09-28-1983 MinutesBOAI.ID OF "'n',',
MiNiTTES
September 28, 1983
rs in Attendance:
J. Rovall Robertson, Chairmsn
R. Garland Dodd, Vice Chairman
C. L. Bookman
Harry G. Daniel
· Joan Girone
. Richard L. Hedrick
Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stan]ey Balderson,
Dir. of P~anning
Mr. N. E. Carmichael,
Commissioner of Revenue
Mr. Elmer }lodge, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. Robert Masden, Dir.
of Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Env. Engineer
Hr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir.
of Community Develop·
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.
of Utilities
Robertson called t. he meeting to order ah the Courthouse at
t0:05 a.m. (EDST).
Dodd gave the invocation.
2 COUNTY ADMINISTt~kTOR'S cn~.~:,~,~¢?
· Hedrick introduced Ms. Cindy Ripley and Ms. Venita Peyton of
ield Cablevision, Inc. who were present filming the
~. He also introduced Ms. Carmen English with Channel 12
has been assigned to Chesterfield County replacing Ms.
Sabrina Squire. -
. Hedrick iptroduced Dr. A. R. Martin, former Midlothian
t Supervisor, who was in attendance at the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
the minutes of September 14, 1983, as amended.
: Unanimous
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S C MHENTS
· Hedrick stated the County bad received a request from the
r's Office regarding United Nations Day. Mr. Hodge stated
lett. er requested the County to participate in the upcoming
United Nations Day hv ~doptinq a resolution and appointing a
to represent the County. He stated on October 24th,
across the nation and around the world will participate in
community progra:ns, seminars, festivals, etc. designed to
con%memorate the founding of the United Nations in 1945. He
stated the theme is "A Time to Lead: Mandate for Action" and the
issues include world cor~unication, racial discrimination
US participation in the United Nations. He stated the
President of the United States hss appointed Mr. William
inghaus, President of American Telephone and Telegraph, as the
~1 Chairman for this Program·
83-498
Mr. Dodd stated this action mi~h~2 be very positive and anything
that he might say might be considered a negative approach but he
did not have any great support for the United States
participating in the United ~ations especially with the sham that
is going on now with regard to the shooting down of the Korean
Airlines. He requested that the Board defer indefinitely the
consideration of this resolution.
Mr. Daniel stated that he felt a lot of Americans may share Mr.
Dodd's frustration but on the other h~nd, there are basic
principals that have been set forth by men of good faith working
in the United Nations and they should have the opportunity to
work for those common goals even in a time such as this. He
stated he felt the positive approach would be for the County to
be on record supporting those goals realizing the difficult
situations our leaders are being Dlaced in.
Mr. Robertson stated that although things have not been
accomplished as we would have liked, it was our patriotic duty to
support our Country in its particiDation in the United Nations.
Mr. Bookman stated that while all may not feel the body of the
United Nations is doing what we would like to see, we should take
a position opposing or approving this attempt to work things out
for the Country. He stated he felt this Board should support
this resolution as requested by the Governor.
~s. Girone stated that we all have various expectations of the
United Nations but it is here in our Country and does serve as a
meeting place. She stated some people might consider it similar
to the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission because
they wonder about its effectiveness. She stated there are
differences in the region but it is helpful to meet and talk over
problems. She stated that all have varying oDinions of the
United Nations' effectiveness, but it does serve a useful purDose
as a meeting ground for discussion. She stated when the Governor
asks the counties of the Commonwealth to participate, we should
honor his request.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, United Nations Day is designated by the UN General
Assembly each year to commemorate the founding of the
Organization on October 24, 1945; and
Whereas, on this occasion, the Chesterfield County Board of
Supervisors joins with the peoples of the world in reaffirming
their commitment to the principles upon which the UN was founded:
international peace and security, respect for human riqhts, and
the promotion of social and economic cooperation among nations;
and
Whereas, since the UN was founded 38 years ago, the world
has changed dramatically, with the addition of more than 100
nations to its membership. In this global community, it is clear
that the power to solve the world's problems no longer lies
solely in the hands of a few nations. Instead, all nations must
work together to relieve the suffering of millions, to halt
nuclear proliferation, and to promote economic development; and
Whereas, Americans have made a great contribution to the
creation and continuing work of the United Nations. And as a
part of our foreign policy, the UN is a channel through which the
U.S. can take productive action fcr world peace and prosperity.
ContiDued supDort for the United Nations can advance constructive
goals that will benefit both the United States and the world.
Now, Therefore, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
resolves that Monday, October 24, 1983, is United Nations Day and
83-499
urges all citizens to participate in programs and activities
designed to increase understanding of the problems and potential
of the UN and to develop ideas on ways to make the United Nations
more effective.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Gironeo
Mr. Dodd.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded bv Mr. Dodd, the Board
appointed Mr. J. Royall Robertson, hs the County's Chairman of
the United Nations Day activities. ·
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone stated that the Bon Air Business'Council requested
that she attend a luncheon meeting today regarding County
matters, and she would be leaving at 11:30 a.m. and returning at
2:00 p.m. for the afternoon session.
3. RESOLUTIONS CONFIrmING ACTION OF INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
3.A. INDUSTRIAL MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Chesterfield (the Authority) has considered the application of
Industrial Machine Manufacturing Co., Inc. (the Company) for the
issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds
in an amount estimated at $400,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the
financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and
equipping of a manufacturing facility (the Facility) to be
located at Chesterfield Air Park Industrial Park in Chesterfield
County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on
September 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
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 of
Supervisors.
Be It Resolved By The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of
Chesterfield:
1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial
Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield for the
benefit of Industrial Machine Manufacturing Co., Inc. 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 of 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 the credit nor the
taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority
shall be pledged thereto.
83-500
3. This resolution shall take effect in~,ediately upon its
adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
3.B. REALTY INDUSTRIES, INC.
Mr. Bookman stated his support for the issuance of the bonds for
the proposed project for %he elderly by Realty Industries
which is in Clover Hill District. ~"
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Chesterfield (the Authority) has considered the application of
Realty Industries, Incorporated, or a limited partnership to be
formed by the principals of the Company (the Company) for the
issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds
in an amount estimated at $4,000,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the
financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and
equipping of an apartment project for the elderly (the Facility)
to be located near Market Square in Brandermill, Chesterfield
County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August
18, 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
issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be a~reed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board of
Supervisors.
Be it Resolved By The Board Of Supervisors Of Chesterfield
County, Virginia:
1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial
Development Authority'of Chesterfield County 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 of 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
4. AUTHORITY OF CHANGE ORDERS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the May 27,
1981 action of the Board relating to approval of change orders is
amended to read as follows:
83-501
Authorized all application fees for County projects to be
waived. Permits and approvals (i.e., building, zoning,
erosion control, etc.) will still be required but fees will
be waived on overall rather than on individual basis.
(3.6.2.)
Authorized the County Administrator to approve change orders
on construction projects in an amount not to exceed $10,000.
Change orders exceeding the $10,000 limit will require prior
Board approval. All change orders approved will be reported
to the Board. (4.3.11 & 4.4.12) ~
Vote: Unanimous
5. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES
Mr. Micas stated this involves the refund of business license
taxes paid in advance by businesses that either go out of
business or relocate outside the County. He stated the existing
law provides that businesses pay in advance for the upcoming year
and if they were to go out of busir]ess during that year, there
would be no refund. He stated under the new State law the County
is obligated to refund that portion of the year for which they do
not operate in the County if they make an application for a
refund. Mrs. GirOne stated there was a concern about a category
of activity or so-called business which is falling under the
present ordinance. She inquired if it would be appropriate to
include that category in the public hearing which involves piano
teachers. Mr. Daniel stated it should be addressed at the same
time and should also included the arts or anything that is
tutored in the home. He stated what has happened, is that if a
lists this as income on their tax return it is later
up as a business and notification is made that this person
did not pay their business license tax in Chesterfield. Mr.
Micas stated an amendment to %he existing ordinance can be
prepared to that effect.
Mr. Carmichael stated that when considering that matter,
something else which needs to be addressed is that once they use
the instruments such as a piano in that business, it looses it
status as household furniture and fixtures and becomes business
)ersonal property and would be taxed as such. Mrs. Girone stated
all of this can be discussed at the public hearing in
detail. Mr. Daniel stated that this does not mean that a
decision has been made, only that all these types of issues
should be discussed in their entirety. Mr. Bookman inquired if
the personal property of this equipment should be included. Mr.
