07-27-1983 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
July 27, 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. Tom Callahan,
Manager
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. William Howell, Dir.
of General Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Env. Engineer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir.
of Community Develop.
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of
Budget and Accounting
Mr. Jay Stegmaier, Chief
Budget Officer
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.
of Utilities
Mr. Dexter Williams,
Chief of Trans. Plng.
Mr. George Woodall, Dir.
of Economic Developmen~
Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
10:05 a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Dodd gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the minutes of July 13, 1983, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S CO~4ENTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with the NACO Achievement Award
received by the County and introduced Mr. Stegmaier. Mr.
Stegmaier stated that the County received this award for its
management system which ties together the budgeting process and
the employee performance/evaluation system. He stated that the
staff appreciated the support from the Board which allowed them
to develop this system. The Board congratulated staff on receip~
of the award.
Mrs. Girone stated that Mrs. Betty Thompson, Executive Director
of Maymont, had died. She stated that Mrs. Thompson had helped
the County become acquainted with the Maymont Foundation and its
activities. On motion of the Board, flowers were requested to b~
sent on behalf of the Board and County Administration.
Vote: Unanimous
83-378
4. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING WILBUR C. WELTON UPON HIS RETIREMENT
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, Lieutenant Wilbur C. Welton will retire from the
Chesterfield County Police Department on July 31, 1983; and
Whereas, Lieutenant Welton provided twenty-eight (28) years
of quality police service to the citizens of Chesterfield County;
and
Whereas, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Lieutenant Welton's diligent service.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that this Board publicly
recognizes Lieutenant Welton and extends on behalf of its members
and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for
his many years of service to the County.
And, Be It Further Resolved that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Lieutenant Welton and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Robertson presented the resolution to Lieutenant Welton.
Lieutenant Welton stated his appreciation for the resolution
recognizing his years of service which had been a pleasure and
joy to him. He stated the Department had made great strides with
the help of their supervision towards police work. He stated he
remembered working six days a week and 10 hours a day and the
working conditions have gotten better, the supervision has gotten
better, leadership is better and things are progressing. He
stated it had been an honor to serve with the Chesterfield County
Police and he held them dear to his heart. He stated he felt the
Department is one of the cleanest, most professional departments
in the entire Country and had been recognized as such. He stated
he had been an honor for him to be a part of it.
6. REQUEST FOR SIX LITERARY LOAN APPROVALS FROM SCHOOL SYSTEM
Mr. Hedrick stated that Dr. Sullins had to attend a meeting later
this morning and inquired if the Board would consider this item
out of order on the agenda. The Board agreed to do so.
Dr. Sullins stated that the Board had been provided a response to
a letter which was forwarded to the School System regarding the
literary loan applications. Mrs. Girone stated that the response
was the best information received from the School System as to
what they are doing and why. She stated she especially liked the
promise of more planning in the future and cooperation with the
School Board.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield on
the 27th day of July, 1983, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of
Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$2,000,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Ettrick Elementary, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and
the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $2,000,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
83-379
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield on
the 27th day of July, 1983, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of
Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$750,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Gordon Elementary, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and
the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $750,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield on
the 27th day of July, 1983, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of
Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$750,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Harrowgate Elementary, to be paid in 20 annual installments,
and the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board t¢
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $750,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield on
the 27th day of July, 1983, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of
Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$750,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Carver Middle, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the
interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
83-380
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $750,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County ~chool Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield on
the 27th day of July, 1983, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of
Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$500,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Chester Middle, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the
interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $500,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield on
the 27th day of July, 1983, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of
Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$500,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Falling Creek Middle, to be paid in 20 annual installments,
and the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $500,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
Dr. Sullins stated his appreciation for the action taken and
for the County's cooperation in this matter.
83-381
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.A. SECONDARY ROADS BUDGET
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for the
continuation of the public hearing regarding the secondary roads
budget. Mr. Williams stated there were five resolutions which
should be considered for adoption. There was no one present who
wished to address the Board regarding this public hearing.
Mr. Williams stated the first resolution is for adoption of the
secondary roads budget as presented by the Resident Engineer.
Mrs. Girone inquired if there were any reference to the Le Gordon
project in the annual budget. Mr. Williams stated it was not but
it was included in the Revenue Sharing portion of the agenda
item. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the
Board adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, the VDH&T Resident Engineer for Chesterfield County
has submitted a proposed budget for FY83-84 for secondary road
allocations for Chesterfield County; and
Whereas, this proposed budget reflects the intention of the
Board as expressed in the adoption of the secondary road six year
plan in 1982.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the FY83-84 secondary road
budget as submitted by the VDH&T Resident Engineer.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Williams stated the second resolution involved the deletion
of the Cogbill Road bridge project from the Six Year Plan. He
stated that the replacement of the bridge was included in the 6
Year Plan because reports from the Highway Department inspectors
indicated that the entire structure, both bridge deck and
abutments, needed replacing. He stated as a result of the
improvements last year, subsequent inspections revealed that
abutments are sound and that this bridge will be adequate and
safe for years to come and does not need to be replaced. Mr.
Daniel suggested an amendment to the resolution as proposed and
it was on his motion, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that the
following resolution be adopted:
Whereas, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Six Year program
in 1982 that specified funding for the replacement of the bridge
structure and approaches on Cogbill Road, Route 638, over Falling
Creek; and
Whereas, subsequent emergency project to replace that bridge
deck has resulted in a structure that no longer requires complete
replacement.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby endorses the termination of all
allocations for the bridge and deletion from the Six Year Plan;
and
Further, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board
of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation to undertake any actions necessary to
provide adequate and safe sight distance on the approaches to the
Cogbill Road bridge over Falling Creek.
Vote: Unanimous
83-382
Mr. Williams stated the third resolution dealt with reallocation
of previously transmitted funds to the Highway Department and is
basically a bookkeeping measure. He stated these are completed
projects with funds still on the books and this action would take
funds that have been allocated to these completed projects in
each magisterial district and transfer them to ongoing projects
in each magisterial district. Mrs. Girone inquired where the
money would be going for the indicated Le Gordon project. Mr.
Williams stated that the definition of the project is the Le
Gordon project and probably should be continued until the right-
of-way has been obtained from Mr. Reynolds. Mrs. Girone stated
she did not want any construction on Le Gordon. Mr. Williams
stated that staff is not expending any unnecessary efforts but if
the Revenue Sharing Funds are taken from Le Gordon, the County
will not get the State match back.
Mr. Bookman inquired about the balance of funds available for
the Reams, Hicks and Providence intersection. Mr. Williams
stated that the funds for Providence Road north of Davis School
are about $10,000 short. Mr. Bookman stated that he hoped the
funds were not being shifted. Mr. Williams stated the funds were
all staying in Clover Hill District but that more funds are
needed for the estimated cost of Providence Road. He stated
after Providence Road is paid off, if there are any funds
available, then next year it could be transferred to Hicks,
Providence and Reams. Mr. Daniel inquired at what point in time,
would the entry called "pay off deficit for projects completed"
have a zero balance. Mr. Williams stated that every year new
deficits are created for bills which come in for which funds are
not adequately anticipated.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
allocated Revenue Sharing Funds to be matched by State funds to ~
variety of projects throughout the County; and
Whereas, the VDH&T Resident Engineer has notified the County
that there are balances remaining from construction of a number
of these projects.
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors endorses the transfer of the following fund
balances on Revenue Sharing projects that have been matched by
the State to the following designated projects in the County.
$407.63 remaining from 1980-81 budget item 5011/Route
604 and $1,249.30 remaining from 1981-82 budget item
5422/Route 688 be transferred to the Providence Road
project for reconstruction of Providence Road north of
Davis School.
$15,795.87 remaining from 1980-81 budget item
5016/Route 717 transferred to Wilton/Osborne Road
intersection project.
$2,119.96 remaining from 1980-81 budget item 5015/Route
1479 transferred to Hopkins/Beulah Roads intersection
project.
$5,992.11 from 1981-82 budget item 5420/Route 672 be
transferred to Le Gordon Drive Revenue Sharing project
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Williams stated the fourth resolution involved the County's
contribution to the East Avenue Rural Addition Project. He
stated there had been some discussion regarding the use of
Revenue Sharing Funds for the East Avenue project at the last
Board meeting. He stated a suggestion was further made to make
83-383
this contribution from the 1982-83 general fund surplus. Mr.
Hedrick explained to the Board, that in effect the Board will be
funding a portion of the East Avenue project with general fund
money which will free up Revenue Sharing Funds in the amount of
$80,000 which will be allocated to other projects and receive
money from the State in a like amount. He stated in essence, the
County will be picking up $160,000 additional money to be
allocated to other highway projects by paying $80,000 of general
fund money. He stated actually the County will be adding $80,000
in order to pick up an additional $80,000 from the State which
will not be reimbursed to the County. Mr. Bookman stated that if
it were possible, the County would allocate more funds to receive
matching funds from the State, but it is not possible at this
time. Mr. Williams stated of the $260,000, $52,000 of Bermuda
District money will go to Providence, Hicks and Reams with the
understanding that Clover Hill will reimburse Bermuda District
in-kind next year. Mr. Williams stated that Clover Hill would
have $198,000 this year for improvements on the Reams, Hicks and
Providence intersection.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors wishes
to have construction of the East Avenue rural addition project
initiated in FY83-84; and
Whereas, current rural addition funds are insufficient to
initiate the East Avenue rural addition project based on VDH&T
criteria for minimum funding for project initiation and the
estimated cost developed by VDH&T.
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby allocates $80,000 from the FY82-83
General Fund surplus for contribution to the East Avenue project
as may be required for project initiation in FY83-84.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Williams stated the fifth resolution involved the allocation
of FY83-84 Revenue Sharing Funds for road projects and outlined
those projects. He stated that the funding for Le Gordon Drive
may be changed to construction of two lanes of Charter Colony
Parkway but that does not have to be decided at this time. Mr.
Dodd inquired about the time frame for East Avenue. Mr. Williams
stated that they would request final authorization to condemn for
right-of-way and pay all final costs for relocation of
utilities, acquisition of right-of-way, etc. next month. He
stated if that work proceeds as planned, construction should
begin by spring or summer of 1984.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia states
that "the State Highway and Transportation Commission shall make
an equivalent matching allocation to any County for designations
by the governing body of up to 15 percentum of funds received by
it pursuant to the 'State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of
1972'"; and
Whereas, Chesterfield County's Revenue Sharing Funds for
Entitlement Period 14 amounts to $1,798,614.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby designates from its Revenue Sharing
Funds the amount of $260,000 to be matched by funds from the
83-384
State Highway and Transportation Commission and to be accounted
for in the FY83-84 budget year; and
Further, Be It Resolved that the County's contribution be
apportioned in the following manner and matched by State funds.
$52,000 - Supplemental funding for previous Le Gordon Drive
project.
