the developer may elect in some areas to protect
06-242
03/08/06
,.........
10.
11.
-
and preserve a twenty (20) foot wide perimeter tree
preservation buffer. No trees that are six (6)
inches in caliper or greater shall be cut down
within any tree preservation area; provided that,
dead trees or diseased trees may be removed and
landscaping, screening, signs, security fencing,
utilities and roads which generally shall run
perpendicular through the buffer, and pedestrian
walkways may be permitted within any tree
preservation buffer through subdivision or site
plan review. (P)
9.
Foundations. All exposed portions of front and side
foundations and exposed piers supporting front porches
of each dwelling unit shall be faced with brick, stone
veneer, stucco, or exterior insulation and finishing
systems (EIFS) materials. (P)
Building Design, Materials, Orientation. Building
designs wi thin the development shall be compatible in
architectural style to the clubhouse design shown on
Exhibit A. The dwelling units and the clubhouse shall
be constructed with materials such as brick or stone
veneer; composition, hardiplank, or premium grade vinyl
siding. All dwelling units shall be oriented towards an
internal road network within the development, away from
Newbys Bridge and Courthouse Roads. (P)
Dedications of Right-of-Way. In conjunction with the
recordation of the ini tial subdivision plat, prior to
any site plan approval, or no earlier than one (1) year
from the date of approval of this rezoning request by
the Board of Supervisors and within sixty (60) days from
a written request by the Transportation Department,
whichever occurs first, the following rights-of-way
shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for
the benefit of Chesterfield County:
a. A ninety (90) foot wide right-of-way for the
east/west major arterial (the "East/West Arterial")
based on VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH)
standards with modifications approved by the
Transportation Department from Newbys Bridge Road
through the southern part of the Property to
Courthouse Road. The alignment of this right-of-
way shall be as generally located as shown on the
Master Plan. The exact location of this right-of-
way shall be approved by the Transportation
Department.
b.
Forty-five
side of
centerline
immediately
(45) feet of right-of-way on the
Newbys Bridge Road measured from
of that part of Newbys Bridge
adjacent to the Property. (T)
west
the
Road
12. Public Streets. All streets that accommodate general
traffic circulation through the development, as
determined by the Transportation Department, shall be
designed and constructed to VDOT standards and taken
into the State System. (T)
06-243
03/08/06
13. Vehicular Access.
a.
Vehicular access to Tracts A and B, as identified
on the zoning Plan, from the East/West Arterial
shall be limited to two (2) public roads. One of
these public road accesses (the "Main Entrance")
shall be generally located on the East/West
Arterial approximately midway between Courthouse
and Newbys Bridge Roads. The other public road
access shall be generally located on the East/West
Arterial approximately midway between the Main
Entrance and Newbys Bridge Road. (T)
b.
Vehicular access to Tract Cl, as identified on the
zoning Plan, from the East/West Arterial shall be
located approximately midway between Courthouse
Road and the Main Entrance. This access shall be
limited to right turns-in/right turns-out only.
c.
There shall be no direct vehicular access to Tract
C2, as identified on the zoning Plan, from the
East/West Arterial.
d.
The only vehicular access to Courthouse Road
the Property shall be the East/West Arterial.
only vehicular access to Newbys Bridge Road
the Property shall be the East/West Arterial.
from
The
from
e. No direct vehicular access shall be provided from
the Property to BurnE~t t Drive.
f.
The exact location of all vehicular accesses shall
be approved by the Transportation Department. (T)
---'
14. Road Improvements. To provide an adequate roadway
system at the time of complete development, the
Developer shall be responsible for the following
improvements. If any of these improvements are provided
by others, then the specific improvement shall no longer
be re~~ired by the Developer, as determined by the
Transportation Department:
a. Construction of two (2) lanes of the East/West
Arterial, to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial (50 MPH)
standards with modifications by the Transportation
Department, from Courthouse Road to Newbys Bridge
Road.
b. Construction of a raised median wi thin the
East/West Arterial from Courthouse Road to
approximately two hundred (200) feet east of the
access to the Tract Cl, as identified in Proffered
Condi tion 13. b. The exact design and length of
this improvement shall be approved by the
Transportation Department.
c. Construction of additional pavement along the
East/West Arterial at each approved access to the
Property to provide left and/or right turn lanes,
if warranted, based on Transportation Department
standards.