Carmichael stated that if you exclude these activities from
business license taxes then they would not have to be included as
business furniture and fixtures.
Mrs. Girone stated the entire matter should be discussed in
public as these tutors did not feel they were made aware of what
was going to be included in the public hearing in 1982 and they
would like the opportunity to speak to the Board about the
issues.
Mr. Carmichael stated that this particular section deals
specifically with businesses going out of business and requesting
a refund. He stated this law was adopted by %he General Assembly
effective July 1, 1983 and the County must prorate business
licenses if a business ceases to exist and if they make
application. He stated he felt it hard to justify a person going
out of business on July 1,' 1983 receiving a refund for six months
of his business license and the man going out of business on June
1, 1983 not qualifying when they were in business the same time.
83-502
He stated he would like to see 'this ordinance amended to include
the entire taxable year 1983 rather than only from July 1, 1983.
Mr. Dodd inquired how much money would be involved in the
refunding. Mr. Carmichael stated it would be hard to determine
but he had only had two or three such requests for the entire
year. Mr. Hedrick stated he felt what initiated this was when
businesses left one jurisdiction to go to another and were having
to pay the business license tax in both. He stated he felt
Chesterfield had more businesses coming in rather than leaving.
Mr. Carmichael stated he felt the economic conditions in the area
on small businesses would affect the number of refunds and this
would be hard to determine for the future.
Mrs. Girone requested that all information be provided to the
Board initially which would include what Henrico and Richmond do
regarding the music teachers, what conditions are placed on these
types of activities, etc.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set
the date of October 26, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. to consider an
ordinance amending Section 12-26 relating to business license
taxes.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set
the date of October 26, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. to consider an
ordinance amending Sections 12-39 and 12-49 relating to business
license taxes and providing for a penalty.
Vote: Unanimous
6. COM~JNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
6.A. RECREATIONAL ACCESS FUNDING FOR COURTHOUSE ROAD EXTENDED
Mr. Hedrick stated the discussion of recreational access funding
for Courthouse Road extended had been placed on the agenda at the
request of Mr. Daniel. Mr. Balderson stated that this project is
estimated to cost more than $250,000 and some of that work could
be supplemented by County forces. He stated that if the Board
approves the resolution for recreational access funds, the money
would not be available until 1984, if the County were successful
in receiving the funding. He stated the need has been assessed
by the Parks and Recreation Department which indicates the use of
the facilities at the two schools is second only to Rockwood Park
for recreational use. Mr. Dani. el inquired if the County or some
other financial entity could loan money to have the road
constructed now and still apply for the recreational funding
later. Mr. Hedrick stated that this could not be accomplished.
Mr. Bookman stated he thought the County had borrowed money in
anticipation of funding. Mr. Hedrick stated the different grant
applications have specific sets of criteria. He stated this
grant would involve the State accomplishing the bidding, design,
etc. and because of that, we would not be able to build it and
then apply for the funds to be reimbursed. He stated the County
did not have a problem with the possibility of borrowing the
funds but the grant procedures do not allow it.
Mr. Daniel stated that if the County were to spend its money on
this project, we would never have the opportunity to get money
from the State to offset the $200,000. Mr. Hedrick stated that
was correct. Mrs. Girone stated she would like to know if there
were a list of projects pending for the use of this money for
other recreational access needs. Mr. Balderson stated that these
funds are not for anything that is scheduled at this time, but is
money for 1984-85. Mr. Daniel stated, according to staff, there
83-503
is nothing on the books for 1984-85. He stated that Mr. Bookman
had on several occasions r~quested funding of the project out of
earned surplus and inquired iif the financial staff could give a
recommendation on the impact if these funds were used. Mr.
Bookman stated when this project was brought to the Board and
after being analyzed by staff, indications were that it would be
a $30,000 savings to the people and the County. He stated he
felt this was a top priority not only in savings but also to mov~
the traffic into the Courthouse area bv going northward. He
stated he could support unappropriated funds because the price
will not be any cheaper. Mr. Daniel stated he felt this ~.s a
County-wide project as the County facilities will be improved an~
inquired whether the County should wait to see if the funds were
approved or appropriate funds from the surplus at this time. Mr
Bookman stated that the County would not earn as much interest
off the money discussed as would be saved by doing the project
now.
Mr. Balderson stated one project anticipated for next year which
could qualify for the same funds would be Phase II of Dale Park.
Mr. Daniel stated the Phase I is not completed and he would not
even entertain discussions for Phase II as there has not even
been a bulldozer on the property yet.
Mr. Dodd stated he has heard about this road for seven years and
there is no question that it is needed but we never had the extr~
$150,000 %0 build the road. He stated he could not believe for
the lack of waiting one year, that we will consider using local
money when we can use Sta~e money. He stated waiting one year
could save the County $200,000. Mr. Bookman stated staff brought
this issue to the Board one or two years ago and the cost was in
the approximate range of $300,000-$500,000 at that time. He
stated that in the last year the Utilities Dept., Animal Control
another school, etc. had located in this area and he felt the
circumstances needed relief. He stated that the economy is
moving forward and he felt we would see increased inflation. He
stated a year ago, the contractors were looking for work just to
run their equipment and it would have been a lot cheaper. He
stated we would not be borrowin~ money and the State funds
probably would fund other projects which would qualify. Mr. Dod(
stated his concern for Krause Road, however, he felt if the
County waited seven years, one more year would not be critical.
Mrs. Girone stated that if we wait until July 1, 1984 and are
granted the funds, then the County would have to contribute
approximately $50,000. She stated there is extensive drainage
work that has to be done that our forces have not had time to do,
that they should complete this between now and next June or July
and that we apply for the money through the State if it does not
affect any other application we have pending. She stated we
would not have that much time %o get the road installed as the
drainage and construction work would take us up to the summer
anyway. She stated she felt the best part of wisdom would be to
apply for the funds from the S~ate, contribute the $50,000 from
the County, have Environmental Engineering work over the winter
as they can to get the drainage done and not disturb the
unappropriated surplus or the contingency. She stated the
contingency only has $240,000.
Mr. Bookman stated the Board should stop playing with the project
as staff has been instructed to do the necessary drainage
improvements when they can and this will be about another year or
two. He stated either it is a worthwhile project or it isn't.
He stated the interest on the $250,000 will not offset the
inflation to build the road.
83-504
Mr. Robertson stated he felt t~his was a critical situation with
all the vehicles and children located at the end of the road. He
stated that we should apply for State funds and if unsuccessful,
look to another source.
Mrs. Girone inquired what the time frame would be for
construction if the Board put the money up today. Mr. Balderson
stated it could be constructed as early as Spring of 1984 and if
we wait for State funds, it would be ready probably by Spring of
1985. Mrs. Girone stated she would like to hear from Mr. }!ester
or Mr. Masden regarding any other projects that could quality for
these same State funds to be sure there are no conflicts. Mr.
Masden stated Phase II of Dale Park was another project being
considered. Mrs. Girone stated ~:hat this could actually delay
the Dale Park project as the access is the first thing to be
constructed. Mr. Daniel stated the access is provided now
although not paved and he felt Courthouse Road extended is higher
in priority than the Phase II of the Park.
Mr. Bookman stated this situation violates every ordinance we
have in the County and this demands our attention now. Mrs.
Girone inquired when the answer would come on funding. Mr.
Masden stated we should know in the Spring.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
· the following resolution:
Whereas, the Bird Athletic Complex and Elementary School are
owned by the County of Chesterfield for the residents of
Chesterfield County; and
Whereas, the facility is in need of adequate access to the
north and west via Courthouse Road extended from Route 10 to O.