52,000 - Supplemental funding for previous Hopkins/Beulah
Roads intersection project.
52,000 - Plant mix on Hickory Road, Route 628, from Sandy
Ford Road, Route 669, west as far as funding
permits.
5,000 - Supplement funding for previous Providence Road
projects from Davis School north and Elkhardt Road.
99,000 - Preliminary allocation for reconstruction of the
intersection of Hicks Road, Reams Road, Providence
Road, Routes 647 and 678, to be established as a
secondary road project and financed through
Revenue Sharing Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
5.B. GENERAL PLAN 2000
Mr. Hedrick stated this time and date had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an amendment to the General Plan 2000
as it relates to land use and transportation for the area bounded
generally by Chippenham Parkway, the City of Richmond, Powhite
Parkway Extension, Chinaberry Drive and Route 60. Mr. Balderson
presented the Board with a report on the proposed amendment
regarding traffic impacts of alternative developments by
PRC Voorhees and a report on land use by the County Planning
Department with associated maps. He outlined the areas
involved and gave a history of the development and plans for the
area. He stated the majority of the land is undeveloped. He
stated that the two main points which should be considered for
development are the land use compatibility and access to serve
that use. He stated in 1967, the first Land Use Plan was
adopted. He stated it was very general in nature but it did
address two important factors which have been considered in this
plan amendment. He stated one was the extension of a public
street from Route 60 northwardly to intersect with Jahnke Road
and the second being that the properties in this area were in
such a strategic and significant position to warrant development
of a higher density than conventional single family use. He
stated that there had been requests for various zonings such as
day care centers, etc. and it has always been the feeling that
any adverse impact on the traffic in this area should not be
allowed. He stated approximately 2 years ago BJ Properties began
discussing this area for possible development of an office park.
He stated this proposal initially met opposition from staff
because of their plans for the road network and the impact the
access would have on Jahnke Road. He stated the developers then
attempted to obtain additional access and devised a plan for
accessing their property. He stated the best access was a
direct access to Chippenham Parkway with an access back to Jahnke
Road and substantial improvements to the intersection of Jahnke
and Chippenham. He stated an application was prepared to secure
the appropriate zoning and the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors approved this application. He stated one
condition required the access plan to be approved by the VDH&T or
the development could not begin. He stated the access to
Chippenham was unacceptable to the VDH&T and that a similar
83-385
access to Powhite would not be acceptable either and the
developers had to revise their plan. He stated another
development interest, HMK Associates, came into play in the area
along Jahnke Road and north of Powhite and indicated they would
like to participate in the planning for the area as well for high
density use. He stated in February the Board commissioned a
study on the land use and road access that would be appropriate
within the study area and PRC Voorhees was hired. He stated
there were certain facts that were to be considered; existing and
proposed roads; existing land use; existing zoning; feelings of
Highway Department, etc. He stated that, given the constraints
of traffic and the existing land use, it is reasonable for
development to transition from heavier commercial use along the
Route 60 corridor to a lighter commercial use to Jahnke Road and
a still lighter type office use north of Jahnke Road and south of
Powhite Parkway. He stated that based on the inability to access
Powhite Parkway, the area north of Powhite should be single
family residential use. He stated that HMK Associates has
advised they had met with the Highway Commissioner with regard to
accessing Powhite Parkway between Jahnke and Chippenham. He
stated they were encouraged that perhaps an access to Powhite
could be made in that area and that the Highway Department would
consider this further. He stated that the plan amendment takes
into consideration the possibility of accomplishing this access
and has a caveat which makes provision for other amendments if
the situation changes. He stated that another developer may say
this plan does not afford them the maximum land use intensity in
the area; however, this is premature and would be prejudging a
zoning case when an application has yet to be reviewed. He
stated the plan outlines the major points and makes good
representation of a plan for access. He added the Planning
Commission had recommended approval of the amendment the evening
before.
Mr. Bookman stated he felt the public hearing is for this report
only which was prepared by consultants employed by the County.
He stated he did not feel this should develop into zoning, what
can or cannot be done with Powhite Parkway, etc. Mr. Dodd stated
he did not know how this discussion could be controlled as other
landowners will want questions answered. Mr. Daniel stated that
he had been at the hearing the evening before and, that if the
same type of discussion carries forth today, it goes into the
background material and assumptions that went into the Voorhees
Report.
Mr. Clarke Plaxco, with Planning and Design Collaborative, was
present representing Mr. Jonathan Perel in this matter. He
stated that the plan will allocate 48% of the traffic capacity on
Jahnke and Chinaberry to through traffic, 45% to BJ Properties
and 7% to HMK even though HMK controls or owns 99% of the
frontage on Jahnke Road between Chippenham and Powhite. He
stated those percentages add to 100% of the available capacity
and there is no additional capacity for development of additional
property. He stated they propose an alternative land plan which
accomplishes full density of BJ developers; full density of their
application; provides the same level of service at Jahnke and
Chinaberry extended as the Voorhees Report; and other features
which protect the marketability, safety and security of the
Chesterfield Village Apartments which is a great concern to Mr.
Perel. He stated this plan is more consistent with the original
zoning for BJ Properties with direct freeway access instead of
just local roads as the Voorhees Report provides. He stated the
major portions of this access concept were available to the
83-386
County as early as last January and they requested that this
concept be reviewed with Voorhees and at least be considered
during their studies as an alternative. He stated as early as
April, they had received preliminary, favorable comments on their
plan from the Highway Department and the Voorhees Report was not
finalized until June which meant the alternative could have been
considered. He inquired if this amendment is required for the BJ
zoning. Mr. Micas indicated that it was not. Mr. Plaxco inquired
if Powhite has to be in place before the second phase of BJ's
development could occur. Mr. Balderson stated that they have to
provide the access improvements to the Powhite Parkway
interchange with Jahnke Road but that Powhite does not have to be
completed. Mr. Plaxco stated that Powhite is several years away.
He stated he saw no harm to BJ to defer this today but it causes
irreparable harm to HMK which would be a projected loss of
$9,000,000 of sales tax revenues and real estate taxes to the
County if HMK cannot be developed as proposed.
Mr. Hedrick stated that this plan is not directly related to BJ
Properties' zoning, it only gives the Board an idea of what type
of land use can be accommodated in that area and what traffic
pattern would be necessary to serve it. Mr. Plaxco requested
that this matter be deferred so that all matters can be taken
into consideration since BJ does not need the approval to proceed
with its first phase of development. He stated that he felt the
Highway Department was in the process of giving them conceptual
approval of the collector-distributor access to these sites.
Mr. Dodd stated that HMK has an alternative, in that this plan
can be modified again in the future. Mr. Bookman stated that
traffic plans are not under consideration today, but the report
on the land use. He stated to go beyond that, would be merely
speculation. Mr. Plaxco stated by approving this, the Board
would be blocking potential development on the west side of
Powhite as it would preclude any increased density. Mr. Bookman
stated that he felt the door was open for amendments in the
future.
Mr. Hedrick stated that when plans are made, it has to be based
on reality. He stated that facts such as existing and known
uses, etc. are included. Mr. Daniel stated that if future
developers want a modification to the plan, they should proceed
with their zoning requests. Mr. Hedrick stated this amendment is
necessary to provide a reference point for zoning cases that
should be coming up although it is not legally required for the
BJ properties.
Mr. Dodd stated that two other intersections are to be considered
in this same manner, Coalfield Road and the Five Forks area. Mr.
Balderson stated that consultants will be hired to look at these
locations as well. Mr. Dodd stated this is the same that is
being proposed for other areas and is nothing different.
Mrs. Girone stated that this General Plan is not a master plan
and we are not rezoning land as other jurisdictions might do.
She stated that the General Plan in Chesterfield is not rezoning
land, but is a breath of spring air for Chesterfield as we have
had major transportation problems which have not been addressed
in the proper way. She stated that in the 1960's when
Cloverleaf Mall was constructed and allowed to go into business,
the whole intersection was not considered and the Highway
Department has tried to fix that mistake by creating a cloverleaf
83-387
that many people are'less than happy with. She stated that this
is an attempt to look at the future and look at what is here and
what is pending and future needs. She stated that if others have
plans for development of the same area and there is a need to
amend the land use plan, we will go through the same process
again in the future.
Mr. John Smith stated that he agreed there was no relationship
historically between the General Plan and zoning. He stated he
felt the General Plan should really be the guide for zoning. He
stated there was no need for the Board of Supervisors to act on
this matter within 14 hours after it was heard by the Planning
Commission without giving the public the opportunity to review
what happened at the Planning Commission. He stated he was not
sure whether the Voorhees Report is fact or fiction but when you
talk about planning it is fiction. He stated he was reluctant
for the Board to make another mistake as is at Route 60 and
Cloverleaf Mall and stated he did not feel there was any way
traffic at Chinaberry and Route 60 could be intermingled. He
stated that history will show that those things we run into the
quickest are where we make our greatest mistakes.
Mr. Donald Stokes, representing Mr. Jonathan Perel and HMK
Properties, inquired if the door was open or closed for future
amendments. He stated his client intends to develop a
$350,000,000 project which will generate $9,000,000 worth of
taxes in the area and they will donate 35 acres for the
of Powhite Parkway as well as donate the property along Jahnke
Road for widening. He stated he felt the allocation of the road
use was unrealistic and unfair. He inquired if BJ has not
completed their plan and HMK comes in with a plan of an equal or
superior nature, will it be allocated differently. He stated a
zoning application has been discussed and is as much a reality
the BJ properties application. He inquired about the taking of
HMK property for BJ Properties' access to Jahnke Road and
referred to memos from staff which discussed steps necessary to
obtain access to the property. He stated condemnation was also
discussed in the Voorhees Report. He stated another staff re
says this proposed amendment will be used by staff in
establishing necessary road improvements for the study area. He
stated he hoped the Board would not authorize the Highway
Department to condemn their property prior to their presenting
their plan. Mr. Daniel stated that the County, through the
Highway Department, will designate a project on its 6 Year Road
Plan. He stated the Board would then have to endorse that
formal action and it would then be part of the County 6 Year Roa(
Plan. He stated as far as he knew, there were no firm plans to
extend Chinaberry Drive to Jahnke Road and it could be many yearl
before that might occur. He stated that planning says something
"may" happen, not "will". He stated to get to the point of
condemnation would include a numerous chain of events which he
felt were unrealistic.
Mr. Dodd stated he did not know that the County could allocate a
certain percentage of the road to certain properties, etc. He
inquired if this was a right of the County. Mr. Micas stated
County does not allocate percentages but this is the way it is
explained in planning. Mr. Dodd stated he would support this
amendment without prejudice to any other zoning. Mr. Stokes
suggested the allocation of traffic percentage be stricken. Mr.s.
Girone stated this was just a way of illustrating the
concept and justification. Mr. Micas stated this is a planning
document which is under consideration.