06-244
03/08/06
d. Construction of additional pavement along Newbys
Bridge Road at the East/West Arterial intersection
to provide left and right turn lanes, if warranted,
based on Transportation Department standards.
e. Construction of addi tional pavement along
Courthouse Road at the East/West Arterial
intersection to provide a right turn lane.
f. Construction of a three (3) lane typical section
for the East/West Arterial at the Courthouse Road
and at the Newbys Bridge Road intersections. The
exact length of these improvements shall be
approved by the Transportation Department.
g. Full cost of traffic signalization at the
intersection of Courthouse Road and the East/West
Arterial, if warranted as determined by the
Transportation Department. The responsibility of
the developer for the cost of traffic signalization
at this intersection shall terminate ninety (90)
days after full development of the Property, as
determined by the Transportation Department.
h. Widening/improving the west side of Newbys Bridge
Road to an eleven (11) foot wide travel lane,
measured from the centerline of the existing
pavement with an additional one (1) foot wide paved
shoulder plus a seven (7) foot wide unpaved
shoulder and overlaying the full width of Newbys
Bridge Road with one and one-half (1.5) inch of
compacted bituminous asphalt concrete, with
modifications approved by the Transportation
Department, for the entire Property frontage.
i. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, of any additional right-of-way (or
easements) required for the improvements identified
herein. In the event the Developer is unable to
acquire the right-of-way necessary for the road
improvements as described, the Developer may
request, in wri ting, 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 Developer. 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 provide the road improvement that can be
accommodated within available right-of-way as
determined by the Transportation Department. (T)
-
15. Transportation Phasing Plan. Prior to site plan
approval or tentative subdivision plat approval, which
ever occurs first, a phasing plan for the required road
improvements, as identified in Proffered Condition 14
shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department. The approved phasing plan shall require
construction of the road improvements, as described in
the Proffered Condition 14. (a), (d), (e), (f), and (h)
with initial development on the Property. (T)
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
06-245
03/08/06
Mr. Miller then made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, for
the Board to approve the request for waiver to connectivity
in Case 06SN120.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
16.A. TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2006 PROCEDURES OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO PROVIDE FOR A CITIZEN
COMMENT PERIOD AT BOARD MEETINGS
Mr. Ramsey stated the Board continued the February 22, 2006
public hearing to consider amendments to the 2006 Procedures
of the Board of Supervisors to provide for a citizen comment
period at Board meetings until this date and time. He further
stated he is recommending the addition of a 30-minute time
period at end of the evening agenda for citizen comment to
items not on that day's agenda; that speakers be limited to 5
minutes each; and that citizens must notify the Clerk by 5
p.m. the day before the Board meeting of their intent to
speak.
Mr. King called for public comment.
Mr. Bob Herndon stated he supports the proposed amendments
and believes they are a step in the right direction. He
further stated he supports both reduction of the notification
period and removal of the administrative screening of
speakers. He encouraged the Board to move the public comment
period forward on the agenda and send a clear statement to
the citizens regarding the importance of public comment. He
expressed concerns that citizens perceive a lack of interest
by the Board in receiving public input and encouraged the
Board to make note of the perception and incorporate it in
the implementation of the citizen comment policy.
-'
Ms. Cathy Kirk stated the proposed amendments can only alter
the structure of the public hearing, as the judgment of the
chairman will det.ermine the actions necessary to order the
public hearings. She urged Board members to focus on
speakers' public concerns and avoid temptations to react to
personalities or perceived political agendas. She requested
that Board members tolerate a person's right to publicly
disagree and criticize their judgment and actions as public
servants, indicat.ing that such comments are protected as
freedoms of speech. She expressed concerns that there has
never been an investigation regarding the incident where she
forced to leave the meeting room, and then later the
building, several months ago, and inquired how the new
procedures will prevent the abuse of power she encountered.
She inquired whether the Board condones threats of force by
the sergeant at arms to remove peaceful speakers once they
have exited the meeting room, and recommended that the Board
consider this in addition to the proposed procedural
amendments, which will have no impact on an event like she
encountered. She stated she has come to realize that the
public podium is useless in directing change in county
government and challenged the Board to do more and correct
06-246
03/08/06
the perception that the Board is not open enough to its
citizens.
