01-26-1983 MinutesBOAPD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
January 26, 1983
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. J. Royall Robertson, Chairman
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Vice Chairman
Mr. C. L. Bookman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir.
of Planning
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of
Parks & Recreation
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. William Howell, Dir. of
General Services
Mr. Ed James, Director of
Purchasing
Dr. Burt Lowe, Admin. of
Mental Health/Mental
Retardation and
Substance Abuse
Mrs. Mary Lou Lyle,
Internal Auditor
Mr. Robert Masden, Director
of Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish, Env.
Engineer
Mrs. Mary Arline McGuire,
County Treasurer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey Mincks, Asst.
County Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey Muzz¥, Dir. of
Community Development
Mr. Richard Nunnally,
VPI/SU Extension Agent
Mr. Dexter Williams, Chief
of Transportation Plan.
Mr. George Woodall, Dir. of
Economic Development
Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse
at 10:05 a.m. (EST).
Mr. Dodd gave the invocation.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the minutes of JaDuary 12 and 14, 1983, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Leonard Rogers, Director of Elementary Instruction, was
present on behalf of the School Board. He presented the Chairman
of the Board with an autographed copw of the new 4th Grade
"History and Geography of Chesterfield County, Virginia" and
provided copies to all Board members and the County
Administrator. He stated this book was written by Mrs. Bettie
Woodson Weaver, a fourth grade teacher who taught for 29 years at
Watkins Elementary, since its inception, and if there were a
"Mrs. Chesterfield County History", she would be it. tie stated
she was released from the classroom for one year, compiled all
83-024
the data and illustrations and worked closely with Dr. Ann
Blanton, Supervisor of Social Services. He stated the book had
been user-tested in paperback form for one year in order to make
sure everything in the book was correct and up-to-date. He
stated Mrs. Weaver was sorry she could not attend today but asked
that he point out that the purpose of writing this book was to
help children learn about their physical and human world so that
they may become better citizens and that the cover is made from
DuPont tyvek made here in the County. He stated that she not
only wrote about the County but made sure the County resources
were used in printing it. The Board expressed their appreciation
for the copy of the book and indicated they were certain Mrs.
Weaver injected her enthusiasm into its contents.
Mr. Richard Nunnally stated for Board information, the James
River Soil and Water Conservation District, in cooperation with
the Extension Service and several other State and County
agencies, have planned for this spring to put in a demonstration
of 50-55 acres of corn to be produced at Randolph Farm at
Virginia State University with treated sludge. He stated it will
show the farmer what kind of production he can get and the
savings he can realize. He stated that it is estimated that the
farmer will be able to save $50-$100 an acre by using this
material. He stated the State Health Department and State Water
Control Board are involved in this project and it is very highly
regulated. Mr. Dodd stated it was a good idea to utilize this
material rather than having it emptied into a landfill. Mrs.
Girone stated that Virginia State is a land-grant institution and
it does have an extension arm that has never really been funded
as much as Virginia Tech. She stated this is an indication how
the County government and [he State and Extension Service can all
work together to solve a problem. She stated that the Farm is a
great asset to the County and Universitv. Mr. Nunnally stated
the sludge will come from the City of Richmond because they are
using that which is de-watered and the County's sludge has a high
concentration of water which ca,not be used but that the data
will reflect directly on future use for the County.
Suzan Craik, Staff Coordinator for the Litter Corporation, was
present and introduced Mr. Dick Cook, Chairman of the
Corporation. He stated that the County had received an Award of
Merit from the Division of Litter Control and a Distinguished
Service Award from Keep Virginia Beautiful, Inc. which he
presented to the Chairman. He stated appreciation to the Board
for their support financially and for appointing representatives
from each district. He reviewed some of the activities and
accomplishments of the Corporation during the past year. Mr.
Robertson complimented the Corporation on their outstanding
efforts and stated it was a pleasure and honor to accept the
awards. Mr. Hedrick and the Board expressed their appreciation
to all the members of the Corporation for their successful
efforts.
Mr. Hedrick stated there had been some recent publicity
concerning some of the County's procedures for reimbursement of
fees to developers concerning off-site, over-size lines, etc. in
the Utilities Department. He stated the staff has been and will
continue to work on this matter and do anticipate coming to the
Board with some recommendations after the alternatives have been
evaluated which should be within the next several weeks. Mr.
Dodd thanked Mr. Hedrick for the clarification as the newspaper
article indicated it would be business as usual which it is not
the case.
83-025
Mrs. Girone, as representative to the Social Services Board,
stated everyone is concerned with khe budget. She stated that
everyone in the County is being asked to cut back but social
service needs are growing because of the economy, lack of jobs,
etc. She stated that cuts are being made from the State and
Federal levels and there are more and more clients requesting
assistance as at the last meeting, five people requested medical
assistance. She stated that in the budget deliberations, she
would like the Board to consider the fact that these needs are
growing. She stated if this Department is treated like all
others, they will do without $49,000 of local money which will
decrease funding of $101,000 of State and Federal money which
will really mean $150,000. She stated this is a special plea to
consider the needs of this department.
Mr. Hedrick introduced students from the 12th Grade Government
Class at Thomas Dale who were present to observe the meeting.
Dr. Burt Lowe was present and stated they would like Board
approval to apply for funds to establish a residential/treatment
program for emotionally disturbed children which will reduce
utilization of State facilities. He stated the Community
Services Board and the School Board have developed a proposal for
a 16 bed facility for those children who are unable to
participate in the regular school program. He stated they would
like to apply for funds of $1i0,000 a year from the State
Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. He stated
the School System spends about $23,000 a year now for a child who
cannot be treated in the school system nor in the State. He
stated the State Department of Education pays 60% of this cost
and local School Board pays 40%. I{e stated that the State
Department of Education will pay 60% of the cost of a program
like this and with Department of Mental Health money, it will
reduce the local School Board contribution. He stated the County
is responsible for these children and it is a high priority for
the Mental Health Department. Dr. Sullins stated that he had
mixed emotions regarding this program as he has never considered
running a residential school and he, the School Board and his
staff really don't want to. He stated the School Board has not
made a decision regarding this matter at this time. He stated
his prime reason for supporting this would be the cost savings to
the taxpayers in the County which would be $100,000-$150,000 a
year for several years in the future. He stated the population
of such children has been declining for the past years and they
are meeting more of their needs in the school system but there
are students who cannot go to a regular school which averages
12-34 children per year. He stated the average cost is $9,000
per child of local match with $14,000 from the State. He stated
the idea would be to renovate a vacant building which would
require some initial capital outlay. He stated they would try to
locate it in an area which is not highly populated. He stated
the City of Richmond has one or more homes of this type which is
cheaper than sending students to a profit-making institution.
Mr. Bookman stated he hoped this would not be voted on today as
he would be in favor of having some public input prior to making
a decision. He stated he was not saying he was opposed to the
program, but noted Dr. Sullins' reluctance. He stated he was
concerned about the cost to renovate Granqe Hall Annex and was
concerned about it being 20 miles from the central population.
He stated he thought the Board should further analyze this new
program as there would be hard budget decisions to be made this
year. He stated he felt there might be an influx of people
coming to the County once this type of program was established.
Dr. Sullins stated that most parents with children needing this
service would rather go to other areas because they would rather
send their children to the residential school away from home and
then they are away 7 days a week and they do not have to fret
83-026
about them. He stated this facility would provide that some of
these children go home on weekends. He stated there are about 25
homes of this type in the State with 3 or 4 operated by school
boards. Mr. Dodd stated that if the location of Grange Hall
School is a problem, perhaps they would consider Kingsland
School. He indicated he could agree to a two week deferral to
determine location, etc. but he felt the County has an obligation
mandated by the courts. Mr. Bookman stated that Grange Hall is
not in his district any more but he has talked to some people in
the area. He stated public input should be obtained before this
is approved; which concurrence can be obtained if it is handled
properly. Mr. Daniel agreed that the County had an obligation in
this matter and one that should be accomplished in the most
efficient and cost effective manner--that of grant funding. He
stated he did not feel it should be delaved any longer than two
weeks.
Mr. Hedrick stated that from the discussion of the Board it is
his understanding that it would be deferred for two weeks for
potential locations to be studied further as most of the
information on the program itself has been given. He stated that
he felt a particular location should not be given a higher
priority than another because if it is and the public has strong
feelings against it, and then another site is determined, others
will feel the same way and there will be opposition. Mr. Bookman
stated he was concerned that group homes or schools of this
nature could be located without public knowledge as zoning is not
required. He stated he felt a public hearing by staff of some
nature should be held. He stated he did not feel the grant
should be applied for at this time as the Board could be locking
themselves into a program, regardless of location. Mrs. Girone
stated that she felt the facilities should be identified and
actual costs assessed with the help of County staff as the School
and Mental Health personnel may not be professionally trained to
assess all aspects of land values, construction, renovation, etc.
She stated there may be costs involved which have not been
considered at this time but could be expensive later. She stated
she would like a realistic appraisal of what this will mean for
costs of building and grounds.
When asked, Dr. Lowe stated that the deadline for submitting this
grant was February 15th. Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd indicated they
felt items of this magnitude should not be presented to the Board
with a decision expected within 10-15 days.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
deferred consideration of this matter until February 9, 1983,
with staff to provide additional information on locations and
actual costs.
Dr. Sullins stated that they have reviewed the costs rather
extensively at this time. He stated Kingsland would be rather
expensive and the least expensive would be Grange Hall to
renovate. He stated this would cost approximately
$100~000-$150,000 if it went to a total 16 bed facility with
modifications requested by the Mental Health Dept. He stated
they were also looking towards a facility which might be as far
removed as possible from population centers. Mr. Bookman stated
this might be the best place for the facility but he felt the
people should be notified and there may be support for it. Mr.
Hedrick stated for information, ~hat this program is under the
Community Services Board and the School Board and there is not a
requirement that the program be presented to the Board. He
stated that both groups felt since this was a different approach
to a program, the Supervisors should review this which is a
method of notifying the public. Mr. Bookman stated he felt this
was the proper approach.