B. Gates Elementary School; and
Whereas, the procedure governing the allocation of
recreational access funds as set forth in Section 33-136.3, Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires joint action by the
Commission of Outdoor Recreation and the Highway Commission; and
Whereas, a statement of poiic¥ agreed upon between the said
Commissions approved the use of such funds for the construction
of access roads to publicly-owned recreational areas or
historical sites; and
Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County has
duly adopted a zoning ordinance pursuant to Article 8 (Section
15.1-486 et. seq.), Chapter II, Title 15.1; and
Whereas, it appears to the Board that all requirements of
the law have been met to permit the Commission of Outdoor
Recreation to designate the Bird Athletic Complex as a
recreational facility and further permits the Virginia Highway
Commission to provide funds for access to this public recreation
area in accordance with Section 33-135.13, Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County hereby requests the Commission
of Outdoor Recreation to recommend to the State Highway
Commission that the maximum available recreational access funds
be allocated for improved access to serve the Bird Athletic
Complex by construction of Courthouse Road extended from Route 10
to O.B. Gates Elementary School.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Bookman. He stated he is not voting against the
project but because he felt the Board was playing with
a known priority and construction time could be improved
83-505
but we are waiting on a hope that we can get funds from
the State.
Mrs. Girone inquired if anyone had a feeling if this application
would be successful. Mr. Balderson stated there were no
guarantees. Mr. Daniel stated staff informed him that 1,700
people per peak day utilize these facilities.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
earmarked $250,000 from the Unappropriated Surplus as an option
should the Recreational Access application not be approved for
the Courthouse Road extended project and that the project shall
begin in the Spring at time of notification by the State that the
grant was approved or from the Unappropriated Surplus if ii were
denied by the State.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Bookman for same reason as stated previously.
Mr. Dodd inquired if funds were necessary to do the drainage
work. Mr. Daniel stated that was done several months ago when
the Board told staff to do the work and if anything else were
needed to come back to the Board.
Mr. Hedrick stated part of the reason the cost estimate is lower
than it was is because of staff work already completed but he
would check to see if it could be accomplished faster. Mr.
Bookman stated a year ago he knew of an individual who indicated
the estimate was less that $200,000, and if we keep playing with
it, it is going to get beyond reality. He stated a year a~o we
were also discussing the School Board contributing some bond
funds to this. Mr. Hedrick stated ~hat this had been seriously
reviewed with bond counsel and it was their official opinion that
this could not be done.
6.B. ACCESS TO NEW MIDLOTHIAN HiGH SCHOOL
Mr. Balderson stated staff had reviewed two options for the
access to the new Midlothian High School and securing the
right-of-way is the best of the two options. Mrs. Girone stated
she had a petition from several citizens who were also concerned
with the condition of Le Gordon Drive and she asked that this be
included in the papers of the Board. She stated that Le Gordon
will be improved by having the ditches moved back, the shoulders
widened and the surface improved which is planned for next
spring. She stated this plan is %he safest way to get to the new
high school. She stated the developer, as everyone knows, has
donated the high school site which is valued at over $1,000,000
and has given the right-of-way for this road. She stated if not
for the recession the developer's would ]]ave built the road but
his development is not underway. She stated we are asking for the
design of just two lanes of the proposed four lane road as far as
the high school and will be using the Midlothian Revenue sharing
funds to pay for the construction. She stated this is just the
first step in getting the design work completed. On motion of
Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board transferred $12,000
from the Contingency Fund to the Midlothian High School access
design project and authorized the County Administrator to enter
into a contract in the amount of $12,000 with Youngblood, Tyler
and Associates to design the project.
Mr. John Smith stated that this item disturbed him as it was on
the agenda last meeting, was withdrawn with no indication it
would be back on today. Mrs. Girone stated that the matter was
deferred specifically to this date. Mr. Smith stated he was
disturbed about the discussion he has heard on this matter in
83-506
that Le Gordon goes within less than 400 ft. of the existing
paved road at the high school, the Highway Dept. owns right of
way on Le Gordon, etc. He stated Route 60 is the only north-south
road in Midlothian from Courthouse Road to Powhatan County. He
stated it has already been determined to request the Highway
Department to survey this intersection for a traffic light, he
questioned the number of turns and the dead ending of another
school entrance, etc. He stated he felt there was no
justification for the plan and he felt the Highway Dept. who did
the plan did not realize what property exists there. He stated
this property is known as Charter Colony and in its. zoning, the
developer proffered to do certain things and he said the County
has already spent money which the developer agreed to spend. He
stated he questions the data on which the recommendations were
made. Mrs. Girone assured the Board that all the questions have
been thoroughly investigated.
A vote being taken:
Vote: Unanimous
6.C. TRANSFER OF RURAL ADDITION FUNDS
Mr. Balderson stated the Osborne/Wilton Road project met with
some problems in that the right-of-way could not be easily
acquired for the project from the people in the area. He stated
that it is requested that the funds for this project be shifted
to the Oaklawn Street project, both of which projects are in
Bermuda District. Mr. Dodd inquired how this would improve the
time frame on Oaklawn Street. Mr. Balderson stated it would move
it up several years.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
transferred the $93,800 from the Osborne/Wilton Revenue Sharing
Project to the Oaklawn Street Rural Addition Project.
Vote: Unanimous
6.D. PLANNING REVIEW
Mr. Muzzy stated some questions have been raised regarding the
appropriate nature of planning in the County, where we should be
going, the role of the Planning staff, etc. He stated this
matter has been discussed with individual supervisors and the
assembled information will be included in a detailed
presentation. He requested the Board to set a work session to
review this presentation. Mr. Bookman stated if he were %he
only one against some of the practices, there may be no need for
a work session. Mr. Dodd s~a~ed that anytime two groups meet to
communicate, he felt it was helpful and he felt the Board should
meet with the Planning Commission for general discussion. Mrs.
Girone stated she would like to have the Planning Commission and
the Board consider the concept of two Commissions, a zoning
commission and a long-range planning commission. She stated that
this could operate similar to that in Charlotte. She stated it
could be a small citizen commission that might meet only six
times a year to address long term planning needs of the County
and then a monthly meeting of a planning commission to deal with
the zoning as it applies to the plan that has been developed by
the long term planning board. She stated she felt this would
become necessary in the near future. She stated there are a lot
of long term planning issues that are coming from all over the
County and she did not believe that the Planning Commission as it
is now constituted and with the existing workload, have the time
to focus on both issues. She stated she felt the Board should
have a meeting with the staff to discuss these issues and then
have a meeting with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Daniel stated that the Planning Commission had met last night
and had a discussion regarding the rules as well as their
workload. He stated before the meeting, an arbitrary time of
11:00 p.m. was set to end the meeting and any case that was not
83-507
heard, would be heard one week later. He stated the reason for
the meeting being set for the next week was not to delay any
person who was attempting to meet a schedule. He stated he would
like to have a report prepared on what the staff's findings were
from the interviews of the Board members before a work session is
held as well as an opportunity to review it. It was generally
agreed by the Board that the staff would prepare a report, submit
it to the Board and then a decision would be made as to when a
work session should be held.
6.Eo STORM SEWER AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHPORT RETAIL ASSOCIATES
Mr. McElfish stated this involved a proposed shopping center with
a Hardees and for water to drain from the Hardees site, the water
must pass underneath a portion of another proposed building at
the shopping center. He stated the developer has proposed a
storm sewer system under the buildiDg which has been designed to
adequately handle the Hardees runoff and protect the proposed
building on a 100 year storm. Mr. Bookman stated that his son,
in his private business, is dealing with a Hardees in another
location but not involved here but they are a major corporation
and inquired if there could be any conflict. Mr. Micas stated he
did not think it was as he did no% feel Bookman Construction
would have any financial interest in this transaction or project
and that it does not appear to be a conflict.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman to execute on behalf of the
County a storm sewer agreement between the County and Southport
Retail Associates.
Vote: Unanimous
6.F. SETTLEMENT CLAIM AGAINST MERCER FAW, INC.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
accepted the payment in the amount of $3,212.87 which includes
$25.00 in court costs as full settlement of the claim against
Mercer Faw, Random Woods Subdivision, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the release on behalf of the County.
Vote: Unanimous
7. CONSENT ITEMS
7.A. BINGO PERMIT
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
a bingo/raffle permit for the Dale Youth Soccer Club for calendar
year 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
7.B. RECOMMENDED POLICE OFFICERS
Mr. Daniel stated that he was impressed with the written
qualifications of the people recommended for appointment as
police officers. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd,
the Board respectfully requests the Circuit Court Judges to
appoint the following individuals as police officers for
Chesterfield County effective October 17, 1983:
William R. Crowder
Glen Darryl Pike
Curtis Corvin Tanner
Robert Clayton Pridemore
Doris Hancock Woolard
James Edwin Campbell
Richard Anthony Mormando
Gary Lee Sims
Vote: Unanimous
7.C. SEWER LATERAL TO SERVE DAVENPORT REFRIGERATION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board:
83-508
e
Appropriated $2,350 from the Industrial Park Reserve Account
(111-1-00880-0000) 'to pay for the sewer connection to
Davenport Refrigeration.