-
Mr. Mike Kirk stated citizens have a basic right to speak to
the Board of Supervisors. He further stated the order of the
meeting is the prerogative of the chairman, but the authority
of order does not extend beyond the doors of the Public
Meeting Room. He stated an apology is long overdue to his
wife, Cathy, for the extreme inappropriate judgment that was
exercised when she was forced to leave the building following
a public hearing. He further stated no one should fear
harassment or retaliation from speaking at the podium, and
provisions should be put into place to make sure this does
not happen again.
Mr. King requested that Mr. Ramsey look into the allegations
surrounding Ms. Kirk being asked to leave the building.
Mr. Barber stated when Ms. Kirk finished her comments and was
headed back to her seat, the deputy pointed to the door and
she walked into the hallway. He further stated, after
business was concluded and the meeting adjourned, the
deputies' responsibility is to clear the building, indicating
that Ms. Kirk was not asked to leave the building because of
her remarks at the podium, but because the meeting had
adjourned and the building was empty. He stated the deputy
was unaware that Ms. Kirk's ride had lingered in the room
talking wi th a Board member when he asked her to exi t the
building, as he does to everyone at the end of every meeting.
-
Mr. Kirk requested that Mr. King continue looking into the
incident.
Mr. Warren stated he appreciates Mr. King having the County
Administrator look into the events that occurred when Ms.
Kirk was asked to leave the building.
Mr. King stated this is the first time he recalls hearing
anything about misconduct regarding the incident.
Mr. Miller stated, under no circumstances, should anyone ever
be removed from a building unless they are exercising out of
control behavior and breaching the public peace.
-
Mr. C. L. Morrissette, Jr. stated he has researched the law
and Board members cannot stop citizens from voicing their
opinions. He further stated he believes the public comment
period should be somewhere between 7 and 9 p.m. to allow
students and others an opportunity to speak at a reasonable
time. He expressed concerns relative to public hearings that
go past 10 p.m., indicating that additional meeting dates
need to be added to address this issue. He stated the
proposed amendments are a step in the right direction and
suggested that the Board hire a parliamentarian to determine
whether meetings are being conducted properly.
Mr. Mike Harton, a resident of the Midlothian District,
commended the Board for providing a time for citizens to air
concerns that are not on the agenda. He requested that
ci tizens not be required to submit their topic in advance.
He stated placing a public comment period at the end of the
agenda suggests something about the importance placed on
public comment. He expressed concerns relative to a Planning
06-247
03/08/06
Commission meeting, where he was asked to leave the podium
although his comments were relating to deferral at hand, and
noted he would have reserved his comments for a public
comment time had one been available. He suggested that the
public comment time be scheduled somewhere in the middle of
the Board's agenda. He stated he agrees with Mr. Miller that
there should never be a reason to force someone to leave the
building, and he believes the Board owes Mr. and Mrs. Kirk an
apology.
Ms. Marleen Durfee stated she hopes the citizen comment
period will allow citizens the flexibility to speak with
specific rules and guidelines set forth by the county,
without having their freedom of speech stifled. She further
stated the problem does not entirely rest with the Board's
procedures. She stated t.here is a current perception that
citizens have been treated unfairly and have not been
welcomed nor heard by the administration. She further stated
the Board's treatment of citizens has been deplorable, and
she is disturbed that the trust between the county's
leadership and its citizens is broken. She stated the
Board's procedures include a reasonable list of things that
citizens are not allowed to do, indicating that at no time
should a Board member interrupt a speaker unless they do not
follow what is on the list. She further stated, although she
has never violated anything on the list, she has been rudely
interrupted by members of both the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors. She stated Board members should
not comment about a citizen's comments after they leave the
podium. She furt.her stated Board members should not publicly
try to discredit ci tizens or organizations, indicating that
the Task Force for Responsible Growth is owed an apology by
Board members for asking why they were not present to address
an issue. She recommended that the Board hire a consultant
or have Mr. Ramsey schedule a training session for members of
the Planning Commission, School Board and Board of
Supervisors regarding the treatment of citizens at public
hearings. She st:ated citizens are the county's most valuable
resource, yet the Board has not embraced them that way.
She further stated she hopes she will no longer be subjected
to what she has been subjected to in the past, and that the
Board will understand that differing opinions offer something
for them to be in a position to make better decisions for the
future of the county.
.-".....,
Mrs. Humphrey stated she is interested in Ms. Durfee's input
regarding Ms. Stewart'. s suggestion at the February 22nd
public hearing for consistency among the School Board,
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors' procedures
regarding public comment.
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Ms. Durfee stated Ms.