83-027
Se
A vote on the motion was as
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Ramsey stated that the School Board had been notified that
funding will be delayed until July, 1984 on five of the Literary
Loan projects which had been approved by the State Board of
Education. He stated the School Board and County staff had agree(
on a recommendation to continue forward with the projects by
issuing bond anticipation notes. He stated that the Board should
know that the bond anticipation notes will be issued with the
thought that they will be paid back when the Literary Loans
become available after 1984 and if there is a delay with the
Literary funds, the County would be obligated to actually
converting these to bonds on the open market. He stated further
that they would only be issued as needed because based on the
Code, any notes that the County issues, even if they are paid
back, relieves the authority to issue bonds. He stated for
example, if the County issued $3,000,000 in notes, paid them back
with Literary Loans, the County would have authority to issue
only another $3,000,000. Mr. Daniel inquired of the $26,000,000
of projects listed in the original bond, were all taken care of
with the $20,000,000 already set aside. Dr. Sullins indicated
that as far as he knew, all are under contract utilizing the
$20,000,000 plus the Literary Loans already obtained.
Mr. Mincks stated that the bond counsel has been contacted
regarding this matter and it is their opinion that the School
Board would have to take action themselves and the Board should
approve the concept but not authorize issuance of the notes. He
stated that there is some risk that the Literary Loans may not be
available. Mr. Ramsey stated formal resolutions will be
submitted later to both the School Board and Supervisors for
official action. Mr. Bookman inquired if we borrowed bond
anticipation monies, would Literary Loans pay back those notes.
Mr. Ramsey stated that the bond attorneys had raised this issue
as a possible problem but that staff felt that this would only be
true if these projects had not already been approved by the State
Board of Education which is not the case. He stated, for
example, we could not go out and build projects and then apply
for funds to pay for them.
On motion of the Board, it was resolved:
1. That the following projects proceed:
Beulah $ 750,000
Bon Air 1,000,000
Curtis 600,000
Falling Creek 600,000
Midlothian 2,000,000
$~,950,000
That the Board approves the concept of issuing bond
anticipation notes as needed against the $6,000,000 bonds
authorized but unissued and this temporary funding source
should be used until the Literary Fund monies become
available. At that time, the bond anticipation notes would
be repaid from revenues received from the Literary Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick stated the next item for authorization by the County
Administrator for professional services contracts up to $10,000
~s a result of the new purchasing ordinance adopted. It was on
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the
following resolution be adopted:
83 -028
Whereas, the CommoDwealth of Virginia has adopted the
Virginia Public Procurement Act and has mandated certain portions
be adopted by all political subdivisions; and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
adopted a new Purchasing Ordinance which is in compliance with
the requirements of the State and also meets the County's needs;
and
Whereas, the new Purchasing Ordinance requires competitive
negotiation of professional services by the County; and
Whereas, staff has developed an administrative Drocedure for
the selection of professional services to be used by all County
departments, with such procedure outlining the responsibilities
of the various departments and the Purchasing Department, and
also with such procedure allowing for approval by the County
Administrator of all professional services contracts costing less
than $10,000.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors
hereby delegates the authority to approve all contracts for
professional services costing less than $10,000 to the County
Administrator, with authority for approval of contracts $10,000
or more remaining with the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dodd stated that he questioned why periodically the Board is
requested to vote away their responsibility or their ability to
question. He stated he felt this was another erosion away of the
options of the Board. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt the
operation of the County must go on day-in and day-out and the
Board only meets every two weeks and she did not feel the Board
can get involved in transactions of $10,000 or less. She stated
in this $150,000,000 operation there should be some leeway. Mr.
Dodd stated he felt the Board members should get involved if it
is necessary and he is not questioning any person on the staff,
but he did not feel the Board should continuously relinquish its
authority. Mr. Bookman stated ~his would be a way to keep up
with the consultants hired for the County because some times they
are hired without the Board's knowledge. Mr. Hedrick stated this
is not authorizing anything for professional services. He stated
the Board adopted the new ordinance wh~ich requires that the
County seek proposals, etc. for contracting for professional
services, engineering services, etc. and in the day-to-day
transactions of the County there are many instances where we have
day-to-day needs. He stated the Board sets the budget, the
policy, the programs, etc. and the management needs latitude to
~et the day-to-day business accomplished. He stated this is only
~ streamlining procedure all of which would be in accordance with
policy and procedure authorized by the Board. He stated this
~ould prevent the actual hiring of a consultant from waiting two
~eeks which had been previously approved by the Board. Mr.
Bookman stated consultants are usually not a budgeted category.
~r. Hedrick stated if the Board approved a project, it would be
~p to the Administration to decide if we had the capability
in-house or would have to go outside. Mr. Dodd stated that he
~id not want anyone to misread his concerns but he did not think
~wo weeks was too long to wait for a decision by the Board. When
~sked, it was indicated that the County Administrator could not
~pprove anything for consultants and c~uld approve $5,000 for
I~hange orders f6r construction projects, etc.' Mr. Daniel stated
I~hat a $10,000 fee for a consultan{, is a large fee but he would
~Dffer a compromise of $5,000. He stated he has yee to see the
entire purchasing philosophy Sp~ll-over into the c~nsultant area.
He stated a lower limit could be approved and if higher limits
are necessary, it could be reconsidered later.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved the following resolution:
83-029
Whereas, the Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted the
Virginia Public Procurement Act and has mandated certain portions
be adopted by all political subdivisions; and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
adopted a new Purchasing Ordinance which is in compliance with
the requirements of the State and also meets the County's needs;
and
Whereas, the new Purchasing Ordinance requires competitive
negotiation of professional services by the County; and
Whereas, staff has developed an administrative procedure foz
the selection of professional services to be used by all County
departments, with such procedure outlining the responsibilities
of the various departments and the Purchasing Department, and
also with such procedure allowing for approval by the County
Administrator of all professional services contracts costing less
than $5,000.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors
hereby delegates the authority to approve all contracts for
professional services costing less than $5,000 to the County
Administrator, with authority for approval of contracts $5,000 or
more remaining with the Board of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hester stated that at the Noven~er 24, 1982, the Parks and
Recreation Department was authorized to prepare the necessary
grant and planning documents for Dale Park. He stated they have
revised the master plan, and have developed the drawings and
packages for the recreational access road and Phase I development
of the Park. He stated in order to proceed the Board would need
to appropriate $250,000, allow the Department to include $20,000
that was designated for therapeutics playground/fitness area as
an addition to the grant and to be used to build this facility
and to authorize the Department to apply for grant funds of
approximately $200,000 of Recreational Road Access Funds and
$270,000 from the Commission of Outdoor Recreation (COR). Mr.
Dodd inquired what the cost was per acre. Mr. Hester stated
there were 365 acres and $450,000-$500,000 for the entire parcel
which would be a little over $1,000 an acre. Mr. Daniel stated
that it was actually $275r000 cash and then traded parcels. Mrs.
Girone inquired about the matching money from the COR. Mr.
Hester stated that it is available now. He stated the
Recreational Access Funds are less than expected for the State
but will become available July, ]983. Mrs. Girone inquired if he
thought the County could obtain these recreational funds. Mr.
Hester stated that the County has received this money for the
last four years. He stated it was to be done as a joint venture
and the COR would have to approve both projects as a package.
Mrs. Girone stated that she was concerned with the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) and where this project fits. Mr.
Hester stated that Phase I of the Dale Park is included as a
portion of the CIP. Mrs. Girone inquired when the Board would be
addressing the CIP. Mr. Daniel stated that the Planning
Commission approved the Plan but they did not approve individual
projects. Mr. Hedrick stated that he would like the Board to
have a work session to review the CiP and give the staff
direction as how to proceed. He stated it would come up during
the budget process, if not before.
Mrs. Girone stated her concern with doing this now, that it is
taken out of context and is not taken in relation to other
projects. She stated that another concern is the budget. She
stated the bill that would have provided aid to the Nursing Home
is in trouble and may not pass, so the County may have more than
a $2,000,000 deficit, there could be another million added. She
stated she felt it was wrong at the beginning of the budget
83-030
process to consider a major e)~penditure and without considering
the comprehensive plan which will come before the Board. She
stated she had a problem with the timing of this request.
Mr. Daniel stated Dale Park is a idea and commitment whose time
has come. He stated that in July, 1978 the Board agreed on the
$6,400,000 bond issue and shortly thereafter in a memo the Board
committed $500,000 for a major park facility in Dale District.
He stated that the Board reaffirmed this in 1979 again to the
citizens and Dale representative, that the Board members were to
live up to that commitment. He stated the land that was acquired
from 1980-82 was done not with any general revenue nor any
additional tax money from the County but by shifting approved
bond funding of projects the citizens did not even want. He
stated obtaining the land did not cost the County any significant
amount of money. He stated that in November, 1982, to keep in
the spirit of the acquisition of the land and never really
calling for $500,000 that had been promised by the governing
body, the Board authorized, staff to prepare the necessary
planning documents for the grant which was then done with 3¢ Road
Funds from Dale District which did not put any undue financial
burden on the County. He stated it was his understanding that
the money he is asking for to start Phase I is $250,000 and that
is available and the $20,000 to add to it is available. He
stated the County would be putting up $270,000 to begin a project
that the alternatives in waiting, do not make any financial
sense. He stated that as Mr. }{ester has indicated, the matching
funds for the COR grant is available and the County has never
been denied recreational access funds. He stated the Board had
approved and supported funds for other parks in other districts
in the County over the years. He stated the only way you will
know if you can get this money, is to ask; and if you don't get
it, there is still the opportunity of not spending the original
investment. He stated the best long term approach to meeting
this objective is to take it this way, don't go to the voters two
or three years from now and have it plowed into a CIP program.
