10-28-81 MinutesBOARD OF SUP~RVT~QRS
MIN~T~
October 28, 1981
~upervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Ratty ~. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. R. ~arlend Dodd, Vice Chairman
~ir. ~. Lo Bookman
Mr. E. Merlin O'Neill, $r.
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Dir. of Plannin~
Chief Robert ~n~, Fire
Department
~4r. James Gillentine,
Nursing ~ome Admin.
Mr. Zlm~r Eed~e, Asst.
County Administrator
Ms. Gene Enoop, Dir. of
Mr. Richard McElfi~h,
Environmental Engineer
Mr. steve Mi=as, County'
A~aorney
~r. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir.
of Community Develop.
~. Robert ~aiuter, Dir.
of Utilities
Mir. Lane Ramsay, Dir. of
B~dgut and A~Go~tinq
It is noted that the Board meeting originally scheduled for ~O
a.m. this date wa~ reseheduled fur 10~00 a.m.
Mr. Daniel called the maetin~ to order at the Courthouse at 10:05
a.m. (EST).
Mr. Dodd gave the invoeatien,
On motxon of ~rs. Girone, seconded ~y Mr. Bookma~ the Board
approved the minutes of October I4, 1981, as a~ended.
AyeS: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, ~4r. BOo,an aa~ Mrs. Girone.
Mr. ~edrick introduced Chief ~anes who stated that as a re~ult
a recent survey hy the Insurance Servicea Office, ~ha County had
been reclausified to a class "5" which would decrease the f~re
zneurance rates in the County effective January 1, 1982 for
oommerclal/buslne~s properties. He ~teted, for example, a
g~Ocery store in Matoaoa assessed at $75,000 paying $945 in
znsurance last year would pay $697 er 26% less this year. He
stated a business in Midlothian assessed at $85,8~0 paying $1,08I
zn insurance last year would pay $1,062 or 10~ less this year.
~e ~tated the rating change was due to improvements mede by
improving water pressures in areas and the effective fire
apparatus in operation in the County all of which was approved by
the Board Of Supervisors. He added further that the County ~o~ld
request another Survey within 18-~4 ~Onths which should result in
a ~etter classification.
regarding this matter. Chief Eanes stated a press conference was
scheduled for 12~00 nOOn this ~ate.
~r. Hedrlck stated that two fibergla~s map~ of the Courthouse
Complex would be in,tailed in the near future on the Route 10
side and also ~n the north side of the new Administration
Building which will be helDful to citizens, indleatin~ the en~ir~
eO~plex as well as Bird School and ~he par~
Mr. O'Neill joined the meeting.
On motion of =he Board, the following resolution was adopted:
whereas, No Americans have done more to win and protect the
peace and ~eserve the fr~edo~ cf the worl~ than the m~n and
w~men of oar Armed Forces, ~ast and present; and
Whereas, Veterans Day affords us the opportunity to join
with our Other fellow citizens across the Ma%ion in henorinq
=hose men and women who have so faithfully serve~ this Nation in
upholding the ideals upon which the Nation is founded; and
of the Commonwealth have proclaimed Veterans Day as the day set
Now, Therefore, ~e It Re~olved ~y the Board o~ Supervisors
the Ar~ed FOrces who gave their all for freedom.
V0te~ Ueunimous
Mr. Medrick stated that after considering the organization of the
County Departments, he wo~ld like the Board to a~=ove the
establishment of a ~ivision of Human Services. He staked that
tki~ would construct clear lines of co~unica~ion, aeeonntabilit~
end responsibility. Mr. Daniel inquired if this ~uld
additional 9os~tion. ~. Hedrick mtat~d this position would tak~
the place oi the A~siskan% County A~inistrator position which h~
vacated. He stated there ~uld be o~ Assistan~ County
A~inistra%or for the Division Of Management Se~ice~ ~d
o~her dlvision~, that of ~an Su~ces and Co~unlty
Development. ~s. Girone stated she tad received several calls
inquirinq if thi~ wore an addltional position. She a~a=ed that
and a~ long as it di~ nde oreate additional bureaucracy. After
further dlsc~ssion, it was o~ mo~i~ cf ~. Dodd, seconded by
O'Neill, resolved that the followinq divisions be and he~eby are
msta~li~hed~
Division of HumaQ Services'
Department of Social Services
Department of Mental Health/
Mental Retardation
Office of Youth Services
County Nursiag ~me
Division O~ Management Services
Dept. of Sudget and Accounting
Dept. of I~ternai Audit
Office of County Assessor
Divisipn of Co--unity Development
Department of Planning
Dept. of ~nvironmental
Engineerinq
Vote: Unanimous
Dapartmgnt of Public H~alth
Dept. of Pa~ks & R~creation
Dept. of Library Services.
J~venile Detention ~ume
Co~ty Extension Service
Dap=. of Data Processing
Dept. of Purcha$inq
Office of County License
Dept. of Building Inspection
Officm of County
Construction ¢oor~ina=er
81-479
l~r. Giltentine stated that ha would like %o advisB tho Board
~he financial situation of the County ~Iurs~ng Home. He stated
that the e×pen~e~ for !980-81 exceeded ~he budget by
appro×imately $78,000 which was caused by 7Q positions being
rsgraded as part of a County salary survey~ the ~oet of living
increase was 2%% more =hen anticipated; that utility costs were
higher~ employee benefits were higher~ the ~ncrease of ~alary for
the licensed nursing positions; and the Medicaid reimbursements
for reasonable operating costs w~re less. He ~tated that th~
higher patient rates at the Nursin~ Home did not guarantee that
all costs were recoverable through the programs.
5ir. ~dge stated ~ha% the bond attorney~ had recommended that the
Boasd authorize the deletion Of the a~ministrative charges to the
Nursing Home and that a modification to the definition of net
incom~ in the bond indenture be approved. Mr. Book,Tan questioned
the deletion of administrative charges to other departments as he
that there could be a loss of $~O,0OO in the next fiscal yea~ but
this was the best way to proceed after inve~bigatlng all other
alternatives. He stated furthe~ that th~ County carrys 128% of
revenue over the expenditures as required by the bond and the 20%
earn~ interest and is used for oapitml e~penditur~. Mr. Book, an
~tat=d he ~alt there should be a better financial Dian.
Mr. Ramsey atat~d the COunty will not necessarily lose the
S20,000 in Nedicaid as in 1980-81 there was a cap and the County
will receive this ~on~y. ~e stated ~kgt the base will have to be
reduced for 1981-82, He stated that if the e~pemses are greeter
then the ba~e, we would lose money, but they will try to eperat~
within the cap guidelinee and funds will not be los%.
Girone and Mr. Daniel, as members of the Audit COmmittee, stated
they had reviewed this matter an~ that there were no ideal
~olutions, but ~his was feet to be the best way in which to
proceed. 5ir. Bookrman inquired if ~he bond were floating. Mr.
~odge stated it was fixed at S% in~erest which w~s felt to be
v~ry good and that until the funding ~o~ula was changed~ the
Nursing Home WaS in good shape. Mr. Boo,an asked tha~ the staff
continuously r=vi~w this situation to make s~e we are doing the
beet financial planning, and especially if the County loses
money.