Kirk has accurately presented the facts regarding the night
she was asked to leave the building, indicating there is a
witness who was sitting beside Ms. Kirk that was not asked to
leave the building. She stated she recommends an
investigation into the incident. She further stated she is
appalled that citizens have brought their knowledge to the
Board to give them information that would be helpful in
making decisions, only to see it dismissed by the Board.
Ms. Andrea Epps stated there are many ways for the Board to
look at the timing of a citizen comment period to ensure
06-248
03/08/06
fairness for all concerned, and commended the Board for its
willingness to change its policy regarding public comment.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public
hearing was closed.
-
Mr. Barber suggested that Board members look at the proposed
amendments, consider the public input and share what they
think might be appropriate with Mr. Ramsey, then have an
agenda item at the next meeting incorporating some of the
suggestions.
Mr. King requested that Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Micas poll
individual Board members and ask for their recommendations.
He stated Richmond, Henrico and other jurisdictions use a
timer light system to insure equality of speaking time and
requested that Board members be polled as to whether they
support such a system.
Mr. Miller stated he believes citizens can strongly advocate
positions without screaming out from the rear of the meeting
room and without refusing to take their seat after several
reasonable requests. He further stated he cannot conceive of
going into a court of law and utilize personal criticism in
attempting to persuade the judge of his client's cause. He
stated he does not blame citizens for having strong
positions, but believes they can advocate strongly and still
maintain a degree of civility.
Mr. King made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barber, for the Board
to defer consideration of amendments to the 2006 Procedures
of the Board of Supervisors to provide for a citizen comment
period until March 22, 2006.
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Ramsey stated he
will provide the Board with a written report as soon as
possible regarding the investigation of the incident
involving Ms. Kirk.
Mr. King called for a vote on his motion, seconded by Mr.
Barber, for the Board to defer consideration of amendments to
the 2006 Procedures of the Board of Supervisors to provide
for a citizen comment period until March 22, 2006.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
On motion of Mr. Miller,
suspended its rules to
items after 11:00 p.m.
seconded by Mr. Barber,
allow for consideration
the Board
of agenda
-
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
16.B. TO CONSIDBR AN ORDINANCB TO VACATB AN EIGHT-FOOT
EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 9, WESTBURY, SECTION 2
Mr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing for the Board to consider an ordinance to
vacate an 8-foot easement across Lot 9, Westbury, Section 2.
06-249
03/08/06
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the ordinance.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to LEONARD E. ADDAMS
and MARNIE E. ADDAMS, ( "GRANTEE" ), an 8' easement
across Lot 9, Westbury r Section 2, MATOACA
Magisterial District, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County in Plat Book 87, at Page 88.
WHEREAS, LEONARD E. ADDAMS, petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County I Virginia to vacate an 8'
easement across Lot 9, Westbury, Section 2, MATOACA
Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more
particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 87, Page 88,
by BALZER & ASSOCIATES, INC., dated MAY 1, 1996. The
easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as
follows:
An 8' easemEmt, across Lot 9, Westbury, Section 2,
the location of which is more fully shown on a plat
made by BALZER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., dated DECEMBER
27, 1999, a copy of which i!:; attached hereto and
made a part of this Ordinance.
WHEREAS, not~ice has been given pursuant to Section 15.2-
2204 of the Code of Virginia,. 1950, as amended, by
advertising; and
.-,
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance
of the easement sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIEI,D COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid easement be and is
hereby vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant
to Section 15.2-2276 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2-
2274 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of
the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest
fee simple title of the easement hereby vacated in the
property owners of Lot 9, within Westbury, Section 2 free and
clear of any rights of public use.
06-250
03/08/06
Accordingly, this
names of the COUNTY OF
E. ADDAMS and MARNIE E.
as GRANTEE.
Ordinance shall be indexed in the
CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and LEONARD
ADDAMS, or their successors in title,
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
16.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A TEN-FOOT EASEMENT
ACROSS LOT 21, BLOCK F, CRESTWooD FARMS, SECT:r:ON B
Mr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for
the Board to consider an ordinance to vacate a 10-foot
easement across Lot 21, Block F, Crestwood Farms, Section B.
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the ordinance.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to DANIEL A. GECKER
and ELIZABETH A. GIBBS, (husband and wife),
("GRANTEE"), a portion of a 10' easement across Lot
21, Block F, Crestwood Farms, Section B, MIDLOTHIAN
Magisterial District, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County in Plat Book 8, at Page 207.