He stated you will not get the interest of the Board of
Supervisors in dealing with a CIP program. He stated this
project is less than 1% of that total, $250,000 out of
$30,000,000. He stated the logic is not there to hold up this
project while everyone agreed on the other 99%. He stated that
staff pointed out that these ideas are new for the County, the
timing is right and the support of ~:he people will be there for
the project. He stated he had received calls from athletic
associations, school groups, civic groups, etc. He stated this
is not a new thing but has been with the Board since 1978. He
stated the Board. can now live up tc its commitment. He stated
there J.s talk about what people expect from government and they
are disillusioned because they can never tell. what the word of
government really means. He stated that if this were approved,
the Board would be living up to a commitment that was made years
ago. He stated the Droposal was prepared in such a way that
would not burden the taxpayer and would offer them a way to
finance it, get it started and on the ground with very little
impact on the County today. He stated everyone heard the
President of the United States say last night, that "it was hard
times" and he agrees. He stated but the best way to do this
project is to do it this way and not burden the taxpayers with
additional money, additiona~ funding or hide it through some
other mechanism that will cost us more in the long run. He
stated that you're just as guilty of not manaqing the County's
money if you delay projects and don't move forward. He stated,
for example, the Literary Loans two years ago when he said move
forward when the loans were available, but no, the County had to
have a mechanism for delaying and stringing that out. He stated
that you are as guilty of mismanaging the Government's money if
you don't do it when you have the opportunity in the most
efficient manner than waiting and continuing to give reasons for
delay. He stated he was prepared to make a motion for approval.
83 -031
Mr. Bookman stated he was a very strong supporter of recreation.
He stated that he was here in 1978, as well as Mr. Dodd and Mrs.
Girone when the $6,400,000 was approved for bonds for parks and
recreation. He stated he remembered explicitly that it was a
last minute effort to obtain a park for Dale and the Board
committed to Mr. Apperson through projects not costing as much,
to acquire the land. He stated that was the commitment and they
did not commit to building the park itself. He stated that there
is discussion regarding employees not receiving cost-of-living
raises/merit raises, we are down $2,000,000 and maybe another
million, etc. He inquired what other surprises are in store. He
stated that if the $250,000 were free and clear and did not
jeopardize other things that could surface, it would be a good
deal to receive an additional $500,000. He stated he was not in
opposition to Dale Park ])ut he felt the timing is wrong. He
stated today money is available in the State, but tomorrow it may
not be. He stated we do not have enough recreational facilities
in the County and that is why they are addressed in the CIP
program, but to take funds from the General Fund at this time is
inappropriate. He stated he felt it could be included in a
future bond package.
Mrs. Girone stated that she supported the Dale Park but she is
concerned with the financial condition of the County and Country.
She stated there is one thing after another happening and that no
one knows what the President's message means to the County. She
stated the better part of wisdom is not to take $250,000 from the
operating budget of the County to put into a park at this point.
She, too, stated the timing is wrong on this park.
Mr. Dodd stated that he felt the cost effectiveness that has been
put forward by Mr. Daniel to obtain land for a park for
$1,200-$1,500 an acre is a real undertaking. He stated that
other parks have been much less cost effective. He stated that
he made a commitment to Mr. Apperson that when the time came, he
would support a park for that district. He stated he felt this
was a moral and ethical commitment to the 44,000 people of Dale
District as well as other people in other districts who would
utilize this facility.
Mr. Bookman agreed that Mr. Daniel should be complimented for the
putting together of this land acquisition but he felt the timing
was wrong.
Mr. Robertson stated he had spent a lot of time considering and
researching this project. He stated he realizes Dale District
does not have a developed park and is the only district which
does not. He stated he also realizes money is tight and he also
listened to the President and he believes things will be more
difficult in the future than they have in the past. He stated he
was concerned about this project, but the economy as well and he
could not support it at this time.
Mr. Daniel stated he was personally disappointed that he did not
have the votes for approval of the project. He stated he felt he
had a commitment of a word, of a promise. He inquired how long
this commitment would take to become a reality. He stated that
if people sit around and wait for something to happen, nothing
will. He stated that his fiscal, conservative credentials have
never been questioned. He stated if he felt this County were to
be broke or this County was to be in severe, hard economic times
do to this project, he would be the first to withdraw the item.
He stated with everythin~ that he has seen, he would not argue
that things would not be harder next year, but the Board will
have to pick and choose among requests, projects, etc. He stated
he would have to carry forth the commitment made to the 44,000
residents in Dale and it was on his motion, seconded by Mr. Dodd,
resolved that the Board appropriate $250,000 for Phase I
development of the youth athletic complexes; that the Department
be allowed to include the $20,000 approved 3 years ago by the
Board for development of a therapeutic playground/fitness area as
an addition to the COR grant and be used to building this
83 -032
9.A.
9.B.
facility in Dale Park as part of the special populations area;
that the Department be authorized to make application to the
Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation for matching
development funds of $270,000; and 'that the Department make
application to the Commission of Outdoor Recreation and Virginia
Department of Highways for maximum funding for $200,000 for
recreational access road funds which total approval is
contingent upon receiving grant funds.
Mr. Dodd stated he did not feel very favorable towards approving
a CIP for $30,000,000 because he did not feel the people were
ready for something like this. Mr. Bookman stated the commitment
for obtaining the land was made which has been accomplished. He
stated further when the right time comes, he could support this
project. He stated he, too, felt $30,000,000 for a CIP was a lot
of money but he might support a portion of it.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Mrs. McGuire stated that she would like authorization to sell E1
Paso Natural Gas Common Stock which the County obtained when the
Police came under the County retirement system. Mr. Dodd stated
that he felt the Treasurer should be authorized to sell stock
such as this without coming ~o the Board because of the nature of
options and timing. Mrs. McGuire stated that if the Board were
to approve a blanket authorization, she would like to have the
resolution to also include consultation with the County
Administrator concerning any potential sales. On motion of Mr.
Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized Mrs. Mary
Arline McGuire, County Treasurer, to sign and sell, in the best
interest of the County, any stock involving the Police Retirement
System and that the County Administrator be consulted regarding
any potential sales.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed
and recommended approval of the proposed Flood Plain Management
regulations to the Board of Supervisors. He stated the
homebuilders association was in agreement with this proposal.
M~. Dodd inquired if the County had a choice in this matter. Mr.
Balderson stated the County did have a choice, but if it were not
approved, flood insurance would not be available to citizens in
the County. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the
Board set February 23, 19~3 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to
consider the Flood Plain Management Ordinance.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by ~r. Bookman, the Board
forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and comment, a
proposed ordinance which would substitute "Director of Planning"
for "Director of Community Development" in the Zoning Ordinance.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Red Lion Place, Marble Head Court, Homestead Court
and South Red Lion Court in Heritage Commons, remaining portion of
Sections A and B, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof and on motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, it is resolved that Red Lion Place,
Marble Head Court, Homestead Court and South Red Lion Court in
Heritage Commons, remaininq portion of Section A and Section B,
83-033
]0.
Midlothian District, be and. they hereby are established as public
roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Red Lion Place, beginning where
State maintenance ends, Red Lion Place, State Route 1952, and
going .03 mile easterly to intersection with Homestead Court,
then continuing .05 mile easterly to intersection with South Red
Lion Court, then continuing .02 mile easterly to tie into
proposed Red Lion Place, Heritage Village, Section A; Marble Head
Court, beginning at intersection with Red Lion Place, State Route
1952, and going .08 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac; Homestead
Court, beginning at intersection with Red Lion Place and going
.07 mile northeasterly to a cul-de-sac and South Red Lion Court,
beginning at intersection with Red Lion Place and going .06 mile
southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 32 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia DeDartment of Highways a 40 ft.
right-of-way for all of these roads except Red Lion Place which
has a 50 ft. right-of-way· These sections of Heritage Commons
are recorded as follows:
Section A, Plat Book 29, Pages 39 and 40, August 2, 1977.
Section B, Plat Book 35, Pages 26 and 27, December 13, 1979.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick stated that there was an added item requesting the
Circuit Court Judges to appoint Thomas Edward Goble as a Police
Officer for Chesterfield County. Mr. Dodd stated that he would
like to request an Executive Session to discuss personnel matters
before approving this request. He stated that although it is a
personnel matter, it does not personally reflect on Mr. Goble.
It was generally agreed the Executive Session would be held later
in the day and it was requested that Chief Pittman be present.
Mr. Dodd stated that the Board of Equalization of Real Estate
Assessments had been a five member Board and that last wear it
was reduced to three. He stated that he felt with something as
controversial as real estate assessments, that each District of
the County should have a representative. On motion of Mr.
Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board of Supervisors
respectfully requests the Circuit Court Judges to create a Board
of Equalization of Real Estate Assessments for the 1982 general
reassessment and appoint five members in accordance with Sections
58-898 and 58-899 of the Code of Virginia, and further the Board
requests the Circuit Court Judges appoint the following people to
serve on this Board:
Mrs. Lorraine Weitzel
Midlothian District
e
Mr. Ludson W. Hudgins
Clover Hill District
Mr. Richard M. Allen
Bermuda District
Mr. James E. Walters
Matoaca District
Mr. Ronald G. Mann
Dale District
Vote: Unanimous
83--034
Mr. Bookman stated that Mrs. Carla O'Hare had been the Clover
Hill District's representative to the Community Services Board
and with the redistricting, she is now in Matoaca District. He
stated that he highly recommended Mrs. O'Hare and if Mr.
Robertson wanted to consider her, he would yield a second
appointment at this time for Clover }{ill District. On motion of
Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, %he Board appointed the
following people to the Chesterfield County Community Services
Board for the terms as indicated:
1. Mrs. Carrie Rogers, Midlothian District, term to expire on
December 31, 1985;
2. Mrs. Mary Jo Lux, Clover Hill District, term to expire on
December 31, 1984; and
3. Mrs. Carla O'Hare, Matoaca District, term to expire on
December 31, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
appointed Dr. Walter E. Kilbourne, Bermuda District, and
reappointed Mr. John Mazza, Matoaca District, to the Airport
Advisory Board effective iF~ediately whose terms will expire on
February 14, 1.986.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
reappointed the following people to the Richmond MPO Citizens
Transportation Advisory Committee effective immediately and whose
terms will expire on December 31, 1984.