Authorized the Department of Environmental Engineering to
pay William M. Harmon Contractors $2,350 for the sewer
connection.
Vote: Unanimous
7oDo
VEPCO EASEMENT AGREEMENT - WHITE BARK TERRACE
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board:
Authorized the County Administrator to enter into an
agreement with Vepco for the dedication of an easement 7.5
feet wide by 350 feet long.
Authorized Vepco to extend service to Strahan Ink and
Lacquer in an amount not to exceed $3,773.
e
Authorized the bill to be paid from the Industrial Park
Reserve Account (111-1-00880-0000).
Vote: Unanimous
8. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
8.A. SEWER AND WATER FINANCIAL STATUS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the report of sewer and
water financial status.
Mr. Hedrick stated that the County just recently received the
draft report of the Sewer Master Plan and staff is reviewi~g it
at this time. He stated staff will prepare something for the
Board within the next 3-4 weeks on that subject, will provide
summaries and the Board may need one or two work sessions to
review it.
8.B. PUBLIC HEARING TO VACATE PORTION OF BREMO AVENUE
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of
Bremo Avenue. There was no one present to discuss the matter.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
An Ordinance to vacate a portion of Bremo Avenue within
Orange Hill, Matoaca District, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, as shown on plat thereof duly recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County
in Plat Book 4, at page 66.
Whereas, Celestine D. Hicks and Walter L. Cross have
petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, to vacate a portion of Bremo Avenue within Orange Hill,
Matoaca Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more
particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 4, at page 66, made
by Carter R. Bishop, C.P.E., dated May 26, 1925. The portion of
right-of-way petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as
follows:
A portion of Bremo Avenue 50 feet in width within Orange
Hill, as shown outlined in red on a plat made by Carter R.
Bishop, C.P.E., dated May 26, 1925, 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
83-509
Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the right-of-way 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, %he above described portion of Bremo
Avenue is 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 County, 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 the portion
of the plat vacated.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of
the County of Chesterfield, as qrantor, and Robert E. Hodge and
J. Wayne Browder and O. E. Price, Jr. and Charlotte S. Price,
husband and wife or their successors in title, as grantees.
Vote: Unanimous
8.C. SEWER AND WATER ITEMS
8.C.1. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR BEECHWOOD AVENUE & WHITEHOUSE
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred indefinitely the request for the extension of sewer
service but authorized staff to conduct a survey to determine the
number of residents who will connect to the public water system
on Beechwood Avenue and a portion of Whitehouse Road.
Vote: Unanimous
8.C.2. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC WATER - CHESTERFIELD MANOR SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, second, ed by Mr. Bookman, the Board
authorized staff to survey Chesterfield Manor Subdivision to
determine the number of residents who will connect to public
water.
Vote: Unanimous
8.C.3. WILLIS AND COACH ROAD INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
accepted the counteroffer of $4r200.00 from Dorothy T. Estes for
the right-of-way and water line easement for the Willis and Coach
Road Industrial Access project for which the County's offer was
$2,987.00 and further the Board transferred $1,213.00 from
111-1-36000-9402 to 330-1-97113-4101.
Vote: Unanimous
8.C.4. WATER METER AND SEWER LATERAL FOR 60 WEST COMMERCIAL PARK
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request of D. N. Cole for the installation of one
meter and one sewer service lateral at the 60 West Commercial
Park if Mr. Cole agrees to pay four (4) water connection fees at
83-510
$500.00 each and agrees to pay a minimum monthly usage charge for
each business located in %he building.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Bookman inquired what the County has done in the way of
correcting this ordinance to change the fee schedule. Mr.
Welchons stated they have been reviewing this but have not had
ample time to prepare a recommendation for the Board.
8.C.5.
WATER SERVICE TO EAST BOUNDRY PARKWAY
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request of J. Russell Parker, III to serve the
office-warehouse on East Boundry Parkway with one water meter
provided he pays a $500 water connection fee and a minimum
monthly usage fee for each business located in the building.
Vote: Unanimous
8.C.6. WILLIS AND COACH ROAD INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECT
Mr. Hedrick stated the Hendricks will not discuss the matter with
the County and this procedure must be followed to begin the
process. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the
Board authorized tile County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if %he amount
as set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further
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.
Lewis W. and Mary Hendricks
Parcel 017
1925 Willis Road
Willis snd Coach Road
$25.00
Vote: Unanimous
8.D. CONSENT ITEMS
8.D.6. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM SIGMA DEVELOPMENT INC.
Mr. Welchons stated the paper work has not been finalized and
this item should be taken from the agenda. On motion of Mr.
Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board eliminated from the
agenda the deed of dedication from Sigma Development, Inc. for
the right of way for the proposed Powhite Parkway extension.
Vote: Unanimous
8.D.1. WATER CONTRACT, FAIRPINES, SECTION 2
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W83-122CD/6(8)3225, Fairpines, Section 2
Developer: Fairpines, Inc.
Contractor: Coastline Contractors, Inc.
Total Estimated Cost: $35,205.00
Estimated County Cost: $3,489.85 - Cash refund for oversize
mains
Estimated Developer Cost: $31,715.15
And further the Board appropriated $3,838.83 from 563 Surplus to
380-1-63225-7212 which includes a 10% contingency.
Vote: Unanimous
83-511
8.D.2. WATER CONTRACT, GLENWOOD, SECTION D
On motion of Mr. Bookman, second, ed by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W83-121CD/6(8)3215, Glenwood, Section D
Developer: Newbys Bridge Associates
Contractor: McLane Constructiom Company
Total Estimated Project Cost: $20,195.00
Estimated County Cost: $ 3,398.50 - Cash refund for
oversize mains
Estimated Developer Cost: $16,796.50
And further the Board appropriated $3,738.35 from 563 Surplus to
380-1-63215-7212 which includes a 10% contingency.
Vote: Unanimous
8.D.3. REPLACING WATER LINES ON ORIOLE AVENUE
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
documents for Richard L. Crowder Construchion for
W83-87B/6(8)3877, replacing water lines on Oriole Avenue, in the
amount of.$66,477.28 based on class 50 ductile iron pipe and
further transferred $73,125.00 from 567-1-36000-9402 to
380-1-63877-4393 which includes a 10% contingency.
Vote: Unanimous
8.D.4. PERMIT TO CROSS PLANTATION PIPE LINE COMPANY EASEMENT
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents with Plantation Pipe Line Company allowing
the County Utilities Department to cross their easement on
Gregory Pond Road with a 6 inch water line.
Vote: Unanimous
8.D.5. SEWER CONTRACT, GROVE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following sewer contract:
S83-90CD/7(8)3902, Grove Road, Parcel 13, Tax Map 16-12
Developer: Archie K. McLelland, Jr.
Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc.
Total Estimated Cost: $14,448.20
Estimated County Cost: $ 2,057.00 - Cash refund
$ 9,587.60 - Refund through connection
fees
Total Amount of Refunds: $11,644.60
Code: 574-1-00556-0000 Refunds through connection fees
And further the Board appropriated $2,057.00 from 574 surplus to
380-1-73902-7212 for cash refund.
Vote: Unanimous
8.E. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
83-512
8.F. DEED OF DEDICATION FOR WOODLAKE PARKWAY
Mr. Welchons stated he would like to add this deed of dedication
to the agenda which has been reviewed by staff and approval is
recommended. Mr. Bookman stated he had raised some questions
regarding the road on Route 360 and there is a report submitted
dated September 27, 1983 from Mr. Gee indicating he is satisfied
that the project is in good shape. He requested that the report
be filed with the papers of this Board. On motion of Mr.
Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved &nd authorized
the County Administrator to execute this deed of dedication from
Investors Woodlake Development Corporation for right of way for
Woodlake Parkway from Hull Street Road to the Woodlakes at
Brandermill subject to the approval of the road, drainage and
erosion control plans by the Environmental Engineering Dept.
Vote: Unanimous
9. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on Belmont
and Turner Roads and Winterfield and Route 60.