83-388
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, of the Code of
Virginia provides for preparation of a comprehensive plan by all
Virginia localities by July 1, 1980; and
Whereas, the present Chesterfield General Plan 2000 Land Usc
and Public Facilities was adopted June 22, 1977; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area Study for Amendment of the
General Plan 2000 and has recommended that the Amendment be
adopted; and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
reviewed the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area Study for
Amendment of the General Plan 2000; and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
considered public comments relative to the Amendment of the
General Plan 2000.
Now, Therefore, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisor~
resolves to adopt the Amendment to the General Plan 2000 with the
following statements of conditions and policies:
A. The Plan is to be considered as the basic planning document
for the Jahnke-Chippenham Study Area of Chesterfield County.
The policy guidance for the Plan should come principally
from the Jahnke-Chippenham Study Area proposed land use
plan.
Be
This Amendment is intended to be general in nature; specific
in location; actual character and extent of uses are not
intended to be shown thereon.
Ce
The designation of public facilities and uses on the
Amendment is an expression of intent by the County to
establish the facilities, although the expressed location is
general (as shown thereon) and scheduling of public land
acquisition or improvement is advisory only.
De
The designation of private uses is general and advisory only
and does not obligate the County to provide public
facilities or utilities to any property or to include any
property in any particular zoning district in accordance
with the Amendment; nor does the Amendment prevent the
County from including any property in any particular zoning
district which is not in accordance with the Amendment.
Ee
The Amendment is not intended to be a Zoning Ordinance, but
is intended to be a comprehensive guideline for the Zoning
Ordinance and Amendments thereto. The Board of Supervisors
is not obligated to follow this Plan in their regular
decisions to amend the Zoning Ordinance and likewise, the
Amendment should not be relied upon as the only
justification for, or against, zoning applications. This
planning process is entirely open to any citizen or
landowner at all times.
Vote: Unanimous
5.C. ORDINANCE RELATING TO PET SHOPS, VETERINARY CLINICS, ETC.
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for
a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Sections 21-3,
21-153, 21-155, 21-158, 21-160 and 21-163 relating to pet qroomin
shops, veterinary clinics and commercial kennels. Mr. Balderson
stated the Planning Commission had reviewed the proposed
ordinances and recommended option number 2. Mrs. Girone
introduced Dr. Gary Zavik of the Bon Air Animal Hospital who was
83-389
present. Dr. Zavik stated he was in favor of this ordinance
change. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated
that in Bon Air in a B-2 shopping center there is a pet grooming
shop and she felt this was very much like a veterinary clinic in
that you leave your animal there and pick him up later in the
day. She stated this has worked very well. On motion of Mrs.
Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following
ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO ~4END THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 21-3, 21-153, 21-155,
21-158, 21-160 and 21-163 RELATING TO
VETERINARY CLINICS AND COMMERCIAL KENNELS
Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Sections 21-3, 21-153, 21-155, 21-158, 21-160 and
21-163 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, are amended and
reenacted as follows:
Sec. 21-3. Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section:
o o o
Clinic. An establishment where patients who are not lodged
overnight are admitted for examination or treatment by physicians
or dentists or veterinarians.
Veterinary Hospital. A building or group of buildings providing
surgical or medical treatment to animals, and having facilities
for overnight care.
Sec. 21-153. Permitted uses--By right.
Within any B-1 District, no building, structure, or premises
shall be used or arranged or designed to be used in any part
except for one or more of the following uses:
o o o
(47) Pet Shops, exclusive of pet grooming.
o o o
Sec. 21-155. Same--Conditional uses.
The following uses may be allowed in the B-1 District,
subject to the provisions of section 21-34:
o o o
(f) Pet Grooming Shop.
(g) Veterinary clinic.
Sec. 21-158. Permitted uses--By right.
Within any B-2 District, no building, structure or premises
shall be used or arranged or designated to be used in any part
except for one or more of the following uses:
o o o
(w) Pet Grooming Shop.
(x) Veterinary clinics.
83-390
Sec. 21-160. Same--Conditional uses.
The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses in th~
B-2 District subject to the provisions of Section 21-34:
(a) Any conditional use allowed in the B-1 District unless
previously allowed in Section 21-158.
Sec. 21-163. Permitted uses--By right.
Within any B-3 District, no building, structure, or premise~
shall be used or arranged or designed to be used in any part
except for one or more of the following uses:
o o o
(24) Veterinary hospital and boarding kennels.
Vote: Unanimous
7. AUTOMATED STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized three new programmer positions for the 1983-84 to
develop the new Student Information System which $81,000 was
encumbered by the School System in 1982-83 and has been
reappropriated to the 1983-84 budget for this program. It is
understood that costs in subsequent years will be absorbed in the
school budget.
Vote: Unanimous
8. AIRPORT CELEBRATION AND AIRSHOW
On motion of the Board, the Board authorized the celebration and
airshow at the Chesterfield County Airport on August 13, ].983
subject to the provisions of the County Code dealing with Musical
and Entertainment Festivals which event is in joint cooperation
with the Chesterfield Pilots Association and the Airport.
Vote: Unanimous
9. CONFIRMATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S ACTION
9.A. ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR ALLIED CORPORATION
Mr. Bookman stated although as his daughter worked for Allied
Chemical, he did not feel he had a conflict of interest in this
matter because he did not have any material financial interest ir
the company and his daughter was not in a position to influence
Allied profits. He indicated also that his daughter did not live
at home.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopte~
the following resolution:
Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application
of Allied Corporation (the Company) for the issuance of the
Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount nog
to exceed $1,000,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of
the Company's acquisition, installation and modification of
equipment for the production of industrial and commercial yarn
(the Project) in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a
public hearing thereon on July 14, 1983; and
Whereas, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the
County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with
83-391
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended;
and
Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board;
Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, Virginia:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for the benefit of the Company, to the extent required
by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to assist in the
financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the
Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by
Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the
Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority
shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or
other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys
pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing
power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
9.B. ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR AVCOM OF VIRGINIA, INC.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application
of R. Andrew Hatfield, an individual, or a partnership in which
he and Patricia R. Hatfield would be partners for lease primarily
to Avcom of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) for the issuance of the
Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not
to exceed $1,500,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of
the Company's construction and equipping of an electronics
manufacturing facility for satellite communications (the Project)
in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing
thereon on July 14, 1983; and
Whereas, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the
County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended;
and
Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
plan of financing, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record
of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board;
Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, Virginia:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for the benefit of the Company, to the extent required
by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to assist in the
financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the
Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by
83-392
Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the
Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority
shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or
other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys
pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing
power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Woodall introduced Mr. Andrew Hatfield, President of Avcom,
who was present at the meeting. Mr. Hatfield stated his
appreciation for the action taken which made it possible to
expand his facility which is expected to be completed by January.
The Board welcomed Mr. Hatfield to the County and expressed their
interest in his project.
10. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set
the date of August 24, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to
consider amending Chesterfield Cable T.V.'s franchise agreement
which would discontinue the offering of the security system as an
additional feature.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated he had some questions regarding the
discontinuance of this feature but would address this at the
public hearing itself.
11. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.A. NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATIONS - LEASE OF TOWER SPACE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to enter into an
agreement extending the lease of tower space from Nationwide
Communications, Inc. for the County's police and fire emergency
communications system through August 3, 1984 which is at no cost
to the County.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Madison Street, North Madison Court, South Madison
Court and Rabbit Run in Rabbit Run, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Madison Street,
North Madison Court, South Madison Court and Rabbit Run in Rabbit
Run, Matoaca 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, Madison Street, beginning at the
intersection with Matoaca Road, State Route 600, and running
easterly .05 mile to the intersection with North Madison Court
and South Madison Court, then continuing easterly .05 mile to the
intersection with Rabbit Run; North Madison Court, beginning at
the intersection with Madison Street and running northerly .05
mile to end in a cul-de-sac; South Madison Court, beginning at
83-393
the intersection with Madison Street and running southerly .06
mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Rabbit Run, beginning at the
intersection with Madison Street and running southerly .07 mile
to end in a temporary turnaround; Again, Rabbit Run, beginning at
the intersection with Madison Street and running northerly .05
mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
We hereby request that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation waive the requirement for a bond and
maintenance fee. The County will, in return, guarantee the
performance of the streets for one (1) year. These roads serve
41 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft.
right-of-way for all of these roads except North Madison Court
and South Madison Court which have a 40 ft. right-of-way and
Rabbit Run which has a 40-50 ft. variable width right-of-way.
Rabbit Run is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 34, Page 7, June 28, 1979.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.C. SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION ON ROBIOUS ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board hereby
requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to perform a study to reduce the speed limit on Robious Road,
Route 675, between Route 147 and Larkhill Road which is currently
45 mph and is a two lane road with deep ditches and no shoulders.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D. SPEED LIMIT ON ROUTE 10
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board hereby
requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to perform a study on Route 10 to reduce the speed from 55 mph
from the posted 45 mph sign to the Courthouse which includes the
Airport area.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - TRUCK TRAFFIC ON WARBRO ROAD
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following ordinance on an emergency basis:
AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT SECTION 14.1-21.1
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
1978, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RESTRICTION OF
TRUCK TRAFFIC ON A PORTION OF WARBRO ROAD
AND TO PROVIDE FOR A PENALTY
Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 14.1-12.1 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield is amended and reenacted by adding the following
section:
Sec. 14.1-12.1.
Warbro Road.
Prohibition of truck traffic on portion of
It shall be unlawful to operate a truck, as defined in
Section 46.1-1(39) of the Code of Virginia, as amended, on that
portion of Warbro Road between its intersection with Genito Road
83-394
and the entrance to the Chesterfield County Northern Area
Landfill.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel inquired if this would include all trucks. Mr. Micas
stated the Code defines a truck as any motor vehicle over 7,500
lbs. designed to transport property.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set
the date of September 14, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearin¢
to consider an ordinance enacting Section 14.1-21.1 of the Code
of the County of Chesterfield relating to the restriction of
truck traffic on a portion of Warbro Road and to provide for a
penalty.
Vote: Unanimous
12.A. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve~
the street light installation cost of $328 at the intersection of
Melody Road and Shoremeade Court with funds to be expended from
the Dale District Street Light Funds and the street light
installation cost of $233.40 at the intersection of Farnham Driv~
and Midlothian Turnpike on an existing pole with funds to be
expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
12.B. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
deferred consideration of the request for a street light between
4219 and 4229 Richwine Road until August 10, 1983 and further thc
Board approved the installation of a street light at 21505 Lee
Street with any necessary funds to be expended from the Matoaca
District Street Light Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
13. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
13.A. REPORT OF WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL STATUS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a water and sewer financia~
status report.