Mr. Edward J. Jefferson
Mr. C. H. Clarke
Vote: Unanimous
Dr. Neil J. Humphries
Mr. Frederick T. Gray, Jr.
Mr. Hedrick advised the Board of other outstanding appointments.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board went
into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as permitted
by Section 2.].-344 (a) (!) of %he Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
Mr. Hedrick stated that for those present, although the Board
went into an Executive Session for personnel matters which was a
legal Executive Session, it d~.d not involve Mr. Thomas Goble
personally.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, secoDded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
respectfully requests the t~r.~uzt Court Judges to appoint Mr.
Thomas Edward Goble as a Police Officer for Chesterfield County
effective January 31, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Frank Gee, Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, was present. He stated that the
results from the Turner and Belmont Road study were in and he
would like to meet with Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel inquired if a
83-035
12.A.
light is warranted. Mr. Gee stated it was not but 'that other
measures that can be implemented to improve the intersection.
Mr. Dodd requested that a speed l~mit sign be installed on
Petersburg Street as this one was missed when the Highway
Department installed others in Chester.
Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Bookman inquired about the asphalting of Providence Road.
Mr. Gee stated that the contractor did not finish as the
Department gave him a shut-down because of the cold weather. He
stated that this road and others in the amount of about $100,000
will be completed in the Spring. Mr. Bookman inquired if the
original budgeted funds would still be used or would new funds
have to be utilized. Mr. Gee stated that the original funds
would be used.
Mrs. Girone stated that she would be talking with Mr. Gee in the
near future regarding the use of Revenue Sharing money for
improvements in Midlot~ian District.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meetJ, nq.
Mr. Muzzy stated that in the early 1970's with the inception of
the County Industrial Park, a ta×iway was proposed to serve those
properties indicated on the Airport side of Whitepine Road and
has been located on the Master Plan. He stated that in November,
198]., the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into
a contract for construction plans for said taxiway. He stated the
plans are completed and have been presented to the property
owners in the Park who are affected, the funds are available in
the Industrial Park Reserve Account and the Taxiway Account which
cost is estimated at $240,000 and it will involve an initial 20
ft. wide taxiway. He reviewed the site plan and explained the
location of the taxiwa¥ and easements require~.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
authorized alternative 1 and authorized the transfer of $160,500
from the Airport Industrial Park Reserve Account,
111-1-00880-0000, to the Airport Taxiway Account,
330-1-92304-000, and authorized the County Administrator to enter
into a contract for the construction of the taxiway, as indicated
on plans da'ted July, 1982, in the amount not to exceed $240,000.
Mr. Daniel stated he is concerned with internal consistency which
is the same rationale used to make one decision versus another.
He stated that staff recommends that the timing is right and that
the County has a moral and ethnical obligation regarding this
project. He stated he felt the Dale Park had a similar moral and
ethical obligation bu-t yet that was denied at this time for
reasons of timing. He inquired if this were in the CIP and if
not, it should be deferred until the CIP is discussed. He stated
he felt it was unrealistic to vote for this appropriation which
benefits very few people when the Board would not discuss voting
capital money because times are hard, etc. He stated that he
would not be able to support this in order to stay consistent.
He stated he felt it was wrong for two papers to be presented
with two different recommendations when they both involved
capital expenditures.
Mr. Bookman stated that this project is entirely different. He
stated that the people who are located along this side of the
Airport paid additional funds for this taxiway when purchasing
their property. He stated that we could refund their money with
interest for the additional ~unds they paid which the County
Attorney has stated cannot be done or we can build the project.
He stated these funds are not coming from the general fund of the
County but from the money for properties which have been sold
83-036
12.B.
which money is supposed to go back into improvements to the Park.
He stated this is totally a different situation.
Mr. Dodd inquired when the extension of the Airport runway would
take place and if it would be best to do this project at the same
time the contractor is already there. Mr. Muzzy stated that this
extension is dependent upon ~r~nt approval.
Mr. Bookman stated this project has already been engineered and
it will never be less than it is today.
Mr. Hedrick stated that all hurdles have been crossed with the
exPansion of the runway at the Airport except for releasing the
federal funds but they have been frozen in Washington for some
time and he is not sure why. He stated that this matter was
brought up at the Board's request because of inquiries from
property owners and at the Board's direction the project was
engineered. He stated that the recommendations are how the
project can be funded if the Board would like to proceed. Mr.
Dodd stated he knew that this project has been discussed for five
years and he was just interested in the cheapest cost and the
best time for doing the construction.
Mrs. Girone stated this money is in the Airport Industrial
Reserve Account, it is ~et in 'the operating budget of the County
or general revenue. She stated these funds have been set aside
for this purpose which is entirely a different issue. Mr. Daniel
stated that he felt it was the same issue because it is still
County money and the residents of Dale District who were promised
a park are still without one.
Mr. Phil Evans, property owner in the Airport industrial Park,
stated that he bought property in the Airport Industrial Park at
an extra $10,000 with the anticipation of the taxiway which they
would not have done if they had any doubt about its construction.
Mr. Lou Lehman stated that he realized the dJ. scussion regarding
the Park and the denial of the request but two wrongs do not make
a right. He stated that the taxiway has been promised for seven
or eight years and property was bought with the understanding
that the taxiway was to be constru~ted. He stated he would not
have bought the property had this not been promised.
The vote being taken was as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman and ~lrs. Girone.
Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Richard Kavanaugh inquired when this could be expected for
construction as they bad to make plans regarding construction of
their own hangar facilities. The Board assured the property
owners that staff would [~roceed as quickly as possible and that
bids would be let within the next month or so but indicated Mr.
Kavanaugh should discuss this with Mr. Muzzy or Mr. Balderson as
they could give more specific details.
Mr. Dodd stated that when the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was
constructed, a vital area just like Meadowville Road was
bypassed, which was the Willis Road interchange at which location
only half of an interchange was constructed and later private
enterprise completed. He stated there was quite a bit of
controversy, there were threatened law suits and it was a very
difficult situation. He stated he is afraid that if the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation does not construct the
Meadowville interchange for the County, that this entire region
will be bypassed and really bisected to a degree that the
Department will be cutting off an access that is there now for
several roads. He stated he felt this was of vital importance
83-037
12.C.
12.D.
that this area not be bypassed, not only for Chesterfield County
but for the entire region. He stated there are possibilities of
a deep water port authority and other types of development which
are being considered. He stated there is a real fear in his mind
that once the road is built, if that interchange is not put in,
it will never be a reality. He stated another point is that the
County would not have the Brown Boveri plant today, if the Willis
Road interchange was not tlhere. He stated there is 10 times more
room at the intersection of Route 6].8 than was at Willis Road.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, The route for the 1--295 bypass in the Richmond and
Tri-Cities metropolitan areas crosses Meadowville Road, Route
618; and
Whereas, The routing of 1-295 north of Meadowville Road
adversely bisects the largest prime site in the area for heavy
industrial development; and
Whereas, The adverse effects of 1-295 on the aforementioned
site can be ameliorated by an interchange at 1-295 and
Meadowville Road.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that. the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation to undertake actions necessary for
the construction of an interchange on Meadowville Road, Route
618, as a part of the constructJ.on of the 1-295 bypass.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd requested that copies be sent to all of the elected
officials representing Chesterfield County.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Beard
accepted an agreement between the County and the developers of
Spring Grove Subdivision, Lots 27 and 28, and authorized the
County Administrator to sign a save-harmless agreement with the
Virginia Department. of Higbwavs and Transportation for certain
drainage easements that may be necessary to be acquired for Sprin~
Grove Subdivision, Lots 27 and 28.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the installation of street lights at the following
locations in River Road Estates with any funds to be expended
from the Matoaca District Street I.ight Funds:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Brickhouse Drive and BrJckhouse Court
River Road and Truth D.~:ive
River Road and Attucks Drive
Truth Drive and Attucks Drive
Sasha Court and Sb. sker Drive
Sacks Lane and Shaker Court
Brickhouse Drive and Sacks Lane
And further the Board denJ. ed the requests for installation of
street lights at the following locations as they did not meet the
criteria:
2.
3.
4.
Between 20910 and 20911 Truth Drive
Brickhouse Drive, Near 20914
Between 4210 and 42].1 Brickhouse Court
Between 20907 and 20908 Sasha Court
Vote: Unanimous
83-038
13.A.
13.B.1.
13.B.2.
13.C.
13.D,1.
13.D.2.
On motion of ~.rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
denied the request for installation of a street light at
Bullington Road, near 9028.
Vote: Unanimous
The Board was presented with the water and sewer financial status
reports.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved the following change orders for the Falling Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, 7032-25:
~54 - Furnishing and installing low water cut offs at six
locations to protect the pumps - Increase of $5,892.60.
~55 - Decreasing amount of sheet piling installed and for
increase in unit price of sheet piling - Decrease of
$128,348.96.
3. ~56 - For 193 day extension of time (until June 30, 1983).
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the request from Queensmill Corporation to enlarge the
area from which refunds from sewer connection fees are made for
off-site sewer i~mprovements, S78-80CD, which include the new
Midlothian High School and is shown on a map filed with the
papers of this Board, provided the refunds from outside the
Queensmill area are secondary to any other contracts in this
area.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the request from Karl B. Wagner, Jr. for a one year
extension of time for refunds under Contract W78-14CD which is
until February 8, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the fc~llowing sewer contract:
S83-5CD/7(8)3052, Brandywine Forest, Section D
Developer: Bo~ese, Inc.
Contractor: W. T. Curd, Inc.
Sub-Contractor: Coastline Construction, Inc.
Total Construction Cost: $27,883.80
Estimated County Cost: $ 2, 014.59 - refund through sewer
connection fees
Code: 574-1-11781-~7221
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized 'the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W83-BCD/6(8)3082, Brandywine Forest, Section D
Developer: Bogese Incorporated
Contractor: W. T. Curd, Jr., Contractor, Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $17,001.50
Estimated County Cost: $ 2,70'7.45 - refund through connections
83-039
13.D.3.