On mo=ion of MrS. Girone, seconded by ~. Bookman, the ~Qard
authorized the deletion of administratime charges to the Nursing
HO~ in the amount Of $L9~937 for fiscal year
Vote: Unanimous
adopted =he following resolution:
~SOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST
INDE~U~ OF TRUST ~ETWE~N C~ESTE~I~LD COWRY AND
CENT~ EZDELITY B~K, N~A.~ DATED AS OF ~LY 15, 1977,
IN CONNECTION WITM T~I COU~y~ $1,300,000 ~RSING FACILITY
GROSS ~VENUE BONDS, SERIES 0F 1977
whereas~ pursuant %o an Indenture of Trust (=he indenture)
with Central ~idelity Sank, N.A., fo~erly Central National Bank
of Hic~ond, a~ Trust~ (the Trustee), dated as of July 15, 1977,
Chesterfield County, Virginia (the COUnty), issu~ its $1,300,000
~ur~ing Eacitity Gro~s Revenue Bond, Surles of 1977 (th~
to financ~ the co~t of acq=iring, constructing and equipping an
~ereas, the County has dete~ined, with consent to
2rustee, to amend the Indenture to revise the definition of '~Net
~ncoms" set forth therein; and
Wherea~, there ha~ be~n presented ~o thi~ meeting the fo~
Df a F~rst S~pplemental Indenture o~ T~t between the County and
th~ Trustee, d~ted as of Nove~r 1, 1981, (the First
amending the Indenture appropriately, a copy of which is attach~d
as Exhibit A~
Be It Resolved by the Eoar~ of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, Viryinia~
1. The Chairman of the Board Of eupervisor~ is hereby
authorized and directed to e~ecute the First
Supplemental In.denture and to deliver it to the
Trustee.
~he First 6upplementel Indenture shall be in
substantially the form of Exhibit A, which is hereby
approved, with s~ch completions, omissions, insertions
may be approved by the officer executing i~ and by the
County Attorney, the execution by such officer to
constltut~ eonelusive evidence o~ such approvals,
3. All resolutions or parts of resolution~ in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
~. This resolution shall take effect ~mmediately.
The undersigned Clerk of Chesterfield County, Virginia,
hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and
¢orrec~ extract from the minutes of a regular ma~ing of the
Board of Supervisors held On the 25=h day of October, 1981, and
of the whole thereof so far am applicabl~ to the matters referred
to in such mxtract.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~r. Bookman, seconded by
i. Approved and authorized the County A~ministrator to accept on
behal= o~ the County a grant from th= State Fire Services in
the amount of $~,050 which is %0 pay one-half o~ the co~t of
a pump simulator.
2. Approprlat~d ~300,~00 in r~ven~e an~ expenditures from the
Stat~ for the 1981-82 Fuel A~sistance Program, Social
Services.
Vote: Unanimous
on motion o~ Mr. Dodd, seconded by ~rs. GirthS, the ~oard
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for a Cooperative library agreement with the
Appomattox Reqlonal Library as follows:
1. Formalize a 30 month Contract w%~h the Appomattox Regional
Library to be signed by the County Administrator ~pon
approval by the County Attorney.
2. Donate tho bookmobile to the Appomattox Regional Library.
3. Establish a cooperative data processing agreement ~ith
Appomattox fo~ uSuge of the County Library Svu~em.
It is noted that this agreement should commence about December 1,
Vote~ Unanimou~
The BOard ~xpres~ed their appreciation for ~he ccoperation'~iven
by ~{r. Nelson Worlev~ Director, and the Aopomatto~ Regional
Library Board. ' ~
On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Dudd, the Board
r~spactfully requests the Judges of Cirouft Court to appoint
following people as Police Officers for th~ County of
chesterfield, effective November 23, 1981:
Elizabeth Ann Coleman
Mark Kenneth ~eymour
Dale Thomas Dew
Michael D. Mash
~tephen A. Mann
Vote: Unanimous
Ken~all Lee White
Donald Luke Flexon, Jr.
Linwocd Cecil Arrington
Cheste~ Franklin Smith, Jr.
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from thim Board, made report in writing upon his
~×~inati0n of Glenlivet Drive, Glenlivet Court, Shire Oak Drive
Perthwo0d Lane and Perthshire Street in Oak Forest E~tatee,
Sec%iOnS 1, 2 and 3, Ma%ceca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. O'Neill~
meconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Glenlivet Drive,
Glenlivet Court, Shire Oak Drive, Perthwood Lane and Perthshire
Stzeet in Oak Forest Estates, Sections 1, 2 and 3, Matoaca
~istrict, be and they hereby are established as public road~.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Mighwavs and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the See0ndary System, Glenlivet Drive, beqinnin~ at th(
intersection with Halloway Avenue, state ROute 722, and running
westerly .07 mile to th~ intersection with Glenlivet Court, then
continuing westerly .IS mile to end at the intersection with
Shire Oak Drive; GIenlive: Court, beginning et the
with Glenlivet Drive and running northerly .08 mile to end in
cul-de-sac; Shire Oak Drive, beginning at the intersection with
Glenlivet Drive and running southerly .!0 mile to end in a
temporary t~rnaround, again Shire Oak Drive beginning at the
intersection with Clenlivet Drive and running northerly .09 mile
~o end at the inteSuuction with Perthwood Lan~; 9er~hwOQ~ L~ule,
beginning at the intereectlon with Shire Oak Drive and running
westerly .04 mile to end in a temporary turnaround, again
Perthweod Lane beginning at the intersection with Shire Oak Driv~
and running easterly .1~ m/lo tO the intersection wi~h Perth~hir~
~treet then continuing northerly .05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac
Perthshire S~re~%, beginning at the intersection with Eallo~ay
Avenue, State Route 722~ and r~nning westerly ~09 mile ~e end at
the intersection wish Perthwood Lane. These roads ~erve 82 lots.
And be i% further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
quarantee~ to the Virgin{a Department of ~ighways a ~O ft.
right-of-way for all of the~e roads. Th~se ~ction~ of Oak
Section t, Plat Book 27, ~aqe 75, November 24, 1976
Section 2~ ?let Book 36, Page 31~ JuDe 10, 1980
Section ~, Plat Book 37, Paqes 60, 61 and 62, November 6,
This day ~he County Environmental Engineer, in acoordance with
din=orions from this Board, mad~ r~port in writing upon hi~
examination of Oakengate Lane and Glamorgan Lane in Glamorgan,
Section 1~ Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. O'Neill,
seconded by Mr. Dodd~ if is resolved that 0akengate Lane and
Glamcrgan Lane in Glam0rgan, Section 1, Midlothian District, be
and they hereby are e~tabli~hed ae public roads.
And b~ it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
taka into the seo0~ary Syetem~ Oakengate Lane~ beginning where
81-482
State maintenance ends, State Route 1026, and going .5s nile
easterly to intersection with Glamorgan Lane, then continues .07
mi~a ~sterly to a cul-de-sac~ Glamorgan ~ane, beginning at
intersection with Oakengate Lane and qoing All mile soatherlv to
a temporary turnaround. These roads serve 15 lots. ~
g~arantees to the Virginia D~partment of ~ighway~ a ~0 ft.
riqht-of-way for all ~f these road~. This section of 61a~orgsn
is r~corded as follews:
Section 1, Plat Book 35, Page 15, January 29, 19~1.
Vats: Unanimcus
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
~irections from thi~ Board~ made report in writing upon his
sxamina%ion of Glenmon% Re~d an~ Wood Blnff Loop i~ Ashley Wood~
Sections A end D, Midlo~hi~n District.