Mr. Hedrick stated the Highway Department had formally notified
the County that the roads in the following subdivisions had been
officially accepted into the State Secondary System effective as
indicated:
Length
Qualla Gardens Subdivision, Section I (9-20-83)
Crumpland Road - From Route 653 to 0.19 mi. N.E.
Route 653.
0.19 mi.
Salisbury, Lakeview Subdivision, Section 2 (9-2].-83)
Baronsmede Road - Beginning at ~ntersection with
Kingsmill Road, Route 1019, and going 0.11 mile
southerly to intersection with Torrington Drive.
0.11 mi.
Torrington Drive - Beginning at intersection with
Baronsmede Road and going 0.03 mile southeasterly
to a cul-de-sac. Again Torrington Drive, beginning
at intersection with Baronsmede Road and going 0.16
mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac.
0.19 mi.
12. COST OF LAND AT AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK
Mr. Dodd stated that he felt the County was underselling the land
at the Airport Industrial Park, especially property adjacent to
the runway. He requested that staff review the entire issue and
bring back a recommendation to the Board.
13. ROUTE 288 PROJECT
Mr. Dodd stated that he had received a proposal from Mr. John
Smith regarding Route 288. He inquired if the Board wanted to
discuss this matter at this time. Mr. Bookman stated the report
was delivered to him the day before, that it does have some merit
but he has not had time to review it in detail. He suggested
that Mr. Smith and his associates meet with Mr. Hedrick and that
staff prepare a recommendation for the Board.
Mr. Daniel inquired if this was being submitted as part of the
public record, as the Board stated that any individual who wanted
to submit an alternate design could at their own cost. He
inquired if this becomes part of the public record and part of
the process for deciding how that particular area will be
designed. Mr. Hedrick stated that he received his copy this
morning and staff has not reviewed it. He stated the final
83-513
authority for the design rests with the Highway Department;
however, the Highway Department will entertain suggestions from
the Board so it is up to the Board as to how much credence they
want to place on suggestions and recommendations from citizens
regarding design. He stated he would be glad. to meet with Mr.
Smith and his associates. Mrs. Girone stated the Highway
Commission approved the design for Powhite last week. Mr.
Bookman stated that he thought this was approved subject to
amendments. Mrs. Girone stated she felt we should find out what
the process involves, etc. Mr. Smith stated that this is
submitted in the exact process that is suggested by. the Highway
Department. Mr. Bookman stated that no one is prepared today to
discuss this matter. He stated he felt that each Board member
should review the proposal, staff should also review it and
possibly bring it back for the next Board meeting on October 12,
1983. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by'Mr. Daniel, this
proposal regarding Route 288 was deferred for consideration at
the October 12, 1983 meeting.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone excused herself from the meeting to attend a luncheon
meeting with the Bon Air Business Council.
The Board recessed for lunch at the Airport Restaurant.
Reconvening:
10. MOBILE HOME REQUESTS
Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the mobile home business, although
not directly related to sales. He stated that if anyone is
purchasing a mobile home from his company, to please ].et him know
so that he could disqualify himself from voting.
83SR131
In Dale Magisterial District, George and Cynthia Orange requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit ~o park a unit on property which
they own. Tax Map 66-4 (1) Parcel 13 and better known as 6706
Hopkins Road (Sheet 22).
No one was present to represent the case. It was generally
agreed to defer this matter until later in the day.
83SR149
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Donald H. Nicholson requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a unit on property which
he owns. Tax Map 98-1 (4) Belmeade, Block 9, Lots 40 through 44
and better known as 10517 Ramona Avenue (Sheet 32).
Mr. Nicholson 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.
So
NO lot or parcel may be rented or 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.
83-514
e
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
83SR150
In Bermuda Magisterial District, William K. Post, Jr. requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a unit on property which
belongs to William K. Post, Sr., father of the applicant. Tax
Map 67-4 (2) Patterson Park, Block B, Lots 31 and 32 and better
known as 2521 Merriewood Road (Sheet 23).
Mr. Post was present and inquired if the permit could be granted
for 10 years. Mr. Dodd stated there has been a recent change
from two to five years and that was the maximum at the present
time. 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 or parcel may be rented or 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.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
83SR151
In Dale Magisterial District, Clifford W. Carter requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a unit on property which
83-515
he owns· Tax Map 65-8 (2) Ampthill Gardens, Section 2, Lot 33
and better known as 6725 Hill Road (Sheet 22).
Mr. Carter was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Daniel, 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 or parcel may be rented or 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.
0
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.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
83SR152
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Donald J, Hughes requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a unit on property which
he owns. Tax Map 149-14 (7) Ivey Tract, Block D, Lot E and
better known as 3202 South Street (Sheet 41).
Mr. Hughes 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.
e
No lot or parcel may be rented or 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. A].i mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
no__~t be placed on a permanent foundation.
83-516
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
83S153
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Douglas and Frances Payne
requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a unit on property which
belongs to Loretta Hamilton, landlord. Tax Map 67-10 (3) Rayon
Park, Block 18, Lots 5 and 6, and better known as 7724 Senate
Street {Sheet 23).
Mr. Payne was present. There was no opposition present. Mr.
Dodd inquired if this was actually a new home being located at
the site. Mr. Payne stated it was not a new home. 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 or parcel may be rented or 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 ~hsn 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.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, %hey
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
83S174
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Gary L. Groux requested a Mobile
Home Permit to park a unit on property which he is purchasing
from Franklin Archer. Tax Map 180-15 (2) Radcliff, Block F, Lot
5 and located in the vicinity of 21400 Franklin Avenue (Sheet
52).
Mr. Groux was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request for a period of five years subject to the
following standard conditions:
83-517
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or 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 %o 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. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation·
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
83SR131
In Dale Magisterial District, Georqe and Cynthia Orange requested
renewal of a mobile home permit to park a unit on property which
they own. Tax Map 66-4 (1) Parcel 13 and better known as 6706
Hopkins Road (Sheet 22).
There was no one present representing the case. Mr. Daniel
stated this was the second consecutive month at which no one has
appeared regarding this case. He suggested that staff contac%
the applicants and let them know if they do not attend the next
meeting, it may not be renewed. He stated that if there is a
hardship involved, that would be another matter and those details
should be explained.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred
consideration of this request until October 26, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
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
intersection with Hull Street Road. Tax Map 49-11 (1) Part of
Parcels 14 and 16 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 60 day
deferral. Mr. Arthur Davis stated that this case has been
continued for almost a year and that they have never objected
the deferals before but he does now. He stated that the
situation has not changed and the hazardous and dangerous
conditions still exist, the construction site is on a curve and
83-518
hill, the road is heavily travelled, 'there have been numerous
accidents, etc. He stated the people have been concerned from
the very start regarding the new road to this site as all these
cars will come down the road between two existing homes. Mr.
Bookman inquired if the residents were aware that there exists
zoning now and that approval or disapproval of this case has no
legal bearing on the entrance that comes into Courthouse Road.
He stated one of the residents called him and was not aware that
this entrance could still be coDstructed wi. th the existing
zoning. Mr. Davis stated the residents were aware of this.
Mr. Daniel inquired who asked for the last deferral'. Mr Bookman
stated he thought the County initiated it. Mr. Daniel stated the
Planning Commission discussed last. night how many deferrals
should be approved. He stated the Planning Commission was
considering one deferral as a matter of courtesy to work out any
problems that may arise.
Mr. Journigan, one of the participants of the application, was
present representing the case. He stated that Mr. Roger McNeil
had requested the deferral and he was not aware of it until he
arrived this date as he had been out of town. Mr. Balderson read
the letter from Mr. McNeil requesting the deferral in order that
they might clear up some of the objections, etc. Mr. Bookman
stated that he understood that a deferral would be requested on
the basis that some of the area residents were not aware that the
existing zoning could bring the same access into Courthouse Road
regardless of approval or denial of this case. Mr. Bookman
stated he felt the opposition, the applicant, staff and the
Supervisor might meet to discuss the matter. Mr. Journigan
stated in all of his discussions, he has tried to make the people
aware of the existing zoning and what is allowed and the
developers have even taken an option to purchase an adjacent
piece of property to allow for better development.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Robertson,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that this request for a deferral
until November 23, 1983 be and it hereby is approved.