13.B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
13.B.1. ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF HOLBORN ROAD
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled to
consider an ordinance vacating a portion of Holborn Road in
Marlboro Subdivision, Section F. There was no one present to
discuss this matter. Mr. Bookman inquired if this were the road
involving problems with school buses and if this would solve the
problem. Mr. Daniel stated he was not aware of any problems.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this public hearing be
deferred until August 10, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. with staff to
investigate the problems relating to school buses.
Vote: Unanimous
13.B.2. ORDINANCE VACATING EASEMENT IN FALLING CREEK COURT
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled to
consider an ordinance vacating a portion of easement across Lot
83-395
20, Block C, Falling Creek Court, Section E. There was no one
present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following
ordinance:
An Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of Easements Across Lot 20,
Block C, Falling Creek Court, Section E, Dale Magisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat
thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 14, Page 29.
Whereas, Ronald G. Church has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion
of easements across Lot 20, Block C, Falling Creek Court, Section
E, Dale District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly
shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of said County in Plat Book 14, page 29, made by Kenneth L.
Barton, C.L.S., dated September 21, 1964. The portion of
easements petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as
follows:
A portion of easements across Lot 20, Block C, Falling Creek
Court, Section E, as shown shaded in green on a plat made byi
Kenneth L. Barton, C.L.S. dated April 12, 1972, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance.
Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and
Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of easements sought to be vacated and the vacation
will not abridge the rights of any citizen.
Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County, Virginia:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of
easements are hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public
use.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section
15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is
to destroy the force and effect of the recording of this portion
of the plat vacated.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of
the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Ronald G. Church and
Sarah B. Church, husband and wife, or their successors in title,
as grantees.
Vote: Unanimous
13.C. WILLIS AND COACH ROAD INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECT OFFER
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
accepted the counteroffer from George A. Davis in the amount of
$3,000 for right-of-way necessary along Willis Road which is
necessary for the Willis and Coach Road Industrial Access
Project, Tax Map 82-5, Parcel 001; and further the Board
transferred $400.00 from the General Fund Unallocated Capital
Projects, 111-1-36000-9402, to the Willis/Coach Road project,
330-1-97113-4101.
83-396
Vote: Unanimous
13.D. WATER ITEMS
13.D.1. REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE FROM AVCOM OF VIRGINIA
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request from Avcom of Virginia, Inc. for the
installation of one meter to service their property at the
Southport Industrial Park if they pay the standard connection fee
for the size meter requested and $500 for each business
establishment. The initial application will be for two business
establishments and the owner shall agree to inform the County
Utility Department and pay the additional fees as the remainder
of the building is occupied.
Vote: Unanimous
13.D.2. CONDEMNATION AGAINST PROPERTY OF PRIMUS WORRELL ESTATE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the property owners listed below if the
amount as set opposite their names is not accepted. And further
be it resolved that the County Administrator notify said
property owners by certified mail of the intention of the County
to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of
said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this
resolution shall be and it hereby is declared in full force and
effect immediately upon passage.
Primus Worrell Estate
W82-31C/8, 11
Woods Edge Road
$242.00
Vote: Unanimous
13.E. SEWER ITEMS
13.E.1. COUNTY TO ASSIST C. PORTER VAUGHAN IN ACQUIRING EASEMEN~
Mr. Welchons stated that County staff, Mr. Vaughan and a
representative of the Belmont Recreation Association had met and
are trying to determine a feasible solution. He stated it has
been determined that blasting will not be necessary and
negotiations are underway at this time. Mr. Bookman expressed
appreciation for everyone's cooperation in this matter. On
motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred
further consideration of Mr. C. Porter Vaughan's request for
County assistance in acquiring an easement across property of th~
Belmont Recreation Assoc. until August 10, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
13.E.2. MANCHESTER RESCUE SQUAD REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO PAY FEE
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
denied the request of the Manchester Rescue Squad for the County
to waive their sewer connection fee but approved a donation in
the amount of $1,500 from the 1983-84 General Fund Contingency t(
the Squad with the understanding that they would probably be back
for additional funding for the sewer extension.
Vote: Unanimous
13.E.3. REPORT ON SURVEY OF REYMET AND FRIEND AVENUE FOR SEWER
Mr. Dodd stated that there is a 50% rate of failing septic tanks
and there is approximately 70% ready to connect to County sewer
and he felt there would be more before it is ready for
83-397
construction. He stated participation will be solicited from
other large landowners as well. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Bookman, the Board authorized staff to proceed with design
of the Reymet and Friend Avenue sewer project and appropriated
$25,000 from the 574 Surplus to 380-1-73661-2142.
Vote: Unanimous
13.F. UTILITY CONSENT ITEMS
13.F.1. WATER CONTRACT FOR KINGS FOREST, SECTION 8
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:
W83-81CD/6(8)3812, Kings Forest, Section 8
Developer: Kings Forest Limited
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $32,977.50
Estimated County Cost: 2,856.00 - Refund through connections
for oversize main
Estimated Developer Cost: $30,121.50
Vote: Unanimous
13.F.2. WATER CONTRACT FOR GLEN TARA, SECTION 4B
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve.
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following water contract:
W83-85CD/6(8)3852, Glen Tara, Section 4B
Developer: Glen Tara Company
Total Contract Cost: $14,439.00
Estimated County Cost: 3,288.55 - Refund through connections
for oversize
Estimated Developer Cost: $11,150.45
Code: 559-1-00556-0000
Vote: Unanimous
13.F.3. ADJUSTMENT OF APPROPRIATION FOR FAIRPINES WATER CONTRACT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
appropriated $157.23 from 563 Surplus to 380-1-62942-7212. It is
noted that this was the result of the developer installing more
oversize water line than was originally estimated, resulting in a
larger cash refund.
Vote: Unanimous
13.F.4. VACATION OF SEWER EASEMENTS IN SAGEWOOD, PHASES III & IV
Mr. Bookman stated that he owned stock in Lincoln Savings and
Loan to which Lincoln Service Corporation could be related. He
excused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of
interest in this matter.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve~
and authorized the Chairman and County Administrator to execute,
on behalf of the County, a quit claim deed vacating easements
across the property of Lincoln Service Corporation in proposed
Sagewood, Phases III and IV.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Bookman.
83-398
Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting.
13.G. REPORT OF DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
14. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with information relative to the
1983 Local Government Officials' Conference, the annual report of
the Appomattox River Water Authority and a report on taxes.
17. WINTER RESPITE CARE PROGRAM AT CAMP BAKER
Mr. Hedrick stated a request had been received from the Richmond
Area Association for Retarded Citizens to use Camp Baker for the
Winter Respite Care Program. On motion of the Board, the County
Administrator was authorized to execute any necessary documents
with the Richmond Area Association for Retarded Citizens to
operate the Winter Respite Care Program from October 1, 1983
through May 30, 1984 at Camp Baker.
Vote: Unanimous
18. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went
into Executive Session to discuss the location and use of publicl5
held property as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
The Board recessed for lunch.
Reconvening:
Mr. Dodd stated that he is involved in the mobile home business
but is not directly related with the sales aspect. He requested
anyone who had purchased or is considering purchasing a mobile
home from his Company to please let him know in order that he
could excuse himself from the meeting due to a possible conflict
of interest.
83SR088
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Agnes Comer requested renewal of
a Special Exception to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to Beulah Hamlin, sister of the applicant. Tax Map Sec.
149-13 (3) Ivey Tract, Block B, Lot 14 and better known as 15812
Meridian Avenue (Sheet 41).
Ms. Comer was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
83-399
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 (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.
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
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83SR100
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Mattie E. Baughan requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which she owns. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 10 and better known as
2700 Drewrys Bluff Road (Sheet 23).
Mr. Dodd stated the applicant is ill and requested this case be
deferred until the end of the day.
83SR102
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Samuel A. and Bertha L. Miller
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcel 40 (Sheet
23).
Mr. Miller was present. 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
standard 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 (1) mobile home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel.
e
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 goods and
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
83-400
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83SR101
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Barbara E. Marshall requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which she owns. Tax Map 98-14 (3) Normandale Terrace, Block 5,
Lot 1 and better known as 2501 Arcadia Avenue (Sheet 32).
Ms. Marshall was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard 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 (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.
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
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83SR103
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Ronald R. and Barbara J. Cox
requested renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home
on property which belongs to Thomas Cox, father of the applicant.
Tax Map 186-3 (2) Augustus Wright, Lots 18 and 91 and better
known as 21801 Ferndale Avenue (Sheet 52).
Mr. Cox was present. There was no opposition present. On motion
83-401
of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this
request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard 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 (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.
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
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83SR104
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Horace and Ricky Weaver
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which belongs to Horace Weaver, father of Ricky
Weaver. Tax Map 149-13 (3) Ivey Tract, Block B, Lot 17 and
better known as 15712 Meridian Avenue (Sheet 41).
The applicant~was not present. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request for a period of five years subject to the
following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
e
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 (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.
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
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
83-402
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83SR105
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Doris L. Coleman requested
renewal of a Special Exception to park a mobile home on property
which belongs to Dorothy Coleman, mother of the applicant. Tax
Map 182-5 (3) Laurel Branch, Block 5, Lot 8 and better known as
3500 South Street (Sheet 54).
Ms. Coleman was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard 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 (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.
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
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83SR106
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Joseph Foresta requested renewal
of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
he owns. Tax Map 116-14 and 116-15 (2) Cool Spring, Block A,
Lots 16-22 and 36-42, and better known as 13156 Jefferson Davis
Highway (Sheet 32).
Mr. Foresta was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
83-403
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 (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.
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
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83S107
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Gerald W. and Sandra P. Gumm
requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which they own. Tax Map 67-11 (2) Rayon Park, Block 19, Lots 36
37, 38 and 39, and better known as 7810 Pioneer Street (Sheet
23).
Mr. Gumm was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard 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 (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.
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
'articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
83-404
Upon being granted a permit for 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
83S108
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Herbert H. and Doris S. Barton
requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which belongs to Lewis Krantz. Tax Map 97-4 (2) Central Park,
Block 13, Lots 38 and 39, in the vicinity of 10116 Brightwood
Road (Sheet 32).
Mr. and Mrs. Batton were present. Mr. Dodd inquired if Mr. and
Mrs. Batton were purchasing this property. Mr. Batton stated if
they received the permit, they would. Mr. Dodd inquired if this
were the permit which was objected to by one of the adjacent
property owners. Mr. Balderson stated it was. Mr. Dodd stated
that since there is opposition to this request by an adjacent
property owner, he would like to recommend deferral in order that
he might view the area. Mrs. Gumm stated the owner of the
adjacent property has an objection as they are also interested
in purchasing the parcel.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, this request
was deferred until August 24, 1983 at 2:00 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
16. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
Mr. Dodd stated Mr. Travis, representing Case 83S048, manages one
of his properties and excused himself from the meeting because of
a possible conflict of interest.