Upon c~nsideratio~ whereof, and on motion of Mr. O~Neill,
~econdsd by Mr. D~dd, it i~ re~olved that Glenmont Road and Wood
Bluff Leo? in A~hley Wood, sections A and D, Midlethian District
b~ and they hereby are established as public road~.
And be it further resolved that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested tO
%aka into the Secondary System, Glenmont Road, beginning where
State maintenance ends, State Route 27S4, and going .03 mile
westerly to inter,et[ion with Wood Bluff Loop; Wood ~luff Loop,
~his is a circular read beginning at intersec~ien with G!anmont
Read and going .3~ mile in a circular direction to re-intersect
with Glenmont Road. These roads serv~ 3~ lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Beard of Supervisors
9~arantees to the Virginia Department of Highway~ a 58 ft.
right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Ashley
Wood are recorded as follows:
See[ion A, Plat Book 31, Page 99, August 2~, 1978
See[ion D~ Plat ~coR 34, Page 11, June 29, 1979
This day the County Environmental Enqineer~ in accordance with
directions from this Board, m~de rupert in writing upon his
examination of Elflnwood Road and Teterling Road in Lakewood
Far,as, S~ctiO~ ~, Bermuda District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. O'Neill,
meconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resotv~d that ~lfinwood Road and
Teterling Road in Lakewood Zarms, Section E, Bermuda District, b~
and they hereby are established as publi= roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department Of
~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
taka into the Secondary System, Elfinwoad Road, beginning at th~
end 0~ State maintained ~l~inwood Road, State Route 1592, and
running easterly .03 mile tc the inter,et[ion with Teterling
Road; Taterling Road, b~ginning at the intersection with
=l~inwood Road and running northerly .I3 mile to end in
temporary turnaround: again Taterling Road, ~eginning at the
intersection with Blfinwood Road and ~nning
tO sad in s temporary turnaround. These road~ metre 17
And be it f~rther resclved~ that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to ~he Vi~ginla De~ar~ment of ~ghways a 50 ft.
right-cf-way for all these roads except Teterling Road which has
a 60 ft. right-cf-way. ~his section cf Lakewood Farms is
81-483
Section E, Plat Book 37, Paces 63 anS 64, November 14, 1990.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County =nvironmen:al ~ngineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Reinhold Drive, Van Nestrand Lane an~ Hagerty Lan~
in Stafford Place, Sections 1, ~r 3r 4 an~ a portion of
Nostrand Lane by a deed of dedicati0n~ Matoaca District.
Upon consideratie~ whereof, and on motion of Mr.
s~conded by ~r. Dodd, it is resolved that Reinhold Drive, Van
Noetrand Lane and Hagerty Lane in Stafford Place, Sections 1, 2~
3, 4 and a portion of Van Nestrand Lane by a deed of dedication,
Matoaca District, b~ ~nd =kev hereby are established as public
roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and T~ansportatien, be and it hereby is requemted to
take into th% SeoOndary System, Reinhold DriVe, beginning at the
intersection with Bixby Lane, State Route 719, ~unning
northeasterly .16 mile to the intersection with Van Nmstrand
Lane~ Van Nestrand Lane, beginninq at the intersection with
Reinhold ~rive and running aouthea~terly .09 mile to the
intsr~ection with Haga~ty Lane; Hagor~y Lane, beginning at the
intersection with Bixby Lane, State Route 719, and runninq
northeasterly .20 m~le to the intersection with Van Nostrand
Lane, then continuing northeasterly .17 mile %c end in a
cul-de-sac. These reads serve 39 lots.
And ba it further resolved, that the Board Of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virgini~ Department of Highways a 50 ft.
righe-of~way 2or all o~ these road~. These sections of ~tafferd
Place are recorded as follows:
S~ction 1, Plat Book 2~, Pag~ 16, 11/09/75
Section 2, Plat Book 28, Page 71, 01/25/77
Section 3, Plat Book ~0, ~age 80, 03/10/78
Section 4, Plat Book 31, Page 78~ 07/]6/78
b~ed of Dedication, PIa~ ~ook 40, Page 11, 11/04/8I
Vote: Unanimous
0n ~otlcn o£ ~r. O'Neill, seconded by ~tr. Dodd~ the Board
eppro~e~ the request for a bingo and/or raffle permit fro~ the J.
B. Watkins P.T.O. for calendar year 1981.
vote~ unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seoonde~ by Mr. Dcdd, the following
people were appointed/~eappointed to =he Youth Servioes
Commission from the District an~ for the term as indicated:
Midlothian District
k~rs. Carolyn Camden - reappointed until October 11, I984
R~v. William L. Painter, Jr. - appointed ~ntil 0ctebef 11,
~atoaca District
Rea Davis - reappointed until October 11, 1984
Bermuda District
Mr. Craig Orqan- appointed until October 11,
Clover Hill District
Mr. Ran~y welkins - apDofnted until October 11, 1982
$1-484
10.
~rs. Qirone stated she felt the Board of Supervisors should
lddress the size of the Mental Eea~th/Mentat Retardation Services
;o~rd because she felt it was too Imrge. She almo ~tatsd that
;he felt because they do have such a large workload that perhaps
:he Board of Supervisors might consider a small reiu%bu:sement for
~aqular, calls~ meetings. Mr. Medriok stated that he had
~iscussed this matter with Mr. Wynne and this was to be
:on~ide~ed f~the~ after the reorganization.
fr. O~Neill stated that he had received some commlaintm r~garding
the changing of locations for th~ meetings of the Keep
Chesterfield Clean C0mmi~tee. ~e stated ~ha~ perha~ a central
location should he d~termin~d for all of the meetings.
Mr. Hedrick advis~ the Board of Otter outstanding appointments.
~r, FraDk ~ee, R~$~d~n~ ~gXn~er with the Virginia Department of
Eiqhway~ and Transportation, was pre,eat. He s~a~ed the
the Mtcn~. Mr. Gee stated tha~ the street~ would be pave~ later
but they war~ ~aiting for the winter to determ~ae the ~mQunt of
settling,
Mr. Dodd r~q~a~ted that a ~ign indicating a "bus stop" at Raffia
Mill Koad at the forks of the railroad a~ the Park be in,tailed
as this was a dangerous stop and people did not realize it was
bus stop. Mr, Gas stated ha would dimousm this matter with the
School Transportation Division.
~r. Dedd inquired aho~t safety improvements at Kingsdale and
Jefferson Davis Highway. Mr. Gee stated improvementm were
Chippmnham and Rearm 360 b~ r~pairmd. She thanked %he
Depar~ent for the installation of a street light at Chust~rfield
safety problems on RonCo 60 near Rmsearch Road (McDonal~'~ ~d
new Hardee's lo0ations). She stated that left turn lanes at
~ohn~ton-wilti~ ~o=pital and the Mall had been c0nmtruo%~d b~
asked that other 10catio~ such as Research Road al~o
investigated. Mr. ~edrick stated that 6 ur 7 movements of traffic
study of the entire area was needed.
Mrs. Girune stated that the sight distance coming from Coalfiel~
Road looking w~st on Rou~e 60 is bad as the white bar is painted
too far hack and she requested that this be checked.