Vote: Unanimous
83S074
In Bermuda Magisterial District, L.H. BEAZLEY, JR. requested
rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O) of a .575
acre parcel fronting approximately 130 feet on the west line of
Lee Street, and located approximately 100 feet north of its
intersection with West Hundred Road, and better known as 4507 Lee
Street. Tax Map 115-6 (6) Nunnally's Addition, Lot 19 (Sheet
32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Beazley was present and stated the
only problem he has with the approval is the dedication of a 30
ft. right-of-way. He explained the close proximity of the
buildings to the road, the fact that the need for Lee Street to
ever be widened is doubtful, etc. Mr. Balderson stated that
there is no right of way dedication imposed in the granting of
the zoning but it has been County policy for the last several
years to acquire dedication of right of way as shown on the
General Plan when commercial property is developed or used. He
stated that this is neither an action the Board normally responds
to nor is it action that is being requested of this Board today.
Mr. Dodd inquired if this requirement had been modified or
reduced in the past. Mr. Balderson stated he could not recall a
case under similar circumstances where it had been done.
There was no opposition present.
83-519
Mrs. Girone inquired if the 30 fro right of way would come up to
the steps. Mr. Beazley stated the right of way plus the 15 ft.
setback would carry it to the front door. Mr. Hedrick stated
that this would be reviewed by staff during site plan review and
if there were mitigating circumstances, staff would have to deal
with that separately.
Mr. Balderson stated Mr. Beazley would still have 30 ft. between
the building and the right-of-way. Mr. Bookman stated that
usually we ask for this when no structures are involved, and here
one is involved. Mr. Beazley stated he did not agr. ee with the
nun~er of feet calculated by staff.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the County has any plans to widen I,ee
Street. Mr. Balderson stated that the County is not that
sophisticated in its road planning which is normally done on a
piece by piece basis. He stated that commercial property is
required by the zoning ordinance to have a 60 ft. road right of
way, 30 ft. from centerline. He stated there is over 45 ft.
from the property line to the front of the dwelling.
Mr. Balderson stated that Mr. Beazley is a member of the Board of
Zoning Appeals and that staff has attempted to explain to him
that the requirement is a zoning ordinance requirement and if a
variance is in order, the appropriate body to hear that is the
Board of Zoning Appeals not the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dodd stated that exceptions have been made before of this
nature. Mr. Micas stated he was unclear as to whether this is a
provision of the zoning ordinance or a policy of the General
Plan. Mr. Balderson stated that it is a provision of the zoning
ordinance.
It was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved
that the Board approve this request for rezoning from Residential
(R-7) to Office Business (O).
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board, if
appropriate, reduced the right of way to 10 ft.
Vote: Unanimous
83S097
In Bermuda Magisterial District, SHAWMUTT ENGINEERING, INC.,
SHOOSMITH BROS., INC., KUWR TECHNOLOGY AND GENERAL ELECTRIC, INC.
requested a Conditional Use to permit the incineration of garbage
and refuse for compensation; separation of waste material for
transfer and the generation of electricity for sale in a Heavy
Industrial (M-3) District on a 36.43 acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,050 feet on the east line of Old Stage Road and
located approximately 200 feet south of its intersection with
Osborne Road. Tax Map 116-4 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated this case had been deferred to allow the
applicants to meet with the residents in the area. He stated the
Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request
subject to certain conditions and staff has supplemented those
conditions with others regarding water treatment. He stated
staff has also added conditions proffered by the applicant after
their meeting with area residents.
Mr. Herbert Gill was present representing the applicants. He
stated they did have a meeting with area property owners on
September 1, 1983. He stated that as a result of that meeting
the applicants proffered to the Planning Staff additional
conditions. He introduced Mr. Jim Easter of Shawmutt Engineering
who has been instrumental Jn the development of several of these
types of plants and would be instrumental in the running and
operation of this plant if it is approved.
83-520
Mr. Easter state~ that he felt there had. been some misconception
of what they are planing to do as it is not a garbage dump but is
actually a light manufacturing con, any. He stated they would be
taking waste, shredding it, separating it into lights and
heavies, taking the heavy materials and separating them and
selling the glass and metals; burning the light materials to
produce steam and electricity. He presented slides from various
plant sites such as Columbus, Ohio; Bangor, Maine; Springfield,
Illinois, etc. outlining the various portions of the full
operation from the waste stream being collected to the
electricity generated. Mrs. Hirone inquired if thay would be
burning any coal. Mr. Easter stated approximately 10% coal would
be burned which would be coming in by rail. He stated that they
would employ 75 to 125 people, the plant will cost $110,000,000,
and it would save the County several hundred thousand dollars
per year in landfi, ll costs. Mrs. Girone inquired if they had
made a survey on the trash availability and if they were counting
on the County not using the landfill. Mr. Easter stated they
would like to take as much trash as the County would send 'them
and would like to entice other areas to bring trash to this
facility. Mrs. Girone inquired if they would be buying the
County's refuse. Mr. Easter stated no, but their tipping fee
would be less than the County's. Mrs. Girone stated that
Petersburg is into a similar type situation and she inquired
about the trash availability. Mr. Easter stated they were
confident.they will have enough trash to operate the plant. Mr.
Bookman inquired how much coal would be burned if there was not
enough trash. Mr. Easter stated under the federal law they could
not burn more than 25% coal. Mrs. Girone inquired what would be
done with the electricity. Mr. Easter stated that under federal
law Vepco would have to buy the electricity from them. Mrs.
Girone stated that the County is working with Vepco on an
industrial park around their site so they can find users for
their electricity as they do not have enough. Mr. Easter stated
Vepco is happy about this facility coming into the area.
Mr. Dodd stated that the water was originally to be placed into
the County sewer treatment plant and he understands that is not
now the case. Mr. Easter stated they will p].ace the water
anywhere the County suggests as it is clean water. He stated
their system is completely treated, is in a piped system and
would not be water that is run 'through the refuse. He stated
there would be a time when this plant w~uld have boiler blow-down
with a water temperature as high as 125 . He stated they can put
this in the sewer system, a cooling pond or anywhere the County
suggests.
Mr. Ted Hill presented slides dealing with the rationale of the
project, the methodology of the plant process, the safeguards of
the Company and the regulations of the State and Federal
Governments for plants of this nature. He stated this plant will
be a waste management facility and a power generation plant. He
stated they did a qualitative and quantitative evaluation for
this application to determine the particulars of the waste
stream, the market place for glass and metals, where there is a
steam user and power user, etc. He stated they also evaluated
the financial and economic factors of disposal costs in the area,
tipping fees, etc. He reviewed the ~ngineering components of the
system. He stated only 10% of the waste stream will go to the
landfill in the form of ash. He stated the facility would be
pleasing and would be a good neighbor. He reviewed the various
permits required and indicated the State can monitor the facility
anytime they see fit and the plant itself has to be monitored
daily on emissions and discharges and these reports forwarded to
the State.
Mr. Bookman stated that perhaps the applicants could take some of
the people interested 'to one of the plants operating so they
could see for themselves the area, the plant, etc. Mrs. Girone
inquired if this facility sells power to Vepco and they don't
need it, will the average bill go up. Mr. Hill stated that this
83-521
represents a very minute percentage of Vepco's potential, but he
would guess that it would not. Mr. Easter stated that this could
postpone Vepco's need to build another plant for some period of
time.
Mr. Billy Davenport was present represen'ting the Leimbergers, Mr.
Grubbs, and others. He stated that petitions were signed by
1,411 County residents opposing this application as well as 28
students from Lloyd Bird School. He stated that the slide
presentations that have been made are artists renditions,
portions of other plants, etc. He stated there is.no proven
track record and they cannot show anyone a plant in operation at
this time. He stated that they discussed this with United Bio
Fuels, a facility of a similar nature, which can handle all the
refuse from Chesterfield County. He stated that if two of the
facilities are built, there would not be enough refuse to go
around and this would cause a problem. He stated they are also
concerned about the environmental impact as well, and there are
11 or 12 conditions which should be included should this be
approved. He stated most are redundant with the other
requirements but there are two that really have additional
meaning regarding the road and the site maintenance. He stated
that they are concerned about the water temperature on the River,
were told that tile water would not go into the River but very
recently were told that it would eventually end up in the River.