83S048
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ROBERT O. KRAUSSE requested
a Conditional Use to permit an outdoor recreational facility
(miniature golf course with accessory uses) in a General Business
(B-3) District on a 1.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 300
feet on the northeast line of Dyer Lane, and located
approximately ninety (90) feet northwest of its intersection with
Hull Street Road. Tax Map 29-14 (2) Providence Farms, Lot 8A
(Sheet 9).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Travis was present representing the
applicant. There was no opposition present. Mr. Bookman stated
that County staff and the applicant had met and discussed this
matter. He stated further that he did not feel conditions ~8 and
#9 were necessary regarding hours of operation and the public
address system and discussed amendments to other conditions
recommended by staff.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by M.L. Corso and Associates, Ltd., dated March 7,
1983, shall be considered the plan of development.
83-405
Prior to obtaining a building permit, thirty (30) feet of
right of way, measured from the centerline of Dyer Lane,
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield,
free and unrestricted.
e
Additional pavement and curb and gutter, twenty-six (26)
feet from the centerline of Dyer Lane, shall be constructed
from the northern boundary of the property southward to the
northern edge of the drainage ditch. This construction
shall be completed prior to the release of any occupancy
permits.
Parking shall be provided at a ratio of two (2) spaces per
hole. Should a parking problem arise in the future, the
parking area shall be expanded.
Be
The uses permitted shall be limited to an eighteen (18) hole
miniature golf course, a batting cage, and a game room.
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northern property line. Within this buffer, a double row of
white pines, having an initial height of five (5) feet and
spaced fifteen (15) feet on center, in staggered rows, shall
planted. A landscaping plan, depicting this requirement, sh~
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in con-
junction with final site plan submission.
Outdoor lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a height
of fifteen (15) feet and shall be positioned so as not to
project light into adjacent Agricultural (A) property to the
northwest and adjacent B-3 (i.e., Bliley's Funeral Home)
property to the south and southwest.
One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed twenty-five (25)
square feet in area, shall be permitted. This sign shall
not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. Signs shall
employ subdued colors which blend with the colors of other
improvements. Signs may be externally illuminated, or may
be internally illuminated if the sign field is opaque, with
translucent letters or symbols. Prior to erection of any
signs, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval.
Colors of buildings and other improvements shall be subdued.
In conjunction with site plan submission, color samples
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
10.
A fifteen (15) foot landscaped area shall be maintained
along the length of the property abutting Dyer Lane. With
the exception of the drainage ditch and entrance/exit, this
area shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs.
Landscaping shall also be accomplished along the south wall
of the batting cage so as to minimize visibility of the cage
from Dyer Lane. A landscaping plan, depicting this
requirement, shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absention: Mr. Daniel.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
82S096
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROCK PORT LAND COMPANY AND
REALTY FEASIBILITY & MARKETING CORP. requested rezoning from
Agricultural (A) of 3.5 acres; and Residential (R-12) of 12.8
acres to Residential Townhouse-For-Sale of 16.3 acres; plus a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the
bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a parcel which lies
approximately 280 feet off the west line of Courthouse Road,
measured from a point approximately 1,900 feet south of its
83-406
intersection with Hull Street Road.
Parcels 14 and 16 (Sheet 14).
Tax Map 49-11 (1) Part of
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions as well as
acceptance of a proffered condition from the applicant. Mr.
Lloyd Journigan was present and discussed amendments to conditions
~7 and ~11 as recommended by the Planning Commission regarding a
temporary turnaround and the number of permits and units,
respectively.
Mr. Marshall Davis stated opposition to this request because of
the already bad traffic, this development would cause additional
problems with vehicles entering Courthouse Road at this point,
the numerous accidents in the area, etc. He outlined the
congestion on Courthouse Road and how traffic backs up to Genito
Road from the stop light. He presented the Board with a petition
signed by residents in the area who were opposed to this request
not because of townhouse construction but because of the traffic
problems which will be created and/or made worse. He stated the
entrance road is proposed to enter Courthouse Road in the curve
and at a high bank which were both hazards.
Mr. Daniel stated he had received several calls opposing this
request due to the unsafe access to the property.
Mr. Journigan stated they also feel there is a problem on
Courthouse Road but the property is already zoned R-12 which
would permit 30 homes to be built. He stated this would allow 50
units to use this access and at a later date they would construct
a better access. He stated that the Highway Department and
Planning Department have reviewed this situation, and have
recommended construction of 50 units only until another access is
obtained. He stated he did not feel there would be that much
more traffic generated by the 30 single family units versus the
50 townhouse units. He stated they have taken an option on
another piece of property which would give a wider entrance to
Courthouse Road. He stated that they had discussed with the
Highway Department, turn lanes and passing lanes which should not
effect any of the property owners and perhaps do away with site
easement across anyone's property. He stated perhaps the Highway
Department could lower the speed limit and possibly move up the
time table on widening Courthouse Road.
Mr. Bookman inquired if the applicant would consider a 6 month
deferral in order to find another access. Mr. Journigan stated
that a delay would not be feasible and the applicant would prefer
to have a decision today.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the developer needed to obtain all the
easements necessary for road improvements prior to beginning this
project. Mr. Balderson indicated that was the case. Mr. Daniel
inquired if all the easements had been obtained at this time.
Mr. Journigan stated that they had not at this time but they were
looking at moving the road which would delete some of the
easements necessary. Mr. Daniel inquired if the Board approved
the request today, would it be doing so on the plan presented.
Mr. Balderson stated it was predicated on an access plan but it
would have to go through the subdivision process.
Mr. Robertson inquired if this was the first townhouse
development in the area. Mr. Journigan stated it was. Mr.
Robertson stated he felt townhouses should not be placed where
extra pressure is placed on the traffic and he did not feel this
was an appropriate place for this type of development for that
reason.
83-407
Mrs. Girone stated that the developer could build 30 homes at
this time with the existing zoning. She stated that she felt it
was unusual that an access road come between two homes on an
existing road which has a traffic problem. She stated that the
Highway Department will not be improving this roadway for years.
She stated she would have a problem voting in favor of this
request especially with the recognition of the bad problem by
area residents.
Mr. Bookman stated he felt there were additional problems which
had not been considered at this time with regard to high density
zoning and the continuation of this precedent for 89 more acres
of land in the immediate area. He stated he did not have a
problem with townhouses as long as a proper access could be
worked out.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Robertson,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that this request be deferred
until September 28, 1983 which would allow additional time for
this matter to be considered by all parties.
Vote: Unanimous
83S044 (Amended)
In Bermuda Magisterial District, ATLANTIC BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE,
INC. requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional
Use (79S158) to permit expansion of a private college in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 26.9 acre parcel, which lies
approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Koyoto
Drive and Okuma Drive. Tax Map 135-2 (2) Bermuda Ochre Co., Lot
6A and Tax Map 135-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 42).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Ayers was present representing the College and stated the
conditions were acceptable and that he is still trying to
negotiate a possible access to East Avenue with the adjacent
property owner.
Mr. Glen Butler was present and stated that he would prefer to
see the right-of-way straightened out prior to the expansion of
the facility. Mr. Dodd stated that action was taken this morning
with an appropriation of $80,000 for the East Avenue project and
it would help his problem. Mr. Micas stated this was addressed
in condition 911 but it is primarily the responsibility of Mr.
Butler and the adjacent property owner to work this out. Mr.
Butler stated that people are crossing his property and he would
prefer it be closed.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions and
with the understanding the County will continue to work with Mr.
Butler to solve the easement and right-of-way problems:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Atlantic
Baptist Bible College, exclusively, and shall not be
transferable nor run with the land.
Public water shall be extended to serve this use. No more
than twenty (20) resident students shall be housed until
such time that public sewer is extended to the site.
However, should the County Health Department determine, at
any time, that the existing system is no longer functioning
properly, public sewer shall be extended or the operation
shall cease.
83-408
0
Enrollment shall not exceed 345 students until the East
Avenue Rural Addition is constructed and accepted into the
State system, and access from this site is provided to East
Avenue.
A fifty (50) foot buffer, consisting of the existing natural
vegetation shall be maintained along the north, west and
south property lines. No clearing, grading or otherwise
disturbance of this buffer shall be permitted. The main
entrance driveway, shown on the site plan submitted with the
application, shall be permitted to encroach on the western
buffer.
The limits of the 100 year flood plain shall be maintained
as a buffer along the eastern property line adjacent to
Johnson Creek. There shall be permitted no buildings or
parking within this buffer; however, such facilities as
pedestrian walkways, picnic tables and passive recreational
facilities shall be permitted.
6. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved.
Ail exterior lighting shall be low level in nature, and
shall be placed so as not to project light into adjacent
properties.
Any outside public address system shall not be used before
7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
One (1) parking space for each commuting student, plus one
(1) parking space for each employee, plus one (1) parking
space for each six (6) on-campus resident students shall be
provided.
10.
The above stated conditions notwithstanding, the plan
prepared by Russell W. Jenkins, Inc. shall be considered the
plan of development.
11.
Prior to the release of any building permits, the applicant
must provide proof of a legal deeded access or court
adjudication, which clearly defines possession of a
prescriptive access easement across property owned by Mr.
Butler.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Ayers stated several months ago Mr. Butler agreed to execute
some easements for East Avenue but they have not been executed at
this time. Mr. Micas stated that Mr. Patterson and Mr. Ayers have
been working on the situation and will continue to do so.
83S060
In Midlothian Magisterial District, E. HATCHER CRENSHAW, III re-
quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l),
plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions
to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, on a 2.9 acre
parcel fronting approximately 130 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, and located across from its intersection
with Pocono Drive. Tax Map 17-7 (1) Parcels 19 and 50 and Part
of Parcels 16 and 17 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Bryce McMullen was present representing the applicant and stated
the conditions were acceptable and they had satisfied all
concerns of area property owners. Mrs. Girone stated that she
felt this was a good use of the land but stated her concern
regarding daily businesses operating out of the units. Mr.
McMullen stated that they would not allow this type of operation,
83-409
that it would be strictly for storage.
present.
There was no opposition
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 J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., revised
6/30/83, shall be considered the plan of development.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, forty-five (45) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Robious
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
An additional lane of pavement, twenty-six (26) feet from
the centerline of Midlothian Turnpike westbound lane, and
curb and gutter shall be constructed along Midlothian
Turnpike, as deemed necessary by the VDH&T. This
construction shall be completed prior to the release of any
occupancy permits.
A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along Robious
Road. This buffer shall be landscaped and bermed so as to
screen this use from the adjacent property to the north.
The fence along the south line of the buffer may have a
gate, not to exceed four (4) feet in width, for the purpose
of obtaining access for maintenance of the buffer. A
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan
submission.
A ten (10) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western
boundary of Parcel 50 and the northern and western
boundaries of Parcels 16 and 17. This buffer shall be
landscaped and fenced so as to screen this use from the
adjacent Agricultural (A) property to the west and north.