Mrm~ Girone mtated that she would like %h~ Rubious School Road
~hould r~qn~mt that this be taken into the System but he would
look into the mattmr,
Mr. Dec.an stated that he would like a stop light installed at
~he in~er~ec~ion of Relm0n~ ~nd Turner ~ads. Mr. Gee reviewe~
th~ criteria/co~inution of c~iteri= nuudud !or this approval by
On motion of the ~oard, the ~oard hereby requests the
Department to restudy thm intersection of BElmon~ and Turner
measures dum to ever increasing ~raffic and development in the
area and du~ to the ~act that Walm~ley Boulevard ~o lo~ger
8~-48B
ll.A.
12. A.
intersects with ChipDenham and therefore traffic from walm~ley is
diverted south on Turner ~o the Belmont and Turner inter~ectien.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Bookman requested that a ~eadway across from Academy Drive on
tbs west aide ~ Courthouse Road be raved with tar and grav~l and
that h~ might contribute 3¢ Road Funds for this purpose.
~r. Daniel requested that a "Right Lane Mos= Turn Right" sign be
instatle~ at the intersection of Chippenham and Jefferson D~vis
Highway for the right l~n~ gQing south on Jefferson Davis
Highway.
O~ motion of the Board, the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation i~ hereby requeeted to restudy the intersect£on of
River Road, Laurel Avenne~ East River ROad and Chesterfield
Av~nu~ for installation of.a traffic light due to high traffic
volumes that ate interrupted by trains at the Railroad crossing
and due to the redevelopment end revitalization of the Ettrick
Commnnitv which will generate more traffic due to i~minent
develo9ment of shopping centers and commercial development both
Vote~ Unanimou~
~r. O'Neill requested that an arrow sign or reflectors be
· nstalled at Matoaca a~ ~iokory Roads coming from River Road
vehicles are continuously going into a re~iden='s yard.
Mr. Bookman requested that on Elkhardt at the intersection where
improvements are being made, that additional asphalt be laid in
order to raise the level of th~ road 1l inches in the bottom
Vote:
On motion Of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~ws. ~irone, the Board
approved the installation ~f street lights at the following
locatione with any ~s~o¢ia~ed costs to be expended f~Om the
street light installation fund~
Intersection of Luckylee Crescent and Meadowdale Blvd., Dale
Intersection of Woodmen% and ~uquanot Roads, Midloth~an
In=ersection of ~rown Road and Southam Drive~ ~idlothian
Unanimous
On motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Book/~an~ the B~ard se%
January 13, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. fo~ a public hearing ~o consider
the restriction o~ =rusk traffic On Osborne Road.
~r. Painter presented the Bo=rd with the water and ~ewer
financial r~ports. Mr. H~drick stated thee the sewer re~ort doe~
not reflect aution ~aken at the last meeting.
~r. Bookman inquired if the County were connecting Trolllngm~ood
to public sewer. M_r, Painter stated it was being accomplished pe~
an agreemen= dated 10+ veals aqc. Hs stated the connectiOD fees
were paying for the w~r~ and the station would be abandoned.
12.B.i.
12.B.2.
12_C.
My. Dodd inquired about the agreement with property own~rg Lion,
WOOds Edge Road for the construction of the water line. Me
inqulre~ iE it were normal to charge for tire hydraut~. Mr.
Painter stated staff has been negotiating especially for
expensive projects in Order that their fair share be obtained.
5e stated that this is reouiring that they pay $150 5owards the
fire hydrant costs when a'hydrant co,tS ~1~500. Mr. Hedriok
~tated that the County has been trying to have resident~
contribute as much as practical £o~ line extension~. Mr. Dodd
inquired if this were standard procedure. Mr. Pa±n~er stated
this type of agreement had been done in %he past. Mr. Hedrick
stated that each project is considered on an individual basis.
Mr. Bookman stated that i~ this were done, every ~ater ~t~nslor
would have to also be handled in this meaner, as it would set a
precedent. ~e stated that a uniform policy should be
established.
Mr. Hedrick Stated the policy cf the County has been followed bu
there ar~ some exc@ptio~s for line extensions. He stated that
the Director of Utilities has attempted to negotiate with
individuals On ~ project be$i~ to try to offset costs. Me state.
that a policy should be adopted which treated all equally.
After further discussion of the matter, on ~otion of ~. Dodd,
seconded by F~r. O'Neill, the Soar~ approved and authorized the
County Administrator to eXeCute any ~ecessary documents for
William M. Harman Con,rectors, who submitted the low bid Of
$19,560.36 for contract W~]-73C/8(~)1731, woods Edge Road. The
Board fur:her apprcpria=ed $21,516.40 from 563 Surplus to
380-1-61731-4393 which inc]udg~ a 1O~ contingency. And further
dhe Board's a~proval is subject to the ten residents who signed
the petition paying a $500 connection fee and $15~ towards the
cost of e fire hydrant and that in the futur~ the County policy
should treat ali equally.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dedd, Mrs. Girone and ~r. O'Neill.
Nays: Mr. Bookman because he fmlt this was a policy problem
which needed to be addressed.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by ~Lr. O'Neill, the Board
approved a~d authoEized the COunty Administrator to ~×eeute any
necessary documents for William M. Harman Contractors, who
submitted the low bid in the amount of $27,566.~8, for project
~$1-63C/~(S)1631 for WAter line extension along Enon Church Road
and further the ~oard appropriated $3~,323.57 from 563 Surplus t(
380-1-61631-4393, which includes a 10% eontingencF.
Vote: U~im~us
Mr. O'Neill inquired how much the Church should he assessed if
the Beard approved advertising for b±d~ and oon~tructinq sewers
to serve property On the west side of Route I at Harrowgate Road.
Mr. ~ainter stated that it wa~ his understanding that they had
agreed to pay $8,000 towards this cost, Mr. O~Neill stated that
he felt they should he treated equally and the maximum for
residential use which i~ how a church~ is classified, is $1,800.
Mr. Nedrisk stated that the policy has been to negotiate on a
project by project basis. ASter f~rther discussion, it was
generally aqreed to defer this matter until later in the ~ay.
~ir. Painter stated that a water ~asement has b~n obtained from
Vance & Barker which was item 12.D.2. on the agenda. He added
aisc that under item 12.D.3., water easements had also been
obtained from Glenn Allen S=uir~s, Said%el P. and Panline O.
ArCher and Levi A. ~elI, Jr.
81-487
]2.D.Z.
12 .D.4.
(~ h,
Oh motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. ~'~elll, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceeding~ against ~he following property etchers if the amount
as set cpposlte their names i~ ~ot accepted. B~ %t further
resolved that the County Administrs~or notify said property
owners by certifie~ mail of the intention of ~he County to'enter
upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said
condemnation preceedlng~. An emergency e×i~tin~, this resolution
shall be and it hereby i$ declared in f~I1 forc~ and effect
immediately upon passage.
water easements $104
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the Boar~
authorized the COunty Attorney to institute sondemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amount
as set opposit~ their nam~ is not accepted. Be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by Certified mail of ~h~ intention of the County to ~nt~r
UPOn and take the property which is to be the subject of said
condemnation pxoceedings. An ~mergency existing, thi~ re$o!utio~
shall be and it hereby is declared in full force and effect
immediately upon passage,
J~mes F. Stuard, et els. WSl-63C/4 $117.00
On motion of Mr. Do,d, ~econded by Mr+ O'Neill, she Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary easements for Vepco for the Falling Creek Sewage
Treatment Plant expansion, locations of which are subje¢= to
approval by the Utilities D~partment, Consulting ~ngineers and
County Attorney.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Painter presented the Board with the list of developer water
and sewer contract~ ex~cuted by the County Admlnistrator~
On ~otion of Mr. Dodd, ~econded by ~r. O'Neill, the Board went
into Executive Session ~o ~iscuss legal matters as permitted by
Section 2.i-344(a) (S; of the Code of Virginia, I950, as amended.