He stated.he felt the applicant has a lot ~f idealistic plans but
he did not feel they have all the information they need for
example, now they find they cannot put the water into the sewer
system. He stated they are also opposed 'to the traffic which
will be forthcoming. He stated that this includes traffic of
150-200 trucks per day plus another 20+ trucks taking the ash to
the landfill. He stated United Bio Fuel, s is an alternative and
they have received the permits necessary. There were about 85
people in opposition present. Mr. Davenport stated that KUWR
Technology has backed out of this proposal and he wondered why.
Mr. Daniel stated that he had received some information that
Vepco is blowing out their stacks at night with soot landing on
other property owners. He requested that this be fully
documented and a committee be informed to present this matter to
Vepco.
Mr. Carl Martin stated that in speaking about combustion, etc. it
will be a huge boiler with tubes around the walls and they will
have to blow the tubes to get the maximum heat. He stated if
they did not blow them, it would lead to serious problems. He
stated the slides do not indicate the true picture of the site.
Mr. Frank Leimberger stated that he represented himself and his
brother who are businessmen in the community. He stated that he
felt it was wrong for one business to come into an area and
another business to do business with them. He stated Vepco does
not need the electricity as there are six units now and only
three run at a time. He stated that he calculated there will be
more like 300 trucks a day. He stated that larger trucks from
Richmond, Henrico, etc. will come into this high growth area. He
stated all of this traffic would go through Chester with trucks
carrying the residue away and refuse in and will have to travel
by the schools in the area. He stated at 13% residue at 1000
tons a day, we will have 910 tons of residue per week emptied
into the landfill which is more than currently is deposited
there. He stated that this will be refuse coming from other
jurisdictions and this will not eliminate a landfill problem but
fill it with all this residue. He stated mechanical problems
will happen and inquired what would happen with all this refuse.
83-522
He inquired why we are going to take all of this refuse, when
other jurisdictions don't want it. He stated they also are
giving different figures regarding the amount of coal to be
burned.
Mr. Charles Jackson stated that he was opposed to this rezoning
as there are many unanswered questions from traffic to breakdown,
etc. He stated that the opening date is 1986 and the terrible
traffic problems in Chester cannot be solved until 1990 if we
were placed on the State's priority plan in 1984 and we cannot be
sure it can. He stated that it would cause all of ~he heavy
truck traffic to come through Chester. He stated the County has
recently obligated itself to a landfill which will last 20 years
which gives us time to study the issue fully. He stated the time
may come when we need to go this route but stated this is not the
time or location for this facility.
Mr. La Grande Martin stated there are a lot of unanswered
questions. He stated concern about the truck traffic, the fly
ash, the burning of PVC and its poisonous gases, toxic wastes,
the closed system, the water temperature and the water disposal.
He stated that landfills are not obsolete as they are to use them
for the residue, and in emergencies all garbage would go there.
He stated he felt there would be approximately 600 trucks per
day.
Mr. Gill stated that in April at the Planning Commission there
was no one to oppose this request. He stated that they are aware
and appreciate the people's difficulty in accepting this
facility. He stated they have tried to take every measure to
satisfy all but that is almost impossible. He stated this is an
industrial area. He stated he felt the petition was not from all
people who were immediately affected. He stated that the ]aw
which forces Vepco 'to take the electricity is on the books which
they had noting to do with, there is no water going into the
River, there is a ho].ding pond, this is a closed system, etc. He
stated the traffic on Old Stage Road as indicated by staff is
2,336 vehicles per day. He stated this is a novel approach to
trash disposal and suggested that Chesterfield could be a leader
in this field. He stated that he would like the people to see a
plant in operation as well as the Board, and he would have no
objection to having any visited. He stated he felt this has been
thoroughly investigated. He stated people always fear the
unknown but technology is making refuse profitable and society
can benefit from this.
Mr. Dodd stated that all the Supervisors probably received calls
regarding this matter. He stated that the Board took a tour of
industrial areas and there is a lot in Bermuda but they did not
tour Old Stage Road. He stated this area is already severely
impacted and this cannot be ignored. He stated he did not know
if Vepco is blowing at night, but he understands whatever the
problem, it will be corrected. He stated the potential for the
area is great, especially with Vepco having just located a new
school there, etc. He stated all the landowners are deeply
concerned that we do not make a mistake, they want clean industry
and technology. He stated there were high hopes for the
interchange at Route 10 and 95 to become a Brookfield. He stated
this was the type of area it could have been. He stated there
are unanswered questions, that he did not feel it was as bad as
the people expected it to be, but he did not feel it was as good
as the pictures either. He stated that he felt the project may
have merit and if the developers want to put a facility in of
this type operation, he would suggest a 6 month delay for them to
take some people to Columbus to look at it. He stated that if
that was not acceptable, he would not be able to vote in favor of
this because of the opposition.
Mr. Davenport stated they were in opposition to this request and
did not want to defer any longer. He stated the last deferral
was a compromise for the applicants. He stated the people had
questions, they were answered and then they were changed. He
83-523
stated he did not feel the people would be satisfied to see an
operation that is similar somewhere else, there is no track
record for an exact operation by the applicants, that more names
in opposition could be obtained, etc. He stated they would like
a denial to this request.
Mr. Gill stated the applicant would accept a six months deferral
and they will be glad to show five or six of the residents the
plant in Columbus which is substantially the same even though it
does not have the same square footage or tonage per day, etc. He
stated all of the questions have been answered. ·
Mr. Grubbs stated that in six months the River would be cold and
there would not be a true reading of the temperature, etc.
Mr. Bookman stated that if he thought there Would be any
significant changes in the matter he could support a deferral.
He stated this is a new technology and way to handle solid waste
but you will never do away with landfills. He stated he did not
know what could be gained as Mr. Gill indicated they had answered
all the questions. He stated he did not see what good 6 months
would do other than gain more signatures in opposition.
Mr. Dodd stated that residents in Bermuda District ask why they
get all the soot, etc. He stated that he could not vote over the
people in .this case.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board denied
this request.
Vote: Unanimous
83S098
In Matoaca Magisterial District, VERNON LAPRADE requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l), plus a
Conditional Use Planned DeveloDment to permit exceptions to the
use and bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a .94 acre
parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the south line of Hull
Street Road and located approximatelv 250 feet east of its
intersection with Suncrest Drive. Tax Map 49-11 (1) Parcel 12
(Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
LaPrade was present and stated the conditions were acceptable,
except that he wanted to have a small retail area with a portion
being B-2 but staff recommended that this not be done until he
had a specific B-2 use. He stated they would also like to have
zero lot lines and they would agree to the buildings being brick
or cedar siding so they would blend with the general development
on adjacent property. He stated staff recommended 5 ft. lot
lines but they would prefer to have zero lot lines and that they
would not be exactly on the lines as there would be some roof
overhang. He stated that small amount of distance would be a
plus to them as far as warehouse space and it would be better to
be close to the line given the fact Ghat he has also agreed to
build with brick or cedar, whereas otherwise there is no
assurance as to material. Mrs. Girone inquired what the purpose
of the five feet was as it would seem difficult to maintain. Mr.
Balderson stated it would buffer the building which is adjacent
to it with shrubbery and break up the monotony of the long
building. Mr. Bookman stated he felt the brick or cedar would
seem to be better since it could be cinder block. Mr. LaPrade
stated he would be requesting this on three sides as they will
not be building on Route 60 and that he would be willing to use
variegated brick. He stated he had contacted Mr. Poole regarding
this matter but he did not submit a plan as they did not come up
with the ultimate design.
83-524
Mr. Fred Gray, representing Roger Lewis, was present. He stated
that Mr. Lewis has 9.6 acres in the area with 1.25 acres
currently planned for buildings to match the one that exists
there now and plans to build additional buildings on the 5.25
acres remaining. He stated they have no objection to the use but
they do want them 'to adhere to the same requirements that were
imposed on them. He stated they would like them to move the
building back 10 feet if they could, that they be brick and have
a cedar shake roof on the buildings adjacent to their property.
He stated they would like to have the area compatible in style
and architecture. He stated they would also objec~ to them being
closer to the highway to obstruct their view.
Mr. LaPrade stated that one of 'the questions raised regarding the
lot line was if the Fire Department would approve this. He
stated that the Fire Department did not have any problem. Mrs.