The fence shall be constructed of an opaque material and
shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet off the property
line. Within the area between the property boundaries and
the fence, evergreen shrubs shall be planted. The
chain-link fence along the southern property line adjacent
to Tax Map 17-7 (1) Parcels 18 and 22 and along the eastern
property line adjacent to Tax Map 17-7 (6) Woodbridge Square
Condominiums, Lot 4, shall be planted with ivy in order to
effect a solid visual screen. A landscaping plan depicting
this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval, in conjunction with schematic plan
review.
Ail driveways and parking area shall be paved. Curb and
gutter shall be installed, as deemed necessary by
Environmental Engineering.
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along
Midlothian Turnpike (i.e., this is the required driveway and
parking area setback). Within this buffer, there shall be
permitted one (1) ingress and egress point to Route 60 and a
one-way driveway.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
following exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance shall be granted:
A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the required 100
foot setback from residentially zoned property
0
Exceptions to the twenty-five (25) foot side yard
setback requirements, as depicted in the Master Plan.
83-410
e
10.
11.
12.
The freestanding sign, identifying this use, shall be as
depicted in the elevations submitted. The sign shall comply
with the required fifteen (15) foot setback from Route 60.
No temporary signs, outside advertising signs or reader
boards shall be permitted.
Ail buildings shall have an architectural style similar to
the renderings submitted by the applicant.
Ail lighting shall be low level. Ail lights shall be placed
on eighty (80) foot intervals and shall have no more that a
forty (40) foot arc. All lights shall be pointed down and
directed in a manner which will not disturb adjacent
properties or traffic along Route 60 and Robious Road.
(NOTE:
Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plan
approval must be obtained from the Planning
Commission.)
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Bookman excused himself from the meeting because of a
possible conflict of interest as he owns property adjacent to
that discussed in Case $ 83S061.
83S061
In Midlothian Magisterial District, R.H./S.P.B. & ASSOCIATES re-
quested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a
nightclub in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 8.32 acre
parcel fronting approximately 700 feet on Robious Road, also
fronting approximately 530 feet on Old Bon Air Road, and located
in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads and
better known as Robious Hall Shopping Center. Tax Map 17-8 (1)
Parcel 43 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Paul Buckwalder was present
representing the owner of Duke's Restaurant. He stated that he
felt the definition of nightclub was causing the problems in this
case. He stated they are talking about an adjunct and accessory
use to the operation of the restaurant which is dancing
activities after the restaurant hours. He stated there is only a
20-25 sq. ft. space dedicated to dancing, they will still be
subject to rules and regulations of the ABC Board and they do not
have any violations outstanding. He stated that they agree with
the conditions recommended by staff. He stated there is no
nuisance involved at this location and there have been no
undesirable activity here. He stated the most closely affected
neighbor expressed no objection to this request. He stated there
were some objections from the Pastor of the Mt. Nebo Baptist
Church which is .5 mile away which he felt were objections to
massage parlors, thrown beer cans and a reduction in life style.
He stated a dance school could be held in this location without
rezoning.
Mrs. Girone stated that in 1977 this was zoned, B-2, community
business. She stated it is in a residential neighborhood and is
behind the church. She stated that at that time the pastor of
the Church stated he not did object to a shopping center but did
object to ever having a massage parlor or a night club and the
Board assured him that would not happen. She stated that the
restaurant did receive a liquor license which advertisement was
made but not seen by the neighborhood. She stated there is a
dance floor there now and it puts it into a nightclub category.
She stated there have been two meetings in the community and they
are opposed. She stated that this is a neighborhood shopping
83-411
center not like Cloverleaf Mall, etc. She stated she felt this
would decrease the neighborhood standards.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board deny this
request.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Bookman
Mr. Daniel stated that the denial of this will not change the
operation of the restaurant, just the dancing.
Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting.
83S066
In Matoaca Magisterial District, W.C. CHEATHAM, JR. requested
renewal of a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 78S020) to
permit a commercial boat storage business in an Agricultural (A)
District on a 3.86 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet or
the southwest line of Tomahawk Drive, and located approximately
1,000 feet southeast of its intersection with Hull Street Road.
Tax Map 62-6 (1) Parcel 9, and Tax Map 62-10 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet
20) .
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Cheatham was present
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject
to the following conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be valid for a period not to
exceed five (5) years from date of approval. At that time,
if the owner wishes to continue this business, a new
application shall be filed and may be renewed upon
determination by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors that the continued operation will not
detrimentally affect existing or future area development.
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Mr. or Mrs
W.C. Cheatham, Jr., and shall not be transferable nor run
with the land.
Ail activities connected with this use shall be conducted
entirely within the existing buildings. No new buildings o
additions to the existing buildings shall be permitted.
4. No signs identifying this use shall be permitted.
Vote: Unanimous
83S067
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, HIRAM O. LYNE, III requeste¢
a Conditional Use to permit a veterinary hospital and animal card
facility in a Community Business (B-2) District on a .354 acre|1
parcel fronting approximately eighty (80) feet on the west line I
of Courthouse Road, and located approximately 200 feet north of I
its intersection with Hull Street Road. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Part o~
Parcel 6 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommende¢
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Dr. Lyn~
was present. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
83-412
The below stated condition notwithstanding, the site plan,
prepared by Carrouth and Associates, Inc., dated 4/5/83,
shall be considered the plan of development.
2. There shall be no outside runs permitted.
Vote: Unanimous
83S075
In Bermuda Magisterial District, GEORGE LAMBROS requested
rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3)
of a 2.89 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on
Jefferson-Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 420 feet on
Perdue Avenue and located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 98-14 (1) Parcels 3 and 25
(Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to a single condition. Mr. Lambros was present.
There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd discussed the conditio!
with the applicant and made several changes. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request
subject to the following condition:
A fifty (40) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
western property line adjacent to the Residential
Townhouse-for-Sale (R-TH) zoned property. This buffer shall
be left in its natural state.
Vote: Unanimous
83S076
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MANCO AND ASSOCIATES requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of 19.5
acres; to Residential Townhouse-for-Sale (R-TH) of 81.3 acres; to
Office Business (0) of 12.9 acres, and to Community Business
(B-2) of 12.9 acres with a Conditional Use Planned Development,
encompassing the entire 126.6 acre tract, to permit use and bulk
exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a
parcel fronting approximately 960 feet on the south line of Hull
Street Road, and located approximately 580 feet west of its
intersection with Warbro Road. Tax Map 62-3 (1) Parcels 7, 10
and 13, and Tax Map 62-7 (1) Parcels 3, 4, and Part of Parcel 12
(Sheet 20).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jim
Hayes was present representing the applicants. When asked, Mr.
Hayes stated there could be 6-8 units per acre in the R-TH
section, but due to the topography, there should be closer to 6
units than 8. He stated there were no plans for immediate
development of the entire parcel but the townhouse portion may be
started in the near future. Mrs. Girone inquired about the
impact on schools. Mr. Balderson stated he did not have comments
from the School System. Mr. Dodd inquired about the construction
of the townhouses. Mr. John Manuel stated they would be
colonial style, with cedar shake roofs, masonry fireplaces, brick
foundations and a minimum of 1,200 square feet. Mr. Bookman
inquired if the applicant would agreed to include the brick
foundation, the masonry fireplaces and the 1,200 square feet
minimum in the conditions. Mr. Manuel agreed to do so and stated
83-413
there would be 1,800 to 2,000 sq. ft. for the larger townhouses.
There was no opposition present.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Robertson,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board approve this
request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan,
dated 3/28/83, prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, and
the textual statement shall be considered the plan of
development.
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along southeast
and east boundary of Parcel 2 (R-TH tract), adjacent to
Parcel 1 (R-9) and Glen Tara Subdivision.
t
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained between Parcel
2 (R-TH) and Parcel 3 (O). Twenty-five (25) feet of this
buffer shall be within Parcel 2 (R-TH) and twenty-five (25)
feet shall be within Parcel 3 (0).
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained within
Parcel 2, adjacent to Tax Map 62-3 (1) Parcel 12.
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
boundary of Parcel 3, adjacent to Tax Map 62-3 (1) Parcels
8, 11 and 12 adjacent to Glen Tara Subdivision and Tax Map
62-4 (1) Parcel 2.
A landscaping plan depicting treatment of these buffers
shall be presented at the time of schematic plan review, and
shall be approved by the Planning Commission. At the time
of schematic plan review, these buffers may be modified by
the Planning Commission.
If Parcel 2 is developed for condominium dwelling units, the
following conditions shall apply:
Buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five
(25) feet from any public road, private drive or
parking area.
Buildings located back to back, back to front or front
to front shall be separated by a minimum of sixty (60)
feet; buildings located end to end shall be separated
by a minimum of thirty (30) feet.
c. No building shall contain more than ten (10) units.
Maintenance and ownership of common areas shall be as
regulated by § 21-113 (h) of the Zoning Ordinance.
e. Density shall be addressed at schematic plan approval.
Ail condominiums shall have frontage on a public
street, or access thereto by a common right of way
within 500 feet.
Provision of recreation space shall be as regulated by
§ 21-113 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance.
ho
Ail private drives and parking areas shall be set back
a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from public rights of
way.
If Parcel 2 is developed for conventional single family
dwellings, all bulk requirements, as specified in the
textual statement for Parcel 1 (R-9), shall apply.
83-414
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
A comprehensive sign package shall be submitted for approval
with schematic plan submissions for Parcels 3 or 4. Signs
permitted in Parcel 4 shall be as regulated by the Zoning
Ordinance for shopping centers in a B-2 District. Signs may
be illuminated by external lighting; internal lighting,
which silhouettes behind opaque letters; or lighting
contained in translucent letters. The number of
freestanding signs permitted in Parcel 3 shall be addressed
by the Commission at the time of schematic plan review.
The developer shall pay half the cost of a traffic signal at
Route 360 and the proposed 80' right of way if the VDH&T
determines a signal is warranted, prior to issuance of the
last occupancy permit.
Additional pavement, measured twenty-six (26) feet from
centerline of eastbound lane of Route 360 and curb and
gutter shall be constructed along Route 360. This
construction shall be completed prior to release of an
occupancy permit on Parcel 4.
The proposed eighty (80) foot right of way shall align with
either an existing or newly constructed crossover. If a new
crossover is constructed, existing crossover in front of
Parcel 4 shall be closed.
Access to Route 360 shall be limited to the proposed eighty
(80) foot right of way and two (2) additional points, one
(1) located at the eastern boundary of the property which
will allow for a shared access with the property to the
east, and one (1) located at the approximate midpoint of the
property. If a crossover is constructed at the eastern
boundary, the existing crossover east of Parcel 4 shall be
closed.