Reconvening:
79S066 lA-ended)
In ~f~lothian ~agisterial District, E. M. Ciejek requested a
Conditional Use to permit recreational facilities in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 176 ucre paroei fronting
a~p~oximately 21OO feet on ~oute 60 and located approximately 60f
feet west of its intersection wXth Huguenot Springs Road. Tax
Map 14 (1) Parcels ~ an~ 6 (Sheet 5/6).
Mr. Bal~er$on stated the Planning .co~mission had forwarded this
request to the Board with no recommendation. He stated further
that the applicant had requeRted a 30 day deferral. ~r. Barton
Campbell was pre~ent and stated he had not been advised that this
request for a de*erral Nould be made today. ~rs. Girone ~tated
that she, Mr. Russell and Mr. Bald~r~On had mst and it was
understood that a deferral would be requested, she also
81-488
apologized to Mr, Campbell for his not being notified but she
~hought ~. Russell wa~ to advise everyone of the re,nest for
d~f~rral.
On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by 5~. Dodd, the BOard
deferred consideration of this matter until November 25, 1981,
requested by the applicunt.
a
Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting.
818130
In Bermuda ~4aqistarial District, Clyde E. Reams, Sr. requested e
Mobile ~ome Permit to Dark a mobile home on property which
belongs h0 Clyde E. Reams, Jr., Son Of the applicant. Tax Map
81-3 (1) Parcel 10 end better known as 2924 ~ingsland Road
23).
~_r. Reams was present. There was no opposition present. On
~otion Of ~4r. Bookman, seconded ~y ~r. Dodd, the Board approved
the r.equest for a Mobile H~me Permit for five years ~bjec~ to
the following standard conditions:
The applicant must b~ owner and o~cupant of the mobile home.
2. No lot or parcel may be rented er leased for uss as a mobil~
home si~a, nor shall an5, mobile home be used for re~tal
property. Only cna (!) mobile h0~e will be permitted to be
perked on an individual lot or Parcel.
3. T~e r~inimnm lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of tko applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be t0ceted closer than 20 feet from any existing
reeidcnce.
4. Ne additional per, anent-type living space may b~ ad,ed onto
a mobile home. All mobile home~ ~hali be skirted but shail
not be plac~d on a permanent foundation. Per~onai
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
5. Where p%%blic (County) water and/or sewer are available, th~
shalI be used.
6. Upon being granted a permit for a mobile home, the applican
must ~hen obtain the necessary permit from the B~ilding
in~peetor's Office. Thi~ must be done prior t0 the
installation or relocation of the unit.
7. Any violation o~ the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of a ~obile ~one Permit/sD~o~al Exception for a
mobile home~ -
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman, Mrs. Girone and Mr. O'Neill.
/~bsent: ~r. Do~d.
Mr. Dodd returned tc the meeting.
81S074
In Bermuda Kagisterial District, M. L. Lemon requegted rezoning
fro~ I{esidential (g-7) and Ccitt/unity B~sinesg (B-l) to Light
Industrial (M-l) plus a Conditional US~ Planned Development to
p~rmit a 60 foot exception to th~ 10O foot s~tback required from
residential districts on a 7.2 acre parcel fronting approximately
650 feet on Perrymont Road also fronting approximately 700 f~ot
on Che~ter Road and located in the southwemt ~uadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map ~1-4 (if Parcel 3 (Sheet
Mr. Balders0n stated the Plannin~ Commission ha8
some question as to the access on Perrymont and the Si~hwav
Department did aD,rove ~he two roadway~ but would prefer the
single road. ~r. Lemon was present. There was no Opposition
Mr. Dodd state~ thaf he felt the narrow buffer of 30 feet is
eo~ercial as it i~ residential at this tim~.
Thi~ Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted
facility.
2. The below stated conditions notwithstanding th~ revised pla~
sub~ih~d shall ~e con,ida{ed ~he Master Plan.
Access to the p~o~er~v shall be confined to a one-way
4. Forty-five (45) feet o~ riqht-0f-way, measured from the
centerline cf chester Road for the entire length of the
property abutting the roadway shall ~e dedicated to and for
the County cf Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. This
dedication shall be accomplished prior to the ~elease of an~
building permits.
5. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
combination of sxistin~ veqetation supplemented with~
additional planting. A specific landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the Planning CoK~ission in conjunction with
6. The area lying between ~he westernmost parkin~ arei and
7. Thm following exceptions to %he bulk requirements of the
goninq Ordinance skull be granted:
A. A ~ixty (60) foot ~×ceptien to the !00 foo~ setba¢~
requirement for'Building 1 and the parking area ~hOWn
comply with the 100 foot ~etback,
B. A ten (10) foot exception to the fifty
8. on~ ~ign shall be permittsd to identify this development.
This sign ~hall be located along P~rrv~0nt Road.
~ttered (where necessary to affect proper drainage}.
retirements of the Light Industrial (~-t) District shall
~Tote: Prier to 0btaininq a buildinq permit, ~chematic
must be submitted to =he Planning Co~i~sion for approval.)
81-490
/'%
2.
3.
4.
In Bermuda F~gisterial District, GeorGe ~mersQn requested a
Conditional U~e Planned Development to permit prQf~ssional
offices and exceptions kc the bulk r~uirsments of the Zoning
Qr~inance in a Residential {R-7) District on a .54 acre parcel
fronting approximately 170 feet on West ~undred R~ad
fro~ting approximately 1~0 feet on Old Contrails ~ead and locate{
in the northeast g~adran~ of the intersection of th~se
Tax ~ap t15-3 (1) Parcel ~6 [Skeet 32).
~r. Bald~rson stated that th~ ~lanning Commi~io~ had reco~ende¢
denial cf this request. N~. ~erson wa~ ~r~sent an~ stated that
the reason for denial was because the ~lanning Commission folt
this area should remain residential, but he added that
approximately 60% is used for rental property, zoned 5usine$$ er
vacant lots. He stated that ~here is very little or no
opposition in the co.unity for thi~ request. He stated that thf
~truct~re will maintain a residential appearance with no exterio~
changes. Es stated that he would like an exception to the pavin~
requirement, that the road dedication be less than recommended
and that hi~ ~ign be placed clo~er to the road than as suggested
Df. W. Robert Floyd of the North Chester Homeewner~ Association
presented a memo {a Copy of which is tiled with the papers of
this Beard) =o the Board indicating that one area resident was
opposed, five were in favor and two were not opposed. Mr, Dodd
stated he was concerned about the right-of-way and type of offic,
use. Mr. Balderson indicated that he felt the right-of-way had
been dedicated and that it wo~ld be needed if the business area
along Route 10 wer~ expande~. After further discussion, it was
on motion of ~r. Dodd, Seconded by Mr. 0'~eill, resolved that
this request he approved subject to the following conditionS:
1. This Conditional Use shall be limited to real estate and
insurance ~ffice use. ~e retail activity shall occur on
site.