13.D.4.
14.
15.
16.
Estimated Developer Cost: $14~294.05
Code: 366-1-11684-722]. - refuted through connections for oversize
ma in s
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W83-10CD/6(8)3102, Spring Grove
Developer: Sowers & Associates
Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc.
Total Estimated Cost: $77,239.40
Estimated County Cost: $19,578.60 - total refund for
oversize mains
Estimated Developer Cost: $57,670.60
Code: 366-1-11684-7221 - refund, through connections for oversize
mains
And further the Board transferred $11,441.89 from
380-1-62000-7212 (cash reimbursemerits) to 380-1-63102-4393 which
includes a 10% contingency.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to accept, on behalf of the
County, a five foot strip of ]and located along Burge Avenue and
across the property of J. T. and Elizabeth B. Welton.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
appointed Mr. Philip W. Evans, representing Midlothian District,
to the Airport Advisory Board effective immediately whose term
will expire on February 14, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went
into Executive Session to discuss th~ disposition of publicly
held property as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute contingent sales
contracts and to set public hearings for February 23, 1983 at
10:00 a.m. for the conve~ance of parcels in the Airport
Industrial Park to W. G. Fields and to Sealeze Corporation.
Vote: Unanimous
The Board recessed to travel to Room 502 in the Courthouse for a
work session on revenue estimates.
Reconvening:
Mr. Ramsey stated that usumlly beginning the budget process,
staff likes to start with revenue discussion. He stated that
83 -040
staff had met with tile Board in the Fall and went over the three
year projections and what would be expected for the then current
year and the next three years. He stated that it was estimated
in the Fall that the County would only realize 97%% of the
revenues which were budgeted because of the economic conditions
which means a $2,000,000 shortfall. He stated the shortfall was
in three major areas--real estate, state and local taxes and
delinquent taxes. He stated that personal property taxes were
hoped to off-set some of this deficit at that point. He stated
that in reviewing updated figures the minimum would be $1,500,000
shortfall and that departments were asked to help off-set that
shortfall and they have had each department evaluate what effect
a 4% reduction would have on those services provided. He stated
some of the surplus for position vacancies and savings on the
Blue Cross contract have actually been moved to a separate
account until the end of the vear. He stated with this action
taken, the objective is that the budqet can be balanced even with
the shortfall of revenue. He stated another key factor to
balancing the current year is the surplus turned back by the
School Board.
Mr. Stegmaier reviewed charts of total revenue for the past two
years which indicates that the percentage increase each year is
declining. He stated that in the past, staff could evaluate
historical trends and project future revenues fairly accurately
because we had a steady inflation rate and growth. He stated as
a result of the current economy and growth, we cannot project as
accurately as before. He reviewed the real estate tax revenues,
the state sales tax revenue, the local sales tax revenue and the
General Fund revenue estimates for fiscal year 1984.
Mr. Dodd inquired about the increase in assessments. Mr.
Stegmaier stated it was an average of 3% compared to 7% last
year.
Mr. Ramsey stated we will have less new revenues to deal with
next year than we have for the past years. Mr. Hedrick stated
that out of the $6,000,000 in additional revenues we are going to
have to absorb $3,000,000 in additional debt service because of
the school bond issue which leaves $3,000,000 to spread between
schools and the general County government. He stated the impact
of inflation on schools and the general County government as far
as electricity, etc. has been calculated. He stated it is
estimated that schools will receive $4,700,000 with $1,700,000
for inflation to the existing budget ~pd $3,000,000 for debt
service. He stated this includes nothing for new services, but
holding everything as it is now. He stated this leaves
$1,300,000 for the general County government and is about
$2,000,000 less than what we need to keep up with inflation. He
stated other factors such as possible mandated programs, the
Governor is reconm~ending ~ 6.3% s~lary increase for teachers and
that will be funded on a percentage basis by localities, etc. are
not included. He stated that the $~,000,000 does not include a
cost-of-living increase for employees. He stated some tough
decisions are qoing to have to be made because the Board will
receive requests from rescue squads, schools and others and if we
adhere to maintaining the tax rate, etc~--decisions will be
necessary. He assured the Board that staff is not playing games
with these figures. He stated that the County, relative to other
jurisdictions in the State and the nation as a whole, is an
affluent County and if the Board wanted to do somethin~ about the
tax rate in the short term, we could do it and people would feel
a minimum impact. He stated that the money has been saved in the
big areas, now it will be a few thousand here or a few hundred
there. He stated staff will probably have to come to the Board
with a budget that will dip into the fund balance and if we do
that, and there is not a turn around next year, then we will be
faced with a substantial tax increase.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt there were a lot of areas that could be
addressed--the motor pool[ being one. Mr. Hedrick stated that
this has been tightened up as much as possible. There was some
discussion regarding a possible freeze on hiring, raises
for employees, maintaining/reducing service levels, maintaining
priorities set last year, etc.
83-041
17.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt tables showing the new money and the
places it needs to go and wha[ is left for discretionary money
should be prepared. He stated he felt it would helpful at this
time. Mr. Hedrick stated that although this sounds like a
doomsday speech, the Board will be getting a lot of requests and
they need to know the state of affairs. Mr. Daniel stated each
request will have to be assessed on a case by case basis·
Mr. Hedrick stated that he would be conducting budget sessions
this afternoon and Mr. Hodge would be attending the afternoon
zoning meeting in his absence.
The Board recessed to return to the Board meetinq for the
afternoon zoning session.
Reconvening:
83SR007
In Bermuda Magisterial District, RALPH $. MITTEN requested
renewal of a Special Exception to park a mobile home on property
which, he owns. Tax Map Section 6~-13 (2) Bellwood Estates, Lot
83 and better known as 8319 Gresham Avenue (Sheet 23).
Mr. Mitten was present. For the record, Mr. Dodd inquired if Mr.
Mitten had purchased his mobile home from his company. Mr.
Mitten stated he did not. Mr. Mitten=orated he had received
letters from Mr. Pizzuto and Ms. Cross who were not opposed to
this request which he submitted to the Planning Department. He
stated he would be using the home only for Storage. There was no
opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot nor parcel may be rented nor leased for use as a
mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for
rental property. Only one (]) mobile home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal qoods and
articles shall not be stored un~erneath the mobile home.
Where public (Count]:~) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for a~Mobile Home Permit/Special
Exception, ~he applicant shall ~hen obtain the necessary
permits from the 6ffice of' the Building Official. This
shall be done prior %o the installation or relocation of the
mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home.
Vote: Unanimous
83 -042
]8.
83SR008
In Bermuda Magisterial District, MR. AND MRS. DAVID LEWIS
requested renewal of a Special Exception to park a mobile home on
property which belongs to Ruth Childs, mother of Mrs. Lewis. Tax
Map Section 133-7 (1) Parcel 1 and better known as 13911
Jefferson-Davis Highway (Sheet 41).
Mrs. Childs was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr.
Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following
conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot nor parcel may be rented nor ].eased for use as a
mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for
rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
m
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal goods and
~rticles shall not be shored underneath the mobile home.
e
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for a Mobile Home Permit/Special
Exception, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary
permits from the Office of the Building Official. This
shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the
mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home.
Vote: Unanimous
82S110
In Clover Hill Magisterial Distx'ict, T.N. INGRAM AND D.N. COLE
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business
(B-2) of a 1.06 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on
Hull Street Road, also fronhJ.n~ approximately 250 feet on
Suncrest Drive, and located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Parcels 11 and 14
(Sheet 14 ).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of
this request. There was no opposition present. On motion o~ Mr.
Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board accepted the request
of the applicant for withdrawal.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated, for the record, 'that when the I.ANCO
Corporation case would be heard today he would excuse himself
from 'the meeting. He stated that when this case came to the
Planning Commission, the owner/applicant was represented by Mr.
Jeff Collins of Charles Townes and Associates. He stated after
the case was voted on and some time later, he accidently
discovered that LANCO Corporation is an affiliate of a group
which is a client of his wife. He stated had he known that in
advance, he would have abstained from the vote, but not knowing
83-04.3
the people and individuals, there was no way for him to have that
information and to abstain. He stated that he would not
participate today in the decision of the LANCO Corporation
request and he had discussed this with the Commonwealth's
Attorney and he stated this was the proper way in which to handle
this matter. He stated he also declared with the Planning
Commission the facts of the case. ~{e stated that he must point
out that the Planning Commission made no recommendation because
it was a 3-3 vote. He stated if his vote were discounted, the
recommendation would have come to the Board with a vote of 3-2
for denial.
82S097
In Bermuda Magisterial District, J. CARL MORRIS requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of an 85 acre
parcel fronting approximate]v 2,000 feet on the north line of
Enon Church Road, and located approximately 1,500 feet west of
its intersection with Loren Drive. Tax Map 135-]1 (1) Part of
Parcel 1 and Tax Map 135-14 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 42).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day
deferral of this case. There was no one present to discuss this
matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the
Board approved the request of the applicant for a deferral of
this case until February 23, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
82S108
In Matoaca Magisterial District, STAMIE E. LYTTLE requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) of a 105
acre parcel fronting approximately 1,700 feet on the west line of
Coalboro Road, and located approximately 1,600 feet north of its
intersection with River Road. Tax Map 124 (1) Parcel 64 (Sheet
37).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 60 day
deferral of this case. There was no one present to discuss this
matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the
Board approved the request of the applicant for a deferral of
this case until March 23~ 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
82S109
In Midlothian Magisterial DistrJ. ct, E.M. CIEJEK requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) of a
1]..5 acre parcel fronting ~pproximately 230 feet on the east line
of Grove Road, and located apt~ro×imately 1,500 feet south of its
intersection with Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny
Dell Acres, Lots 17, 18, ].9~ 20, 21 and 22 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 60 day
deferral of this case. There was no one present to discuss this
matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the
Board approved the reguest of the applicant for a deferral of
this case until March 23, 1.983.