The eighty (80) foot right of way shall be constructed with
a divided median, curb and gutter, and a minimum of
twenty-four (24) feet of pavement on each side of the
median. Access to this road shall be prohibited within 300
feet of Route 360. Plans for this road, to include access
points into adjacent parcels, shall be part of schematic
plans submitted for first phase of development.
Public road access shall be provided from Parcel 2 to the
remainder of the Vosper Property, Tax Map 62-7 (1) Parcel
12.
Prior to approval of construction plans, a subsurface
investigation shall be performed to determine the depth to
rock. Results of this investigation shall be submitted to
Environmental Engineering.
The developers shall notify all property owners adjacent to
the pond located along Route 360 of any schematic plan
submission for development adjacent to, or affecting, the
pond.
Ail parking areas, driveways and public roads shall be
delineated by curb and gutter or dry curb.
No drainage from Parcel 1 (R-9) shall enter Glen Tara
Subdivision unless drainage improvements are performed in
the subdivision.
The townhouses constructed shall have a minimum of be 1,200
sq. fto of gross floor area, brick foundations and brick
fireplaces.
Vote: Unanimous
83-415
83S078
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SIGMA DEVELOPMENT, INC.
requested an amendment to a previously granted rezoning and
Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 82S066) to permit
revision of the Master Plan (i.e., road network) and amendments
to conditions of zoning (i.e., to permit construction of 215,000
square feet of office space and a 200-room hotel with access via
Chinaberry Drive to Route 60 only). This 138 acre parcel fronts
approximately 1,900 feet on Chippenham Parkway and also fronts
approximately fifty (50) feet on Jahnke Road and located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map
19-1 (1) Parcel 16 and Tax Map 19-9 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheets 8 and
9).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of deletion of Condition 18 but approval of deletion of
Conditions 15, 17 and 19 subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ed
Willey, Jr. was present representing the applicant. He stated
that the under the previous zoning case they were granted
1,000,000 sq. ft. of office space and a 300 room hotel with
convention facilities. He stated in that case and in the
conditions imposed and the amendments today, they have agreed
that the developer will improve the intersection of Route 60 and
Chinaberry, the intersection of Jahnke and Buford, the Chippenha~
and Jahnke Interchange, and Jahnke Road to the extent necessary
and required by County staff and the Highway Department to
accommodate the property and the traffic that will be generated
by the development. He stated they have also agreed to improve
the lake to provide a park-like setting. He stated additionally
Sigma has agreed to develop Chinaberry Drive from Midlothian
Turnpike through to Jahnke Road. He stated all of these
improvements will be at the developers expense. He stated this
will provide access to those areas of development on either side
of Chinaberry Drive and will also comply with the 1967 County
plan which designated Chinaberry Drive as a road that would
connect Midlothian Pike to Jahnke Road. He stated today's
amendment would eliminate the flyover concept which would break
the limited access on Chippenham Parkway and would grant
authority for the commencement of Phase I of the development
which would be up to 215,000 sq. ft. of office space along
Chinaberry Drive and 200 rooms of the 300 room hotel. He stated
the conditions of the case are protective of the property and the
neighborhood. He stated that at no time will they be able to
develop beyond a point where a lesser level of traffic service
will be provided than that which is currently provided. He
stated if anything, they will improve or keep the traffic at the
same service level.
Mr. Earl Nance, representing the Southam residents, was present.
He stated that this plan unless tied to the development of
Powhite Parkway is violently opposed by these residents. He
stated they are concerned that Chinaberry Drive will be extended
and all the traffic will come to Jahnke Road without the
construction of Powhite Parkway. He stated he felt there will be
a situation similar to that which exists on Huguenot where a four
lane roads turns into a two lane bridge. He stated they felt the
Voorhees Report is unrealistic without the extention of Powhite.
He stated the losers will be the neighborhood residents. Mr.
Bookman stated condition ~13 assures the development will not
cause a lesser level of service.
83-416
Mr. Clarke Plaxco, representing HMK and Mr. Perel, was present.
He stated that he would like to make four points:
That 4,000,000 sq. ft. without the flyover will be
approved;
That the Planning Commission recommended approval of this
application without a public hearing on the traffic aspect
of the 4,000,000 sq. ft.
That since it was represented that Powhite must be in place
prior to BJ's accessing Jahnke Road, that a condition be
stated in the zoning approval and that the extent of the
Powhite construction required to be completed should be
based on the assumptions of the Voorhees report which
indicate use of the Powhite both south and west as well as
to the north and east. He submitted a possible condition
which should be included.
e
That in several cases recently, staff has recommended
approval of proposals provided the developer provides
easements from adjacent property owners for access to his
land. He stated since BJ does not have access and the
County does not contemplate condemnation, then a condition
be added that would indicate that he would have to obtain
access.
Mr. Daniel asked if a different road network were ultimately
agreed on, would it have to come back to the Board for additional
approval. Mr. Balderson stated it would.
Mrs. Girone stated that this is a long term project of eight or
ten years; that it is well worked out and throughly thought out
for what is known at this time. She stated this would be left
open so that zoning amendments can be made in the future.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board denied
the deletion of Condition 18 and approved the deletion of
Conditions 15, 17 and 19 subject to the following conditions:
The Chinaberry Drive typical section shall be designed and
constructed with forty-eight (48) feet of pavement
(excluding the width of the gutter pan), curb and gutter and
a divided median.
The developers shall construct right-turn lanes at major
intersections, as warranted by VDH&T, during the entrance
permit process.
e
If the vertical alignment of Chinaberry Drive does not meet
VDH&T's design criteria, the developers shall install street
lights according to Vepco's and VDH&T's specifications to
provide adequate lighting for sight distance at night. The
developers shall be responsible for installation, mainte-
nance, and operating costs.
NOTE:
Road plans submitted with this application are designed
for traffic service only, and do not imply approval of
drainage.
Prior to release of any temporary or final occupancy permit,
the following improvements shall be constructed and VDH&T
inspection approved according to plans dated May 2, 1983,
prepared by Federer, Ruppert and Associates, and the
conditions stated herein:
83-417
10.
tl.
(a)
Improvement to Route 60 and Chinaberry Drive
intersection.
(b)
(c)
Chinaberry Drive reconstruction to four lanes from
Route 60 to the southwestern property line.
Chinaberry Drive construction as two lanes from
southwestern property line to access building sites
permitted herein.
Except for construction traffic between the hours of 9:30
a.m. and 3:30 p.m. as permitted by VDH&T, there shall be no
access to Jahnke Road via the existing fifty (50) foot
frontage. Furthermore, if it becomes necessary, due to
complaints from area citizens, these hours shall be modified
at the request of the Planning Staff.
Prior to schematic plan approval for more than 215,000
square feet of office space or more than 200 rooms in the
hotel, the following shall be accomplished:
a)
Construction plans for improvements to Jahnke Road; the
Powhite/Jahnke interchange; the Chippenham/Jahnke
interchange; access between this property and Jahnke
Road; and extending turn lanes at the intersection of
Jahnke and Buford Roads, to accommodate traffic from
this development shall be approved by the County and
VDH&T Staffs in accordance with the Jahnke-Chippenham
Development Area Study, prepared by PRC Voorhees and
any adopted County plans.
b)
Funding for the aforementioned improvements shall be
committed, as determined by County and VDH&T Staffs.
Prior to any building permit in excess of 215,000 square
feet of office space and over 200 rooms in the hotel, a
contract for construction of the road improvements specified
in Condition ~6a shall be let.
Other than construction traffic, there shall be no access to
Jahnke Road until the road improvements specified in
Condition ~6a are complete, as determined by County Staff.
No schematic plan approval will be granted for any site that
conflicts with proposed roads incorporated in an adopted
County plan. Rights of way for proposed roads shall be
dedicated when requested by Chesterfield County.
Prior to schematic plan approval for more than 215,000
square feet of office space or more than 200 rooms in the
hotel, a plan shall be submitted which shows one of the
following treatments of the Aldwell Drive and Eureka Drive
stub roads:
a)
b)
The developers shall be responsible for implementing a
plan approved by the Planning Department and the VDH&T
for construction of permanent cul-de-sacs and/or
vacation of either or both stub roads. The developers
shall acquire and dedicate necessary right of way,
relocate utilities and construct cul-de-sacs prior to
issuance of final occupancy permits.
The developers shall be responsible for constructing a
State-maintained road between Chinaberry Drive and
either or both stub roads.
The previous conditions notwithstanding, the revised Master
Plan, prepared by Land Design/Research, Inc. dated May 1983,
shall be considered the Master Plan.
83-418
12.
Prior to any clearing or grading, the Master Plan shall be
revised to show the exact location of the graves. If the
graves are to remain on the property, a plan for maintenance
and access shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval.
13.
The exact design of intersections shall be approved by the
Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review,
and such improvements shall be so constructed as to yield no
lesser level of service (inclusive of development traffic)
than currently exists.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated he had a prior commitment and excused himself
from the meeting.
83S079
In Midlothian Magisterial District, LEWIS STERNHEIMER requested
an amendment to a previously granted rezoning and Conditional Use
Planned Development (Case 81S034) to permit use (fast food
restaurant) and bulk (reduced number and size of parking spaces)
exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in a
Community Business (B-2) District on a .67 acre parcel fronting
approximately 180 feet on the west line of N. Providence Road,
and located approximately 250 feet north of its intersection with
Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 18-15 (1) Part of Parcel 9 (Sheet
8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
John Henson was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. 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 Master Plan
prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 5/6/81 and
revised 4/26/83, shall be considered the plan of
development.
2. The following bulk exceptions shall be granted:
A two (2) parking space exception to the requirement
that a minimum of 45 spaces be provided.
An exception to the requirement that parking spaces be
ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet. A maximum of thirty
(30) percent of the 43 spaces provided (i.e., 13
spaces) may be reduced to nine (9) feet by eighteen
(18) feet.
Ail previously imposed conditions for Case 81S034 shall be
adhered to.
There shall be no temporary signs or reader boards
permitted.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S080
In Midlothian Magisterial District, GEORGE F. AND SUZANNE Y.
HOOVER requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling on
one (1) parcel of land in a Residential (R-40) District on a 20
83-419
acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the north line of
Old Gun Road East, and located approximately 3,100 feet west of
its intersection with Cherokee Road. Tax Map 2-8 (2) Bellona
Arsenal Tract, Lot 1 (Sheet 2).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Hoover was present.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject
to the following conditions:
The occupancy of the second unit shall be restricted,
exclusively, to members of the property owner's family,
domestic employees or temporary guests of the property
owner. At no time shall the structure be rented.
The structure shall be located, as shown on the plan,
submitted with the application entitled, "Garage and Garage
Apartment for George F. Hoover," and the structure to be
erected shall have an architectural style similar to that
depicted on the plan entitled "Garage and Guest Facility for
George F. Hoover."