There shall be ne additions or alterations to the exterior
expected.
All parking sh~ll be located ~ the rear of the existing
structure. Th~e parking areas shall be screened from view
accomplished by existing v~get~tlv~ conditions and/or
additional ~!anting. Th~ schematic plan shall reflect this
requirement. Acce~ to the parking shall be confined to 01~
Centralia Road.
~elve (12) feet of right-0f-wav m~a~red from the mxlstinq
property line/righ~-of-way line of We~t Hundred Road shall
be dedicated to and for Chggterfield County, free and
unrestricted. This dedication shall be accomplished prior
One f:eestandin~ sign, not to exceed ten {10} squar~ f~et
area, shall be pe~ittad. Thf~ sign shall neither be
luminous, nor illuminated. The facada~ of the sign shall
employ ~ubdued color~. This sign ~hall neither be metal
plastic, but sha%I ~e of wood material. Prior to
of the sign, colored roDderin~s shal~ b~ ~bmi~ed to
Qev~lopment P~view for approval.
~regarad by Charles C. Townes& A~sociata~ dated
shall b~ considered th~ master plan.
81-491
The above stated sendition~ notwithstanding al% Bulk
requirements of the Offic~ Business (~) DistriCt ~aI1 be
~. A fifteen {15) ~ot e~csption shall be granted to the 15
foot ~ign ~etback requirement along saute 10.
9. All parking ~haI1 be gravelled with weed curbing utilized.
{Note: Prior to obtaining a building or occupancy permit,
schematic plans must he submitte~ to the Planning C~u~i~sion for
approval.)
Vote: Unanimous
81S0~1
In Midlothian Maqi~terial District~ Bruce W. Parker requested a
Conditiona~ Use 'to permit a two-family dweIlinq in a Residential
IR-15}Di~tri~t on a .~3 acre parcel fronting approximately
~eet on the southeast line of ~remwich Drive and located
approximat~Iy 20 feet southwest ~f it~ i~terseoti~ with Bro~v~ich
Court. Tax Map 26~3 (4} Stonehenge, Section E, Block B, Lot 11
{Sheet 7)_
Mr. ~aldersen stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to curtain conditions. Mr.
Balderson stated staff had r~e~ived four letters in opposition
Mr. Glen Moore, representing Mr. ~arker, stated that this reqnas~
was being made in order that M~s. Parker's parents could reside
at this residence. He stated that the conditions recommended by
the Planning Coramission were acceptable. He stated that if the
kitchen facility were not added~ the Board would not h~ve reason
to tak~ this matter under consideration. He stated the objectlo~
is that this would set a precedent in the neighborhood and he
felt that it would not. aa quoted from the Code mtating that as
long am certain requirements are me~, which they wo~ld abide
then this conditional use could he pe~mitted in this type of
district. He stated that the Board could Set o~her stip~iations
as they felt necessary in order to protect area residents and
,preserve the characteristics of the home as well as the
neighborhood and the Pafker~ would be agreeable. Mr. ~oor~
~tate4 that 80 residents kav~ signed a petition in favor of this
request as it would not affect other property owners. ~e stated
that the Golf Clu~ an~ the Civic Association have takun the
po~ition of opposition but hi~ client was never invited %o
any of th~ ~oeTings at which he could have discnssed his request.
FitS. Girone stated there was some cen~usion regarding th9
building of the addition and requeste~ that Mr. Muz~y review
case. Mr. M~zy state~ tkat Mr. Parker applied and received a
building permit for an addition to his home. Staff the~ realized
a kitchen wa~ included in the addition and a stop order wes
issued as a conditional use would hav~ to be approved for the
kitchen facility in the addition. ~r. Parker and his builder
indicated t~ey would eliminate the kitchen from ~he plans and
apply for the conditional use. The stop order was then lifted.
It was then ~etermined that the kitchen £acilities were built
~hu~ or,sting a zoning violation and this is where the case is
today.
Mr. Craig ~arr~ ~tat~d that ha felt this was spot zoning am spar
zoning is for the benefit of an individual property owner which
is e~aetly this case. He stated th~ residents were not opposed
to the enlargement of the house just the kitchen installation.
He cited similar cases which were denied and other ca,es which
had entirely different circumstances which were approved, He
stated thi~ case involved a small tract of land, the addition wa~
~empleted without approval and it is Residential {R-15) zoning.
agricultural, had adequate screening and t~ere was n~ oDDosltion.
abide by the rules before re~ardin~ the construction which leads
~hem %o believe that they would not in the future. }gr. Harris
submitted a petition signed by residsntn in the area who were
Mr. Dodd stated that :he burden to watch for violations is on
the residents all over the County as the County can not provide
that a two-family dwelling is inconsistent with the area and that
of land~ tka% they are concerned about tho policing which would
Ee Stated they were not opposed to th~ parents living in the ho~
but he did not feel this use should b~ allowe~ with the kitchen
placed regarding the meetings at which the Associations were
re~uest being approved. She 8tared that this is in violation cf
the covenants which anyone pKrchasing property in this area were
parents ace nQ longer users of the unit; that this addition has
not followed the requirements of the Code; that she did not feel
upheld, she ~tated she lived by the County laws, and felt the
approved in Hatoaca District in Febnrary, 1981, which was an
DiEtrict and had lees than one-half of an acre. ~e stated that
he did net receive a notice of the mae%Lng even though residents
knew he represented the Parkers. ~e stated he did not feel thi~
violated the covenants and the architectural plans had been
approved by the stonehenge Association. When asked what rooms
~er~ included in the addition, Mr. Mecca stated a living/kitchen
area, two bedrooms and two baths.
could occupy the addition in the conditions reooK~ended end
stated that this would not be within the 15 ft. setback.
that the setback wes off only by a few inehe~.
advertised for mother-ia-law suites and inquired who would police;
wa=ohlng ether neighbors.
Mrs. Manage s=&~ed =ha< she had maintained a diary of the
Parkers' home and submitted it which indicated the in-laws were
occupying the addition, watching television, a~i~tinq people,
eating, etc.
81-493
Mrs. Girone Stated that this m~ttez involved th~ 1~, that an
additional kit0hen in a dwelling such as this constituted
two-familv dwelling. She stated she had received numerous
letters, the Golf & Country Club as well as the Civic ASb~ciatio~
were opposed, all uf whom are concerned with protectinq the
integrity of the single family zoning designation. She stated
that one person in opposition stated he ha~ moved 21 limes but
felt when h~ moved to Stonehenge that the restrictive covenants
were enough to protect thc value of his real estate. She stated
she had discussed this matter with Mrs, Parker twice and Mr.
Parker once and that there Was no problem with the addition, onl5
the kitchen and the appliances. She Stated that she felt it was
best for the County and Stonehenge that this request be denied
and it was so moved by Mrs. Gircne. Mr. ~ookman seconded the
motion and added that a similar situation had arisen in L~ke
George K~mIet and the hums was sold as a two apartment ~trl/cture.
~e stated furthsr problems arose because it could not be proven
that rent was beinq received.
Mr, Dodd stated he was concerned about providing for the elderly.