Girone stated that she felt this type of zoning was a unique
situation and she felt the five foot buffer would not get
attention and it would be overgrown, etc. She stated she felt it
would be best not to have space between for tall grass,
shrubbery, etc. Mr. Bookman stated that Mr. Lewis is 10 feet off
the property line, the building has entrances and exists onto the
sides, whereas this proposal would not. He stated no one would be
going behind the mini-warehouses. Mrs. Girone stated that she
felt this area would become unsightly. Mr. Gray stated that the
brick wall would be facing buildings they would be constructing.
Mr. Bookman inquired what the Planning Commission had
recommended. Mr. Balderson stated they had approved the request
with a 5 ft. setback and without reference to kind of
construction. Mr. Gray stated the applicant would agree to a
five foot setback with brick walls and cedar shake roofs. The
applicant stated he could not agree to the roof or a 5 foot set-
back. After considerable discussion, it was on motion of Mrs.
Girone, seconded by Mr. Robertson, resolved that the Board
approve this request subject to the following conditions:
The uses permitted shall be limited to mini-warehouses and a
supporting office facility (i.e., mini-warehouse office).
e
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
following setback exceptions shall be granted:
A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the required
twenty-five (25) foot side yard setback requirement.
be
A thirty (30) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot
rear yard setback requirement.
e
Buildings constructed along the south, east or west property
lines shall have brick or cedar siding on all sides visible
from adjacent property. Plans depicting this requirement
shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the
release of any building permits.
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement, twenty-six (26) feet from the centerline of the
Route 360 eastbound lane, and curb and gutter shall be
constructed along Route 360 to VDH&T specifications.
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved. These areas
shall be defined by concrete curb and gutter, as deemed
necessary by Environmental Engineering.
83-525
The previous conditions notwithstanding, the site plan,
prepared by Frank F. Ports, Jr., and Associates, revised
June 6, 1983, shall be considered the plan of development.
Vote: Unanimous
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes.
Reconvening:
83Sl10
In Midlothian Magisterial District, GEORGE O. GRATZ requested
rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Residential (R-12) of a 57
acre parcel which lies at the eastern terminuses of Walton Park
Road and Old Country Lane. Tax Map 26-2 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Dodd inquired if this was a part
of the Guza Tract. Mrs. Girone indicated it was not. Mr. Dodd
requested that Mrs. Girone let him know when that item was to be
discussed as he was not familiar with the area. Mr.~Jim Hayes
was present regarding this matter. There was no opposition
present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the
Board approved this request.
Vote: Unanimous
83Slll
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, LOUIS A. FARMER requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) of a 7 acre
parcel which lies approximately 450 feet off the east line of
Newbys Bridge Road, approximately 900 feet south of Valencia
Road. Tax Map 50-12 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Jim Hayes was present representin¢
the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of
Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this
request.
Vote: Unanimous
83S113 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, SHOOSMITH BROTHERS, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of
a 38 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,110 feet on the west
line of Lewis Road approximately 430 feet south of Lake Dale
Road; also fronting approximately 360 feet on the south line of
Lake Dale Road approximately 600 feet west of Lewis Road. Tax
Map 114-13 (1) Part of Parcel 16 and Tax Map 131-1 (1) Parcel 4
(Sheets 31 and 40).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Delmonte Lewis was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request.
Vote: Unanimous
83-526
83SI16
In Midlothian Magisterial DistrJ. c%, ROBERT D. BARNEY requested
rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3)
of a 1 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the east
line of Grove Road approximately 740 feet south of Midlothian
Turnpike, and better known as 819 Grove Road. Tax Map 16-12 (2)
Sunny Dell Acres, Lot 27 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Colnmission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Barney was present. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr.
Bookman, the Board approved this request.
Vote: Unanimous
83Sl17
In Midlothian Magisterial District, HHY COMPANY requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) of a 2.2
acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the west line of
Grove Road approximately 1,450 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike,
and better known as 724 Grove Road. ~Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny Dell
Acres, Lot 13 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to a single condition. Mr. Tom Murphey 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 condition:
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
western property line. This buffer shall be maintained in
its natural state with no clearing or grading permitted.
Vote: Unanimous
83S118
In Bermuda Magisterial District, THOMAS L. HAYNES requested
rezoning from Community Business (B-2) and Agricultural (A) to
General Business (B-3) of a 3.9289 acre parcel fronting
approximately 250 feet on East Hundred Road and approximately 700
feet on Inge Road, and located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 117-12 (1) Parcels ]2, 20,
20A and 21 (Sheet 33).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jim Haynes was
present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr.
Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the followinc
conditions:
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along Route 10
With the exception of a single sign, identifying this use,
there shall be no other facilities permitted within this
buffer.
A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
southernmost 300 feet of the Inge Road frontage. Also, a
thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
southern property line. These buffers shall be landscaped
and/or bermed so as to screen this use from the adjacent
single family development to the west and south. A land-
scaping plan, depicting this requirement, shall be submitte~
to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with
final site plan submission. With the exception of a single
access drive through the western buffer, there shall be no
facilities permitted within these buffer areas.
Proffered Condition
There shall be no outdoor advertising signs on the property.
83-527
Vote: Unanimous
83S124
In Dale Magisterial District, A.T. PROPERTIES requested a
Conditional Use to permit incorporation of a 0.86 acre parcel
into a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 71-28A)
permitting construction of 249 multiple-family units on 20.0
acres in a Residential (R-7) District. This parcel lies approx-
imately 400 feet off the north line of Handel Court, measured
from a point approximately 1,000 feet west of Belmont Road. Tax
Map 41-9 (1) Part of Parcel 5 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. Jim
Hayes was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition prnsent. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr.
Dodd, this reques% was approved subject to the following
condition:
This 0.86 acre parcel shall be developed in conjunction with
multi-family construction and conditions approved under
Conditional Use 71-28A.
Vote: Unanimous
83S126
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JACK D. AND SHIRLEY YERATT
requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling on one
zoning lot in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.29 acre parcel
fronting approximately 100 feet on the north line of Cogbill
Road, approximately 100 feet west of Tyrone Street. Tax Map 53-3
(3) DuPont Square, Block F, Lots 17 and 18 (Sheet 16).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Yeratt was present. Mr. Dodd stated
that this area is heavily rental[ already and Mr. Yeratt's
property is very neat and he felt this would blend with the area.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the
following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted
with the application shall be considered the plan of
development.
The proposed structure will be relocated so that it is set
back a minimum of fourteen (14) feet from the western
property line and a minimum of ten (10) feet from the
eastern property line.
The structure to be erected shall have an architectural
style similar to the elevations submitted with the
application.
Prior %o obtaining a building permit, Lots 17 and 18 shall
be resubdivided to create one lot of record.
Vote: Unanimous
83S127
In Bermuda Magisterial District, TURKEY SHOOT, INC. requested
renewal of a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 78S060)
permit the operation of a turkey shoot in an Agricultural (A)
District, also in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 67
83-528
acre parcel which lies approximately 1,200 feet off the north
line of West Hundred Road, measured from a point approximately
1,900 feet west of Harbour East Drive° Tax Map 117-6 (1) Parcel
3 (Sheet 33).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recon~ended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Tom
Mayes was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated that he did not have any
problem with this request as it was temporary. ~e stated that
condition 97 regarding the road standards should b~ eliminated·
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 9:00 a.m.
and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; 9:00 a.m. and 1:00
a.m., Friday'and Saturday; and 1:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
Sunday.
2. The use of firearms shall be limited to shotguns only.
Ail parking and driveway areas shall either be paved or
graveled. Parking spaces shall be provided at a ratio of
one (1) space for every two (2) participants. Each space
shall be ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet in size. All
driveways and entrances shall be twenty-four (24) feet in
width.
The existing pit privies shall be removed and the pits
filled and covered. Portable chemical toilets, approved by
the Health Department, shall be placed on the site.
Within thirty (30) days of approval of this Conditional Use,
certification from the County Police Department verifying
this operation complies with all State and County
regulations shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
It shall be the applicant's responsibility to obtain the
certification from the Police Department and transmitted to
Staff, prior to continued activity.
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Turkey
Shoot, Inc. and shall not be transferable nor run with the
land.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adjourned at 4:35 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on October 12, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
R~'rd L. Hedrick
County Administrator
83-529