Vote: Unanimous
81S097 (Amended)
In Bermuda Magisterial District, PHILIP S. PERDUE requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential Townhouse-For-Sale
(R-TH) of 28.8 acres and to Residential (R-9) of 45.5 acres with
a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the entire
74.3 acre tract. This property lies at the southern terminus of
83-044
Eagle Lane and at the northern terminus of Bragaw Drive and
includes all property bet. t~.~een these two terminuses. Tax Map 97-6
(1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested that this matter
be deferred until later in the day as his representative would
not be present until that time. It was generally agreed the
Board would defer this matter until later in the day.
82S080
In Midlothian Magisterial District, CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIALS,
INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business
(O) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot front yard
setback for parking and buildings fronting on major arterials on
a .685 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on Midlothian
Turnpike, also fronting approximately 300 feet on Old Buckingham
Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection
of these roads. Tax Map 16-9 (1) Parcel 19 (Sheet 7).
~. Balderson stated the Planning CoF~ission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Williamson, representing the applicant, was present and stated
the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present.
Mrs. Girone expressed her appreciation for the cooperation and
assistance by the developer regarding this application as it was
a difficult parcel with which to work. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject
to the following conditions:
The below stated conditions, notwithstanding, the revised
site plan shall be considered the plan of development.
The structure to be erected on the parcel shall be similar
to the elevations submitted with the application.
Specifically, the facades of the building shall employ
natural wood siding, and trim shall be painted and/or
stained in earth tones. The shingles shall also be of an
earth tone color. Prior 'to obtaining a building permit,
colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval.
m
In conjunction with the granting of this request, a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot
building and parking setback requirement along Midiothian
Turnpike shall be ~/ranted. Wi{~hin the twenty-five (25) foot
setback area, there shall be installed a three (3) to four
(4) foot undulating berm. In addition, ornamental trees and
shrubs coupled with existing vegetation shall be placed
within the twenty-five foot setback area. %{ith the
exception of thce parking area encroachment on the east side,
a ten (10) foot buffer area shall be provided around the
remainder of the site. Within this buffer, ornamental tre,es
and shrubs, coupled with. existing vegetation shall be
provided in a manner which substantially screens the
cemetery from this proposed use. In conjunction with
schematic plan submission, a detailed landscaping plan
depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval.
Within the fifteen (15) foot setback area along Old
Buckingham Road, existing vegetation shall be supplemented
with additional vegetation to include ornamental trees and
shrubs. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review.
Se
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, thirty (30) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Old
83-045
Buckingham Road for the entire length of the property
abutting Old Buck~ng'kam l~ead, shall be dedicated 'to and for
the County of Chesterfield free and unrestricted·
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, an additional
lane of pavement, twenty-six (26) feet from the centerline
of Old Buckingham Road with curb and gutter, shall be
constructed for the length of the property abutting Old
Buckingham Road.
Prior to the issuance of afl occupancy permit, an additional
lane of pavement, twenty-six (26) feet from the centerline
of the westbound lane of Midlothian Turnpike, with curb and
gutter, shall be constructed along the Midlothian Turnpike
frontage. This condition may be modified at the time of
schematic plan approval.
Other than directional signs, there shall only be one (1)
freestanding sign permitted identifying this development.
This sign shall blend with the architectural character of
the proposed structure; shall not exceed an aggregate area
of thirty (30) square feet~ and may be illuminated but shal[
be not luminous. Prior to erection, a colored rendering
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
The conditions stated herein, notwithstanding, the bulk
requirements of the Office Business (O) District shall be
applicable.
10.
In conjunction with schematic plan submission, detailed
landscaping and grading plans, depicting the relationship of
the proposed use to the grave sites and indicating methods
which will be used to protect any grave sites within or
bordering the construction area shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval.
Vote: Unanimous
82S087
In Dale Magisterial District, DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, INC.
requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to General Industrial
(M-2), plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a 15
foot exception to the required 200 foot setback for all permitte~
uses from adjacent residential districts on a 23.8 acre parcel
fronting approximately 700 feet on the south line of Walms].ey
Boulevard, and located approximately 150 feet east of its inter-
section with Willesden Road. Tax Map 42-10 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet
16) .
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commissiou had recommended
approval of M-1 zoning for the property lying to the west of the
internal north/south road and M-2 zoning for the property lying
to the east of the internal north/south road subject to certain
conditions. He further stated that at the request of the
Supervisor of the area, two additional conditions were prepared
by staff. Mr. Featherston was present representing the applican~
and stated all 'the conditions were acceptable. There was no
opposition present. Mr. DaDiel in¢~uired if the applicant would
have any objections to conditions ~13 and %14 being amended to
require that the signs be 5 ft. from ground level. The applicant
agreed that this would be acceptable· Mr. Raymond Talley, an
adjacent property owner and representative of the adjacent churcl
and other property owners, stated thev all were in agreement witt
the rezoning and conditions and stated his appreciation for the
cooperation by all involved in this case. Mr. Daniel also state~
his appreciation for the manner in which this case was handled
and for the cooperation received·
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved M-1 zoning for 'the property lying to the west of the
internal north/south road and M-2 zoning for the property lying
to the east of the internal north/south road subject to the
following conditions:
83-046
e
11.
12.
The below stated conditions, not%~ithstanding, the master
plan, prepared by C. Aubrey Featherston, II, dated 8-2-82,
shall be considered the plan of development.
A one hundred (100) foot buffer shall be maintained along
the western property line. With the exception of underbrush
and any area necessary for cons~ruction of a berm, all
existing vegetation shall be maintained. Where existing
vegetation is not of a species which provides screening
throughout the year, additional planting shall be required
within the first twenty-five (25) feet (measured from east
to west); a chainlink fence, not less than eight (8) feet in
height, shall be provided. An earth berm having a height of
not less than five (5) feet shall be provided along the
eastern line of the buffer area for its entire length.
Stabilizing ground cover as well as evergreen trees and
shrubs shall be planted along this berm. This buffer shall
be installed prior to occupancv on any lot which is adjacent
to the Residential (R-7) zoning to the west. In conjunction
with the first schematic plan review, a specific landscaping
plan including a tyDical section for this buffer area shall
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
Outside storage shall be prohibited on proposed lots
adjacent to the Residential. (R-7) zoning to the west. Any
uses which require outside storage, shall be located east of
the proposed north/south roadway. All outside storage areas
shall be screeDed from vie~ of ~L~l~sle¥ Boulevard. In
conjunction with schematic plan submission, a screening plan
for outside storage areas shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval.
Ail public roads shall have a minimum right of way of sixty
(60) feet.
Ail public roads shall have a minimum width of forty (40)
feet, face of curb to face of curb. All Dublic roads shall
be constructed to VDH&T specifications and taken into the
State system prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits.
Ail public roads shall be constructed utilizing curb and
gutter.
The north/south collector road (Road A) shall be stubbed
into the adjacent property to the south. A temporary
turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus to~
State specifications.
Ail driveways and parkings areas shall be paved. Further,
all driveways and parkings areas shall be curbed. Gutters
shall be installed Rs deemed necessary by Environmental
E ' '
~ngzneerzng.
Ail utility lines shall be provided with underground
distribution.
Ail vehicular access shall be restricted to the north/south
collector road~. There shall be no individual lot access to
Walmsley Boulevard.
No trucking terminals or ice Dlants shall be permitted.
A fifty (50) foot buffer, to be left in its natural state,
shall be provided along the north property line (i.e., this
width shall be measured from the property line as it exists
at the time of zoning). No cutting, clearing or grading,
with the exceptiom of removal of underbrush, shall be
permitted within this buffer. With the exception of the
north/south road, there shall be no facilities permitted
within this buffer area.
83-047
13.
14.
Other than one (1) freestanding sign, there shall be no
signs located along Walmsley Boulevard. The one (1)
freestanding sign permitted shall be for the purpose of
identifying the industrial park. The sign shall not exceed
a total area of twenty-five (25) square feet, nor a total
height of five (5) feet from ground level. The sign shall
not be luminous but may be illuminated. The sign's facade
shall employ subdued colors. Prior to erection, a colored
rendering of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval.
Individual business signs within the industrial park shall
be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance M-1 sign restrictions,
with the exception that the signs shall not be luminous, an(
freestanding signs shall not exceed a height of five (5)
feet from ground level.
Vote: Unanimous
82S100
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROBERT K. SAWYER requested a
Conditional Use to permit a stock farm (one cow) in a Residentia~
(R-7) District on a .75 acre parcel fronting approximately 100
feet on the west line of Alberta Road, and located approximately
70 feet north of its intersection with Family Lane. Tax Map
63-10 (2) Stanwick, Section 1, Block A, Lot 3 (Sheet 21).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mrs.
Sawyer was present and stated that the cow was needed for health
reasons for her son. She stated she would like the approval for
two years rather than one. There was no one present in oppositi¢
to this request. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr.
Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the followin¢
conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Robert K.
Sawyer, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land
This Conditional Use shall be limited to the keeping of one
(1) cow. The cow shall be confined to the fenced corral
area which presently exists on the parcel.
The pasture and. corral area shall be cleaned and made free
from manure daily. In addition, fresh straw and
disinfectant shall be applied to eliminate the proliferatioi
of odor and propagation of insects.
No commercial activ-|.ty, with zespect to the keeping of the
animal, shall be permitted.
This Conditional Use sha].l be granted for a period not to
exceed two (2) years from date of approval, and may be
renewed upon satisfactory reapplication which must
demonstrate that the keeping of this animal has not and wil
not adversely affect adjacent property owners.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting, but indicated it was
not for a conflict of interest.