K~ stated that people do n~t want them moving into situations
~uch as this, they do not want the~ tc be allowed mobile homes,
and he inquired what would become of the elderly. He stated he
felt additions were okay but Conditional u~ scattered is not
what is needed and he felt he would also have ts oppoee this
request.
Mrs. dirone stated that develop%~s are beginning %o consider
constr~ction Of unlt~ for the elderly as they realize this ia
what i~ needed and that later in the'day the Board would ~onsider
a request te zone a small development of duplexes under a
Conditional Use Development. M~. O'Neill stated that every
neighborhood has a responsibility to watch wast is happening as
gOVernment cannot handle all of this. He stated he felt the size
of the addition is part of the preblem~ and that there have been
problem~ c~ea%ed by both sides. Mr. Daniel stated the
is already there, ~t is a vary large house with the addition,
without the kitchen thi~ would never have been an issue, that
mmre and more people will be having their in-law~ live with them
and this will not resolve the i~mue.
Afte~ further the disc~sSion~ the rots was as follows on Mrs.
Girone's motion te deny the request:
Aye~ Mr. Danisl~ Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Abseotion: ~.
81S099
Tn Matoaea Magisterial District, Milton Roy Cox and Sadie Mae Cox
requested rezoning from Residential (K-7) to Convenience Business
(B-I) cf a .873 acre parcel f~onting approximately 100 feet on
Fernda!e Avenue also fronting approximately 300 feet on Pickett
Avenue and Located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of thes~ roads. Tax Ma9 I~6-4 (2) Augustus Wright, Lot 19A
$heet 52).
}~, Batder~on stated the Planning Commi~slon had ~ecommended
denial of this request. ~/~. Hsrb~rt Gill wa~ present representing
the applicant, ~e stated ~hat this area ha~ been an eyesore and
although it is zoned residential, a house will more than likely
never be built there. ~e stated thst very few residences
on Pickett Avenue, that %his property is not conducive to
residpntial development, that it is a heavily traveled area, that~
the property ~h~uld drain %~ the river and that this uae would
not affeut the traffic in the area. He staged thai if the Board
felt it more restrictive %S approve a Conditional U~e it WOuld be
acceptable with restrictions.
Mr. F~na/d Cox stated that a drainage problem exists in the area
and that this will adversely affect the e×istXng situation. Mr.
~1-494
CeX ~tate~ that he Iiv~ th~e and has for 50 years and the wa=e:
was 2 ft. deep in his home after the flood and if this ~rope~ty
is developed it will cause water to build up even more.
~r. O'Neill stated he had received calls from urea property
o~ners and all were opposed. He stated that he felt this type
business would ben, fit the area but not in this location. ~e
stated there is other p~operty available which would be
a~prcpriate for the business. On mo=ion of Mr. O~N~ilI, seconde~
by ~r. Dodd, the Board denied this request.
81S100
In Clover ~ill Magisterial District, O1~ Dominion Tractor
Company, Inc, requested rezoning f~0m Agricultural IA) to G~nera2
~usiness (S-~} of a 28.08 acre parcel fronting 1,3~0 feet on the
north line of Route 360 al~o fronting 7OD feet on the south llne
of Rouke 360 and is !cea=sd ap~rox~atelv 1,600 feet east of its
intersection with Baldwin Creek Roud. Tax Map 73 (1) Parcels 63
64 and 67 [~heet 19).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had race--ended
approval of this request. Mr. William Sims was present
representing the applicant. There wa~ no opDositlon pre~ent.
Mr. bookman inquired if u site ~Ian would bs submitted. Mr.
Baldersen stated it would,
On motion of ~Ar. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girons, the Board
approved =hie requeEt.
Vote: ~nanimeus
81S102
In ~idl0thian Magisterial District~ St~u~ Land Company requested
r~zoning from Aqricul=ural (A) tO Residential (R-9~ plus a
Conditional Uu= Planned Development to permit 23 ¢lu$=~r homes
(4~ units) on a 11.25 aura parcel fronting appr0×i~tel? 500 fee~
on the north and south lin~s of Depot Street and leos=ed
approxim~te!y 250 feet west of ihs intersection with ~eadwaters
Road. Tax Map 1~-$ (1) Parcel 11 (Shoe= 7~.
Mr. Balderson stated %he Plannin~ co,mission had recommended
approval of the request. Mr. ~herwood Strum was present
representing the applicant. ~e stated that the cluster homes
would sell for approximately $150,000 per unit. Mr. ~atder~on
stated this ~s a Conditional U~ Planned Development and they
would be required to submit a ~aeter Plan and schematic plan for
development. There wu~ no opposition present.
On motion of bLrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the Soar~
approved this request subject to the architectnral ~tyle being
the s~e as that in the rendering submitted with the application
end the Master Plan.
815104 {Amended)
Marketing Corporation, et al. requested rezoninq ~rom
Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial {~-1) plu~ a Conditional
requirements of the Zoning Ordiaance on un approximately 6..07
acre parcel fronting approximately 180 feet on %he south tine of
Reute ~60 un~ lecat~ approximately 2000 f~et east of its
intersection ~ith Speek~ Drive. Tax Map 49-11 (1) Parcel 14
{sheet I4).
81-495
approval of this request subject to certai~ conditions. Mr.
Lloyd Jernigan was preSEnt representing the applicant and state~
the conditions were acceptable. There was ne opposition prmsent.
Qn motion of Mr. Bookman, s~conded by ~rs. Girone, the Board
~pproved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The below stated condition~ notwithstanding, the revised
plan, dated 9/9/81, shall be considered the Master Plan.
Th~ following exceptions t~ the bulk requirements shall bs
granted:
A. A twenty (20) foot exception to the twenty-five (25)
foot side yard setback requirement.
An exception to the requirement that no outside storage
be permitted.
A 50 foot buffer shall be ~a±ntained along the southern
boundary a~jacent to Horner~ Run. This buffer shall be
landscaped in a manne~ which effectively screens ~his use
fr¢~ the adjacent property to th~ south. A landscaping plan
depicting this re.cuirem~nt shall be submitted to Development
~eview for a~proval in ccn~unctien with final s~t~ plan
review.
A single entrance/e~it ~hall be permitted to Route 368.
5. An additional minimum of twslve (12} feet of pavement a~d
concrete curb and gutter shall' be provided along the
property frontage cn ~ull Street Road, Th~s lane shall bc
con,true%ed to Stats standards and taken into the State
system prior to the iSSuance of any occupancy permit.
6. The applicants shall provide all necessary easements as
needed by the County and the VDE&T.
7. Ail driveways and parkin~ area~ ~hall b~ paved. These areas
shall be defined by concrete curb and gutter where necessary
to affect proper dra±nage~ the parking areas and driveways
may be defined by salt-tree%ed materials or other durable
means.
~. The following use exception~ ~hall be granted:
All uses permitted in General ~usiness (B-3) an~ Light
Industrial (M-l} with the exception of ~he following= ban~
{~×cluding savings an~ loan instituticn~)~ hospitals;
service stations; department stercs~ thmat~rs; a~etion sales
er salvag~ ~arns~ boat sales; outdoor advertising signs;
building material s~le~ yard; cock:ail lounges, dining
halls, nightclub~; drive-in e~tablishmentS; hotels, and
motels or motor courts, ~0urist homes; mobile home, modular
home, motor home~ and truvel trailer sal9$~ new and used;
motor vehicle sales, service and repair; tire recapping and
vulcanizing; truck terminals~ utility trailer and truck
rental; ~raiqht forwarding, packing, and crating services;
and motor vehicle wash.