WHEREAS, DANIEL A. GECKER and ELIZABETH A. GIBBS,
petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia to vacate a portion of a 10' easement across Lot 21,
Block F, Crestwood Farms, Section B, MIDLOTHIAN Magisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly
shown on a plat of record in the Clerk I s Office of the
Circui t Court of said County in Plat Book 8, Page 207, by
JOHN H. FOSTER, dated NOVEMBER 20, 1952, and recorded
NOVEMBER 24, 1952. The portion of easement petitioned to be
vacated is more fully described as follows:
A portion of a 10' easement, across Lot 21, Block
F, Crestwood Farms, Section B, the location of
which is more fully shown on a sketch attached
hereto and made a part of this Ordinance.
.-
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.2-
2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by
advertising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance
of the portion of easement sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of easement
be and is hereby vacated.
06-251
03/08/06
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended" and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirt:y days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant
to Section 15.2 --227 6 of the ~02.~._...2J Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2-
2274 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of
the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest
fee simple title of the portion of easement hereby vacated in
the property owners of Lot 21, Block F, within Crestwood
Farms, Section B free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the
names of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and DANIEL A.
GECKER and ELIZABETH A. GIBBS, (husband and wife), or their
successors in title, as GRANTEE.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
16.D. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A
TWENTY-FOOT SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 34, MALLORY
VILLAGE SECTION A AT CHARTER COLONY
Mr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing for the Board to consider an ordinance to
vacate a portion of a 20-foot sewc~r easement across Lot 34,
Mallory Village Section A at Charter Colony.
-'
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the ordinance.
On motion of Mrs ,. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to STEPHEN C.
THOMPSON, JR. and DAVID S. RYDER, ( "GRANTEE" ), a
portion of a 20' sewer easement across Lot 34,
Mallory Village Section A at Charter Colony,
MATOACA Magisterial District, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County in Plat Book 144, at Page 85.
WHEREAS I STEPHEN C. THOMPSON, JR. and DAVID S. RYDER,
petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia to vacate a portion of a 20' sewer easement across
Lot 34, Mallory Village Section A at Charter Colony, MATOACA
Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more
particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of said County in plat Book 144, Page
85, by YOUNGBLOOD, TYLER & ASSOCIATESl P.C., dated OCTOBER 8,
2003, and recorded JUNE 16, 2004. The portion of easement
petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows:
06-252
03/08/06
A portion of a 20' sewer easement, across Lot 34,
Mallory Village Section A at Charter Colony, the
location of which is more fully shown on a plat
made by YOUNGBLOOD, TYLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., dated
DECEMBER 2, 2005, and revised JANUARY 18, 2005, a
copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of
this Ordinance.
-
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.2-
2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by
advertising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance
of the portion of easement sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of easement
be and is hereby vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk I s Office of
the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant
to Section 15.2-2276 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2-
2274 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of
the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest
fee simple title of the portion of easement hereby vacated in
the property owners of Lot 34, Mallory Village Section A at
Charter Colony free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the
names of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and STEPHEN
C. THOMPSON, JR. and DAVID S. RYDER, or their successors in
title, as GRANTEE.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
16. E. TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATION OF INTEREST EARNED FROM
THE CHESTERFIELD/APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY
(ARWA) "WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT FUND"
TO PAY PROJECT RELATED COSTS
-'...-..
Mr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing for the Board to consider the appropriation of
interest earned from the "Chesterfield/Appomattox River Water
Authori ty Water Treatment Plant Expansion proj ect Fund" to
pay project related costs.
Mr. King called for public comment.
No one came forward to speak to the issue.
06-253
03/08/06
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
appropriated $778,500 of interest earned from the
"Chesterfield/Appomattox River Water Authority Treatment
Plant Expansion Project Fund" (the Escrow Fund) to supplement
project funds to pay project related costs.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
17. REMAINING MOBILE HOME PERMITS AND ZONING REQUESTS
There were no remaining requests for mobile home permits or
rezoning at this time.
18. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. King, the Board
adjourned at 11:32 p.m. until March 22, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.
Ayes: King, Miller, Barber, Humphrey and Warren.
Nays: None.
'-
(~, 1/ Q
Lane B, Ramsey ~
County Administrator
R. M. "D~~~",,',,"o'*i:nh i r .
Chairman
06-254
03/08/06