82S103
In Clover Hill. Magisterial District, B. GORDON BEASLEY, JR.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (0),
plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bull
exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a 1.96
83-048
acre parcel fronting appro×imately 120 feet on Turner Road, als¢
fronting approximately 730 feet on Cloverleaf Drive, and located
in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 16 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Beasley was present and stated he agreed with the conditions as
recommended. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
Mr. Bookman stated there is no entrance planned to Turner Road,
but this request is for the entire parcel. He also inquired wha~
would happen with the existing structure and how would that have
access. Mr. Beasley stated they would be putting an entrance off
of Cloverleaf Drive and the building will be left there now and
office would be built later. Mr. Balderson stated that there
will be two entrances on Cloverleaf Drive and no entrance on
Turner Road. He stated everything would have to be routed to
Cloverleaf Drive because Turner Road is heavily travelled and it
is a badly congested intersection. Mr. Bookman inquired if the
right-of-way should be obtained for the widening of Turner durin¢
this process. Mr. Balderson stated that would be done during
schematic plan approval· Mr. Bookman inquired if Mr. Beasley
were willing to dedicate this right-of-way. Mr. Beasley
indicated he was. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr.
Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following
conditions:
The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by Freeman and Morgan Architects, dated 10/4/82,
shall be considered the plan of development.
The uses permitted on this parcel shall be limited to those
permitted in the Office Business (O) ~istrict and a day carl
center.
Ail parking, driveways and playground areas shall be set
back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the right of way of
Cloverleaf Drive. Within this fifteen (15) foot setback,
ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. A landscaping
plan, depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with final
schematic plan review.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, if plans for the
widening of Turner Road have been developed by the VDH&T,
the required right of way and easements to accomplish the
project shall be dedicated. If the right of way, necessary
to complete the project, is !ess than a total of ninety (90)
feet, a minimum of ninety (90) feet (i.e., forty-five (45)
feet, measured from the centerline) shall be dedicated.
plans have not been developed, forty-five (45) feet of righ~
of way, measured from the centerline of Turner Road, shall
be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield free and
unrestricted for the entire length of the property which
abuts Turner Road.
If the office portion of the property is developed first, ar
additional lane of pavement twenty-six (26) feet from the
centerline, and curb and gutter, shall be constructed to
VDH&T's specifications along the entire length of the
property line adjacent to Turner Road. This construction
shall be completed and taken into the State system prior to
the issuance of an occupancy permit. If the day care cente~
is constructed first, an additional lane of pavement
twenty-six (26) feet from the centerline, and curb and
gutter, shall be constructed to VDH&T's specifications alone
the entire length of the property line adjacent to
Cloverleaf Drive and Turner Road. This construction shall
83-049
10.
11.
12.
be completed and taken into the State system prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit.
There shall be no access to Turner Road.
There shall be no ingress or egress along Cloverleaf Drive
for a distance of 150 feet east of the western property
line.
The driveways, serving the drop-off and pick-up area, shall
be designated and designed as a one-way entrance and a
one-way exit.
Parking for the day care center shall be provided at a ratio
of one (1) space for each twenty (20) children enrolled, up
to a maximum of six (6) spaces, plus one (1) space for each
employee.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, an eleven
(11) foot exception shall be granted to the required thirty
(30) foot rear yard setback requirement for the day care
center, only.
The Zoning Ordinance requirements, relative to signage,
shall be adhered to with the exception that signs shall not
be luminous, but may be illuminated; however, signs
constructed with an opaque material and translucent letters
which are lit from within shall be permitted. In
conjunction with schematic plan review, a rendering
depicting colors, materials and methods of lighting shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
The above stated conditions notwithstanding, all bulk
requirements of the Office Business (O) District shall be
applicable.
Vote: Unanimous
82S104
In Midlothian Magisterial District, F. GROVE WHITE AND CHARLES
SHIFLETT requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit use and bulk exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance in an Agricultural (A) District and in a Residential
(R-7) District on a 1.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 310
feet on the east line of Crowder Drive, and located approximately
300 feet north of its intersection with Midlothian Turnpike. Tax
Map 15-12 (1) Parcels 6 and 7 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated 'the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Messrs.
Shiflett and White were present and stated the conditions were
acceptable. Mrs· Pat Bli!ey was present and stated that she was
not opposed to this request but that she lived in an adjacent
home and she wanted the area to be maintained residential and
hoped that this would be taken into consideration. There was no
one else present regarding this matter. Mrs. Girone stated that
she felt this was in keeping with the residential character of
the area and it was attractive. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject
to the following conditions:
The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by Charles Shiflett, dated October 1, 1982, shall
be considered the plan of development·
Thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of original Crowder Drive, shall be dedicated to
and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
This dedication shall be accomplished prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
83-050
As deemed necessary by the VDH&T and Planning Department at
the time of schematic site plan review, an additional lane
of pavement, with curb and gutter, shall be constructed to
VDH&T specifications and accepted into the State system,
prior to the issuance of all occupancy permit.
A minimum of a fifteen (15) foot setback for driveways and
parking ares, measured from the ultimate right of way (i.e.,
60 feet) of Crowder Drive, shall be maintained.
Within the fifteen (15) foot setback area, ornamental trees
and shrubs shall be planted. In conjunction with schematic
plan submission, a specific landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval.
A ten (10) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northern property line. Within this buffer area there shall
be installed evergreens, fenging and/or berming which shall
be sufficient to screen the use from the adjacent property
to the north. In conjunction with schematic plan
submission, a landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
The purpose of this condition is to protect residents of the
single family property, adjacent to the north, from seeing
the parking area.
Structures to be erected shall have an architectural style
similar to that depicted in the renderings submitted with
the application.
One (1) freestanding sign identifying this development shall
be permitted. This sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square
feet in area. This sign may be illuminated, but may only be
luminous if the facades of the sign are constructed of an
opaque material, such as wood, stone, brick or similar
material, with routed letters which may be translucent and
lit from within. Prior to erection of the sign, a colored
rendering and lighting plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for schematic approval. All other signs
shall be as regulated in-the Office Business (0) District.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
following exceptions shall be granted to the bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance:
A five (5) foot exception to the ten (10) foot rear
yard setback requirement for accessory buildings.
A ten (10) foot exception to the twenty-five (25) foot
rear yard setback requirement for principal structures.
At the time of schematic plan review, the Commission
shall examine the parking area along the eastern
property line to determine if any screening shall be
necessary·
10.
The above stated conditions notwithstanding, all bulk
requirements of the Office Business (0) District shall be
applicable.
Vote: Unanimous
82S105 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DAVID A. TREBOUR AND GEORGE
WHITLOW requested an amendment to Conditions ~25 and 35 of a
previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case
81S072), relative to paving and sign lighting on two (2) separate
parcels of land. The first parcel consisting of 9.8 acres,
fronts approximately 400 feet on the south line of Midlothian
Turnpike, and located approximately 700 feet east of its
83-051
intersection with Robious Road. Tax Map 17-12 (1) Parcel 14
(Sheet 8). The second parcel consisting of 15.189 acres, fronts
approximately 600 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike,
and located approximately 1,200 feet east of its intersection
with Robious Road. Tax Map 17-12 (1) Parcel 31 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Trebour was present representing both applicants and stated the
conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present.
Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. Trebour were planning to address the
lighting of the dealership and its projection onto Route 60. Mr.
Trebour stated that he had contacted the Planning Department and
he is in the process of trying to change and/or adjust the
lighting in order that this problem will not exist.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The sign packages submitted with the application shall be
considered the plan for signs.
e
The grave], areas shall be as shown on the plans submitted
with the application, and shall be enclosed by a fence or
other means so as to preclude general public use. The area
shall be graveled with four (4) to six (6) inches of 21 or
2lA stone, or the same stone used for the subbase for paved
parking areas.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Bookman inquired of the County Attorney if he recommended
that he leave as his son had accomplished some work on adjacent
property next to that which is being requested for rezoning. Mr.
Micas indicated the question should be directed to the
Commonwealth's Attorney but the key question is if he has a
material or financial interest in the matter. Mr. Bookman stated
he did not have any material or financial interest but excused
himself from the meeting because of a possible conflict of
interest in order that there be no question.
82S106
In Matoaca Magisterial District, P.E.Y. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of
a 9.45 acre parcel, which lies approximately 430 feet off the
southwest line of Genito Road, measured from a point
approximately 400 feet northwest of its intersection with
Rollingway Road. Tax Map 63-3 (1) Parcel 27 (Sheet 21).
Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Con~ission had recommended
approval of this request. The applicant's representative was
present. There was no opposition. On motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Bookman.
82S107
In Midlothian Magisterial District, MIDLOTHIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of
a 103 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,950 feet on Genito
Road, also fronting approximately 1,600 feet on Otterdale Road,
and located southwest of the lntersection of these roads. Tax
Map 46-1 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet 12).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. There was no opposition present. Mr.
83-052
Jim Hayes of J. K. Timmons was present representing the
applicant. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd~ the
Board approved this request.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: ~. Bookman.
Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting.
82Slll
In Bermuda Magisterial District, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER
COMPANY requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit
a 250 foot microwave tower in a Heavy Industrial (M-3) District
on a 2.55 acre parcel, which lies approximatelv 2,200 feet north
of the intersection of Coxendale and Old Stage Roads. Tax Map
99-6 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 33).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Two
gentlemen were present representing the application. There was
no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr.
Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following
conditions:
The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the master plan
prepared by Vepco & Engineering, dated 8/24/82, shall be
considered the master plan.
The tower to be erected shall not exceed a height of 250
feet.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval of the
master plan.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meeting for a possible
conflict of interest as indicated earlier in the meeting in that
an affiliate of the applicant is a client of his wife in her
personal accounting business.
Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting for a possible conflict
of interest because of his involvement in the mobile home
industry.
Mr. Bookman requested a five minute recess in order that he might
obtain a opinion from the Co~[~onwealth's Attorney regarding this
matter as to whether it was a conflict of interest for him.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes.
Reconvening:
Mr. Bookman excused himself from the meeting stating that he did
not feel he had a conflict of interest in the following matter
but would leave just to prevent any question in the future. He
stated his son bid on a project for the applicant within the last
30 days but he was not certain of the outcome. Mr. Bookman left
declaring a possible conflict of interest for reasons indicated..