One freestanding sign, net to ~xceed 1O~ square f~t in area
and a height of twenty-five (]~) feet shall be permitted.
This sign ~hall identify the development and tenants
therein. Other than directional signs, nc other
~reca=andin~ signs shall be permitted. Individual b=siness
e~tablishments shall be permitted attached building signs as
reprinted by the Zoning Ordinance for Light Industrial (~-1)
zoning.
(Note: Prior to obtaining a building pe~mit, schematic plans
~st be submitted to the Planning Commission ~ur approval.}
81-496
In Dale Magisterial District~ Nancy ~. Hi%l requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an exception to the
pav~ng requirement of parking spaces by the Zoning Ordinance and
also requests an amendment to a~ existing Condltional Use |~ase
8QS025) to permit r~lo~ation Of a parking area on a 3.82 acre
parcel fronting approximately 140 fe~t on the west line of Lori
Road and located approximately 300 feet north of its
w~th Route 10~ ?a× Map 95-8 (11 Parcel 6 (Sh~t 31).
Mr. B&ld~rson stated the Planning Co~iasion hsd
approval of ~his r~quest sub,eat to certain conditions.
Hill was present and stated the conditions were acceptable.
~here was no opposition present. On motion of M~. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, the reguest was approved ~ubjec~ to the
following
1. Ail ~reviously imposed conditions for Case #80S025 shall
remain in effect.
2. The revised plan Submitted shall be considered the plan for
the parking aras.
3. ~n con~unction with the granting of thim request, the
Planninq Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the revised plan submitted with the application.
Vets: Unanimous
815109
~n MidIothain Magisterial District, Midfi~l~ A~sociates ~equested
an amendment to a previously ~rante~ Conditional U~e Planned
Development (Case 79S211) to p~rmit a second freestanding sign
and an exception to the reg~irem~nt Of the Zoning Ordinanc~ which
permltm a second freestandln~ mign only if ~ shoppin~ center
fronts along two major arterials. This reguest iS for a 10.4
acre parcel fronting approximately 4Q0 feet on Midlethian
· ~:npike and also fronting approximately $$0 feet on Coalfield
Road and located in the southeast quadrant cf the intersection o~
these reade. Tax Map 15-12 (~) Parcel 39 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Bald~s~n stated ~h~ ~!anning Commission had recommended
approval s~bjeot to the imposition of a condition. ?here was nO
Opp~sition present. M~S. Girone thanked the staff {er the work
whiGh was done on this case. On motion of Mrs. Sirens, seconded
by Mr. Bookman, this request was approved ~ubje~t to the
following conditionx
The sign looated along Coalfield Road shall be identical to
the one alonq Midlothian Turnpike. The agg=egmte area cf
these signs shall not exceed 180 ~quare feet or a height of
twenty-five {2~} feet. ~hese signs may be illuminated, b~t
shall not be luminous. The signs shall blend with the
architectural style of the development.
vot~: Unanimous
818129
In Midlcthian Magimt~rial bistrict~ Walton Park Co,tm. unity
A~sociation, Inc. requested an am~ndr~ent to a previously
Use Permit (Case ~78A087} to allow substitution of a five (5)
foot high earth b~rm alone the south and west property lines
instead of a six (6) foot high solid board fmnce. This parcel is
located alon~ the south line of Walton Park Road and i~
approximately 100 feet eamt of its intersection with Cvercliff
Court. Tax Nap P6-5 (1) Parcel 2 (Shee~
81-497
ur. B~!der~on staked tha~ %he Planning Comm.ission had recem~en~
tpproval of this request subject to certain conditions.
:here may be a problem with the berm not bein~ within the five
:equest subject to the fnllcwinq condition~:
minimum Of ~ffteen {15) feet from the next,eaSt edge of th~
edge cf the pipeline easement. Further, the tennis courts
!. within the southern twenty-five (25} foot buffer, all
existing Yege~ation shall be maintained. No clearing,
gradiDg Or other facilities shall be permitted within this
buffer with the exception of drainage structures. Limited
clearing shall be permitted ia or,er to accommodate
area. Where it is necessary to clear, landscaping shall be
required. A landscaping plan depicting %his requiremeng
having a varying height of between ~hree (3) and five (5)
~eet. This berm shall be landscaped with white ~ines having
an initial heiqht of nix (6) ~O eight ($) feet and
underplantinq of skip laurel and lucidum having an initial
height uf eighteen (18) to twenty (20) inches. A
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
,here was further discussion regarding the approval to advertise
for bids aad construct uewars to serve the propert~ on the west
side of U. S. Route 1 and Harrewgats Road. Mr. O'Ne~tl stated
the Church haa agreed to pay up to $8,006 but h~ wan~ed all such
~ases treate~ equally. Mr. Bookman .stated tha~ churches are
=harged the sam~ a~ ~ingle family residences which have a maximum
~ec o~ $1,5~U. He added that he felt if they were to b~ assessed
~here should be a maximum limit. ~r. ~icas stated that everyone
pays a connection fee and thie situation wo~ld also i~vO~v~ a
u=rcun~ of the the extension cost. Er. Hedrfck stated that two
necessary for cash flow pnrposes and we need to maintain adequate
uauh reserves in Qrder to acquire a favorable bond rating. A~ter
~urther discuss/on it was on ~otion of Zr, O'Neill, se¢oDded by
~r. ~ookman, resolved that staff is authorized to seek bids and
zonstr~ct ~w~rs tO serve the property on the west sid~ of Routs
~ny necessary documents for thi~ work an~ further that $~8,008 be
~ppropriated from 574 Surplus to 38U-1-7~431-4393 with the
anderstanding that the Church involved contribute $6,500 towards
the extension coot and pay the ~1,508 connectiO~ ~ee.
Unanimous
Dn motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
~pproved and authorimed the County Administrator to enter into
~ontraots with the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
for payment to the County in an amount not to exceed $3~0O0 and
81-498
with Cra%er Planning District Commission in an amount not to
exceed Si~000 for transportation planning eervices known as RRAT~
and TCAT$, respectively.
Mrm, GiroDe ~tated that she felt staff should not issue any
building permits involving a kitchen facility until ali proper
approvals have be~n granted. Mr. ~edrick stated this did not
cause any Dcoblem es tkis is what is being done by staff.
It was generally agreed that the Board would meek on Wednesday,
Noventber 11, 1981, at 2:00 p.m. for the third work session on the
budget.
Mr. Hedge stated that ~taff was investigating the possibility of
extending the life of Che Chester landfill for apprcximatety 6-10
months. Mr. O'Neill inquirud if it would be possibl~ fur
commaroial vehicles to still be routed to the Northern Ar~a
landfill and that houm~held ~efuse be accepted ~% the Chester
landfill only. ~r. Hedge stated he would look into this
possibility. On motion of M.r. O'Neill, seconded by M_rs, Girone,
~t wa~ resolved that bids be reeuivcd for proposals for
constr~otien =os=s to extend ~he life of the Chester landfill.
On motion Of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Er. Dodd, the Board
adjourned ae 4:50 p.m. until 2~00 p.m. on November 11, 1981.
Vote: Unanimous
Ric~h~{~--L. Medrick
County Administrator
81-499