Ayes: Mr. Roberts·n, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S081
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ERNEST H. AND RUTH J. LAIL
requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling on one
(1) parcel of land in an Agricultural (A) District on a 10.12
acre parcel fronting approximately 260 feet on the east line of
Hallsboro Road, and located approximately 800 feet south of its
intersection with County Line Road. Tax Map 23 (1) Parcel 52
(Sheet 5/6).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Lail
was present. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The occupancy of the second unit shall be restricted,
exclusively, to members of the property owner's family,
domestic employees or temporary guests of the property
owner. At no time shall the structure be rented.
The plan submitted with the application shall be considered
the plan of development.
Ayes: Mr. Roberts·n, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S082
In Midlothian Magisterial District, THE HOWARD JOHNSON COMPANY
requests a Conditional Use to permit a restaurant with a drive-in
window in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 1.3 acre
parcel fronting approximately 220 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, and located approximately 300 feet east of
its intersection with Ruthers Road. Tax Map 18-16 (1) Parcel 31
(Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Warren Vaughan was present representing the applicant. There was
no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
83-420
The parking spaces located to the north of the proposed
building shall be designed and constructed as ninety (90)
degree spaces. A minimum of a twenty (20) foot driveway
shall be provided between these parking spaces and the
proposed drive-in window lane.
In conjunction with final site plan submission, a plan for
directing a one-way traffic flow shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval.
The above stated conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by G. Warren Vaughan, dated May 2, 1983, and
submitted with the application, shall be considered the plan
of development.
There shall be no temporary signs or reader boards
permitted.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S083
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, FRANK AND MATOAKA MATYIKO
requested a Conditional Use to permit a landfill in an
Agricultural (A) District and in a Residential (R-7) District, on
a 26.02 acre parcel fronting approximately 900 feet on the east
line of Coalfield Road, and located approximately 4,500 feet
north of its intersection with Genito Road. Tax Map 37 (1) Part
of Parcel 15 (Sheet 13).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Matyiko was present.
Mr. Bookman stated that he would like to increase the time limit
from 120 to 150 days. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve
this request subject to the following conditions:
The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the plan
prepared by Harvey L. Parks, Inc., dated 4/14/83, shall be
considered the plan for the landfill.
e
This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to
exceed 150 days from the date of approval. The Conditional
Use may be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and
demonstration that continued operation will not affect
existing or future area development.
Prior to continuation of filling, a detailed erosion control
and drainage plan shall be submitted to Environmental
Engineering for approval. These plans shall include
existing and finished contours. Finished contours shall be
based on projected elevations at the end of the 150 day
period. The maximum finished slope shall not exceed 3:1
along the western property line for a length of 400 feet
measured from the northwest corner property line south, and
along the northern and eastern property line; and a slope of
2:1 along the southern property line and the remaining
length of the western property line. The slope shall be
stabilized with ground cover, approved by Environmental
Engineering.
o
Upon approval of the plans and prior to the continuation of
filling, approved erosion control measures shall be
installed, and all necessary bonds and siltation
certificates shall be posted with Environmental Engineering.
At the end of each week, all materials shall be leveled and
covered with a layer of earth not less than six (6) inches
in depth.
83-421
Upon completion of the filling activity, a plat showing the
metes and bounds of the fill area; the types of material
buried; and a notation that construction will not be
permitted unless soil engineering studies prove the
suitability of such construction, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved
plat shall be recorded in the Circuit Court Room with the
property reference.
Construction of any facilities over the fill area shall not
be permitted unless engineering studies prove the
suitability of such construction. Certified suitability
reports shall be submitted to the Planning Department in
conjunction with building permit application.
During the hours of operation, a supervisor shall be located
on the site for the purpose of monitoring and directing the
fill activity.
Fill material shall be confined to soil, stone, rocks and
stumps. No household garbage or waste shall be dumped on
the site.
10.
Access to the site shall be secured by a gate, which shall
be locked when the landfill is not in operation.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S084
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE CHILDREN'S HOUSE, INC.
requested a Conditional Use to permit a day care center (maximum
proposed enrollment - 350 children) in an Agricultural (A)
District on a 26 acre parcel fronting approximately 900 feet on
the west line of Newbys Bridge Road, and located directly across
from its intersection with Sussex Drive, and better known as
Richmond Christian School· Tax Map 39-16 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet
14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Leslie Saunders was present representing the applicant. Mr.
Bookman inquired if the drainage would go to the rear instead of
going across the road. Mr Balderson stated it would. Mr.
Saunders stated that he would like condition ~7 changed to
eliminate "the curb and gutter" with staff determining another
alternative. Mr. Balderson stated that the wording could remain
with "or some other means" added. Mr. Saunders stated that
condition ~8 requires paving the entire area but they would like
to pave a certain portion but not the front section until the
student enrollment goes above 175 or by September 1, 1985
whichever occurs first. This was also agreeable. There was no
opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board a
this request subject to the following conditions:
The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the schematic
plan entitled: "Clover Hill Baptist Church, Richmond
Christian School, General Campus Arrangement," dated 1983,
shall be considered the plan of development.
Other than the facilities shown, there shall be no new
buildings, additions to buildings, playgrounds or athletic
fields permitted without obtaining an amendment to this
Conditional Use.
e
Prior to receiving an occupancy permit, thirty-five (35)
feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Newbys
Bridge Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
83-422
e
Access to Newbys Bridge Road shall be confined to the two
(2) northernmost access points shown on the plan submitted
with the application. The southernmost access points which
serve the area designated as "Parking" and the existing
northernmost access, not shown on the plan, shall be
eliminated. Access shall be designated as a one-way
entrance and exit.
Prior to occupancy, the entrance and exit to Newbys Bridge
Road shall be improved, as per VDH&T standards.
Additional pavement, as per VDH&T standards, shall be
provided along Newbys Bridge Road to facilitate left and
right turn movements.
Ail parking and driveway areas shall be delineated by curb
and gutter or some other means, as required by Environmental
Engineering.
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved except that
the area shown on the plan as staff parking may remain
gravelled until the enrollment reaches 175 or until
September 1, 1985, whichever shall occur first.
The existing parking and driveway areas shall be relocated
to conform to the required fifteen (15) foot setback from
the ultimate right of way of Newbys Bridge Road (i.e., 50
feet from the centerline of Newbys Bridge Road).
10.
The northernmost parking area shall be utilized for the
drop-off and delivery of children and client parking. The
parking area located to the front of the two (2) existing
buildings shall be confined to employee parking. Drainage
from the employee parking area shall remain on the north
side of Newby's Bridge Road.
11.
With the exception of directional signs, there shall be onl'
one (1) freestanding sign permitted. This sign shall not
exceed twenty (20) square feet in area and a height of five
(5) feet. The sign shall not be luminous nor illuminated.
The facades of the sign shall employ subdued colors. Prior
to erection of the sign, a colored rendering shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
12.
Prior to occupancy of the structure, a site plan, depicting
the requirements stated herein, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval, and the approved plan
shall be implemented.
13. Enrollment shall be confined to a maximum of 350 children.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
15. REQUEST FOR MOBILE HOME PERMIT
83SR100
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Mattie E. Baughan requested
renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on propert
which she owns. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 10 and better known as
2700 Drewrys Bluff Road (Sheet 23).
Mr. Dodd stated the applicant could not be present as both
members of the family are ill. He stated that this is an extrem
hardship case and he would like to waive the fee. Mr. Micas
stated the Board had no authority to waive the fee. Mr. Hedrick
stated that this put the Administration in a very bad situation.
Mr. Dodd stated he would like to have this taken out of his
salary if the County could not waive or pay the fee. He stated
he felt when something of this nature arose, he could not beliew
83-423
the County could not handle it legally. Mr. Hedrick stated had
he known about this earlier, something may have been able to be
worked out. Mr. Bookman inquired if it could be taken out of the
general fund. Mr. Micas stated there is no legal way to waive or
pay the fee. Mr. Hedrick stated he would look into this matter
to find a way to pay the fee by some other means. Mr. Bookman
stated he felt the structure of the County ordinances should be
changed in order to do something of this nature be it ordinance
or policy.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved this request for a mobile home permit for a five year
period subject to the following standard 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 (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.
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
articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a permit for 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.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
The Board requested staff to look into an ordinance or policy
relating to hardships and the waiving of fees. Mrs. Girone
inquired, if in this case, the people had tried to get some
relief though the Social Services Department. Mr. Dodd stated he
was not sure. Staff was also requested to investigate the
limiting of zoning whereby the new zoning would revert back to
the previous zoning if development had not begun within a certain
time period.
13.B.1. ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF HOLBORN ROAD
Mr. Bookman inquired if the public hearing regarding the
ordinance vacating a portion of Holborn could be discussed at
this time. He stated the question regarding the school buses had
been resolved. Mr. Micas stated that the public hearing was held
and the Board took official action to defer this matter until the
August 10, 1983 meeting.
19. RESOLUTION ON ROUTE 288 AND POWHITE PARKWAY
Mr. Muzzy stated the Highway Department had requested a formal
resolution although the County has sent several letters and spoke
at the public hearing regarding its position in this matter.
83-424
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
been actively pursuing progress on Powhite Parkway and Route 288
for over a decade; and
Whereas, the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation is proceeding with completion of construction
plans for Powhite Parkway from Chippenham Parkway to Old Hundred
Road and Route 288 from Powhite Parkway to Route 360; and
Whereas, the aforementioned construction plans are intended
to provide minimum highway facilities necessary to accommodate
traffic demand and provide necessary revenue and may require
modification as continuing planning and design activities may
determine.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby endorses the corridor location and
design concepts for Powhite Parkway and Route 288 as presented by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation at the May
25, 1983 public hearing, with the understanding that the design
may require modification.
Further, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board
of Supervisors hereby requests the Virqinia Department of
Highways and Transportation to proceed'with plan completion and
other activities prerequisite to construction of the
aforementioned sections of Powhite Parkway and Route 288 as a
toll road under State 9C bonding.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
20. BUFORD ROAD FIRE STATION CONTRACT
Mr. Muzzy stated that a change order needs to be approved for the
Buford Road Fire station approving an agreement with G. E.
Peterson and the County. He stated the concrete floor cracked
which was caused by extreme weather conditions and that it is
still supportive of the fire trucks. He stated that a coating is
recommended to be placed on the floor which will solve the
problem. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the
Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to enter
into a contract with G. E. Peterson, General Contractor, Inc. to
repair cracks in the apparatus room of the Buford Road Fire
Station by sealing the floor with a resin base surface coating.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Balderson introduced Mr. William Poole, Chief of Development
Review, recently employed with the County. The Board welcomed
Mr. Poole back to the County as he had been employed here several
years ago.
Mrs. Girone thanked the Planning staff for all of their time and
effort spent on projects recently.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adjourned at 4:55 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on August 10, 1983.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Richlife/L. Hedrick
County Administrator
3-42