83'053
Mr. Hod. ge indicated that the Commonwealth's Attorney and County
Attorney had ruled that the two remaining members of the Board,
Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Girone~ could consider the following
request.
82Sl13
In Matoaca Magisterial District, LANCO CORPORATION requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk
exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in a
Community Business (B-2) District on a .8 acre parcel, fronting
approximately 230 feet on Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting
approximately 150 feet on Pine Forest Drive, and located in the
southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map
163-7 (3) Kovac Acres, Lots 1-9 (Sheet 49).
Mr. Balderson stated that this request had been forwarded to the
Board with a tJ~e vote with three in favor and three opposed. Mr.
Jeff Collins was present representing the applicant and stated
the conditions as indicated in the staff report were acceptable.
He stated further that there were some concerns regarding
drainage and that the applicant had agreed that prior to the
release of any building permits, drainage plans would be
submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval showing use
of on site retention with a release rate no greater than what
exists. He stated they will design a retention basin which would
in fact, eliminate some of the drainage which exists now. He
stated that a single access is planned from Pine Forest Drive and
none intended to Kovac Street. He stated that two units will be
models, one being an office, and there will be mobile homes
stored for sale with a parkin9 area.
Mr. Robertson stated he was concerned about the congestion in the
area in the morning and evenings with the Millside Subdivision,
IPK Company and the Highway Department. Mr. Balderson stated
that the area is already zoned commercial so anything approved
for B-2 could be placed there as well as B-1 and Office use,
without additional approval.
Mrs. Blanche Griffin, a resident of Pine Forest Drive, was
present and stated she felt the Board should deny the request as
would have been the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
had Mr. Daniel not voted. She stated that Mr. Parrish and his
wife, who is an invalid, live adjacent to this property and this
approval would be a hardship on them. She added that the home
displayed by staff indicating the condition of this home should
not be completely taken at face value as Mr. Parrish does hold
two jobs and this home should not be pointed out as an eye sore.
She presented pictures indicating the recessed condition of the
property, the stand~.ng wa%er which is there constantly, etc. She
stated that she and other property owners have lived in the area
for 14-20+ years. She state~ that this property was originally
intented for lots 1-9 of Kovac Acres and it should remain
residential and she was not aware that it was zoned business.
She stated that a lot of filling would be needed on this
property, that it would cause a problem on the Parrish home as
well as eventually harming other homes, a lot of expensive piping
and improvements had been made~ etc. She stated this is a dead
end street, their property values would decrease and they are
already concerned with the transient business in the area. She
stated also that there was a rumor that a mobile home park was
planned for behind their homes and they would be using Pine
Forest Drive for access. Mr. Balderson stated that it was zoned
for mobile home subdivision 10 years ago and they were to use
Pine Forest Drive for access. She stated five of the six
property owners were present to oppose this request.
Mrs. Nell Fisher, a resident of 20 years, and her mother, a
resident of 26 years, were opposed.
83-054
~'~r. C(~lins stated that this property is currently zoned
commercial which means a higher 'traffic generator could be placed
there but they are trying to control it through the conditional
use. He stated the Kovac Subdivision is old but that this
property was zoned commercial in the 1960's as is all of
Jefferson Davis. He stated the lot to the east would have to be
filled but on-site retention would insure no additional run off
in the area and the drainage situation would be probably better
with this development. He added the mobile home subdivision is
actually under construction at this time behind this area.
Mrs. Girone stated that if this were straight zoning it would be
B-3 which permits outside storage. She stated that now as it is,
there could be a store placed there with no outside storage. Mr.
Balderson explained the difference between straight zoning and a
conditional use planned development. Mrs. Girone stated she
felt this is one step beyond what is suitable for the area as
there will be units stored and a lot of outside activity rather
than activity restricted to the inside of another structure. Mr.
Robertson inquired if this request were a more liberal zoning
than exists. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt they are
requesting a more liberal zoning, that a more restrictive zoning
is there at this time.
After further discussion it was on motion of Mr. Robertson,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved that this request be denied.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Daniel return to the meeting.
81S097 (Amended)
In Bermuda Magisterial District, PHILIP S. PERDUE requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential Townhouse-For-Sale
(R-TH) of 28.8 acres and to Residential (R-9) of 45.5 acres with
a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the entire
74.3 acre tract. This property lies at the southern terminus of
Eagle Lane and at the northern terminus of Bragaw Drive and
includes all property between these two terminuses. Tax Map 97-6
(1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request but since that time, the applicant has
submitted a tentative subdivision plan which shows single family
conventional subdivision development for the entire tract. He
stated that the applicant has proposed that 13.2 acres would be
Residential R-12 zoning and the remaining 61.1 acres would be
zoned Residential R-9. He stated the applicant has Dot
officially submitted this amendment but forwarded this proposal
to show that it could be developed as indicated and the Board
could approve this as an alternate plan.
Mr. Bookman excused himself from the meeting due to a possible
conflict of interest as his son hsd accompli.shed some work in
Densewood Hills which is adjacent to this property.
Mr. Oliver Rudy, was present representing the applicant. He
stated this revised plan is compatible with other property in the
area. He stated this plan would buffer the western line of the
property. He stated the Planning Co~nission had some concerns
about the right-of-way but that becomes a subdivision problem
which is dealt with separately. He stated that the
recommendations regarding feeder roads, etc. are unrealistic as
no plans like this exist for Chester o~ anywhere in the County.
Mrs. Phylis Parrott was present in her capacity as President of
the Chesterbrook Farms Civic Association as well as representing
property owners on DeLavial Street who are in opposition to this
83-055
project. She stated they were concerned with the increased
traffic on a narrow road and with orderly growth insuring that
subdivision streets do not become traffic hazards, they are
concerned about an emergency situation which could occur if a
train were blocking the entrance to the complex and with the
severe traffic problem at the Eagle Lane entrance during peak
hour traffic if trains were coming through. She stated this
traffic would jeopardize the safety of their children. She
stated these were her prepared comments before hearing of the
revised plan. She stated she did not have any way of knowing how
the revised plan will affect the area.
Mr. Paul Jenkins, owner of 33 acres in the general area and
resident for 33 years, was present. He stated he was opposed to
the townhouse apartments and R-9..He stated there was enough R-9
there now. He stated another gentlemen owns 200 acres with a
cabin and wildlife and he felt this would be detrimental to him
and to the County should this development be approved. He stated
Eagle Lane will not solve the traffic problem to Centralia Road.
He stated at the end of Hopkins and Centralia Roads they have
tried unsuccessfully to obtain a blinking light/stop light as
there has been one fatality and the intersection averages one
accident a week. He stated that if there were a train with a
chemical spill, there would only be one outlet and those people
would not be able to leave. He stated Vepco also has a high
voltage line running through the middle of the property. He
requested denial of the request.
Mr. Harold Taylor was present and stated he owned property to the
north and he echoed the sentiments of the people earlier. He
stated he was primarily concerned with the status of Eagle Lane,
a 30 ft. wide road and 700 ft. long, as it has not been improved
to State standards. He stated he felt Mr. Perdue should
dedicate 20 ft. to improve the road in the future. He stated he
did not feel Bragaw Road would be a sufficient access until Mr.
Perdue decided he might need Eagle Lane for an additional access.
He stated he had owned his property for 10 years and had
considered developing this but have not been able to do so
because of the lack of right-of-way. He stated this dedication
should be part of any requirements if this is approved. Mr.
Balderson stated that only 50 units could be constructed before a
second access is required. Mr. Tsylor stated this condition was
placed on him several years ago when he applied to develop his
property.
Mr. Rudy stated that everyone is awa~e of the traffic situation
but all are part of the traffic problem. He stated some of the
other problems can be addressed through zoning but some cannot.
He stated that the Vepco line and the chemical spills, etc. are
speculative concerns. He stated a deed of dedication regarding
Eagle Lane has been drawn and sent to Mr. Taylor which he has yet
~o sign. He stated the r~ght-of-w~y will be dedicated for
the 30 ft. road and the 20 ft. strip by Mr. Perdue, but others he
cannot control. He stated he felt the use as originally
requested, was compatible but that he would go with straight R-9
and R-12. Mr. Dodd inquired how much of the area was flood
plain. Mr. Balderson stated about 15-20% of the total acreage is
in the flood plain.
Mr. Taylor stated that the deed is drawn requesting the entire 20
ft. from him but he felt the person owning the property across
the street should also doDate half and he would be happy to
donate half, as his proper~y is w~ry shallow.
Mr. McCracken with the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation was present. He stated the Department was
concerned about a master plan for a road network which will have
a substantial amount of traffic and will not be desirable for the
intersection of Eagle Lane and they would rather see a plan as
laid out in the staff report. Mr. Dodd stated that would be
addressed in subdivision approval and added Route 288 would also
help the traffic situation in Chester.
83-056
M~. Dodd stated that all have worked long and hard on this case
and the applicant has responded to the wishes of the people by
changing the original request of townhouses and R-9 to
Residential R-9 and R-12. He stated there is always a problem of
zoning near a railroad, but there is a large portion which is
in the flood plain and wi].] act as a natural buffer. He stated
the access situation has to be addressed in the subdivision
process. He stated Mr. Perdue cannot address his road work
across the flood plain, his sewer and water plans, etc. until the
second access is determined. He stated those items are not
before this Board but just the proper use of the land. On motion
of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board approved the
rezoning of 61.1 acres to Residential R-9 and 13.2 acres to
Residential R-12.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Bookman.
Mr. Daniel stated he did vote in favor of this although he did
not at the Planning Commission meeting but this revised
application is entirely different. He stated when this comes
before the Planning Commission for subdivision approval, he
pledged that he would address the questions and concerns
mentioned in the best interest of the public.
Mr. Bookman returned to -the meeting.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adjourned at 3:30 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on February 9, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
County Administrator
83-057