10-26-1983 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISOR,~
M.I~JL · ES
October 2~, 1983
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. J. Royall Robertson, Chairman
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Vice Chairman
Mr. C. L. Bookma'n
Mr. Har~y G. Daniel
Mrs~ Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administra+er
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. Tom Ca].!ahan, Airport
Manager
Mr. N. E. Carmichael,
Commissioner of Revenue
Mr. William Correll,
Const. Coordinator
Mr. James Glazebrook,
Asst. Nursing Home
Admin.
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Elmer lIodge, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. William Howell, Dir.
of General Services
Mr. Rober% Masden, Dir.
of Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Epv. Engineer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. Je[frey Muzz¥, Oir.
of Co¢~unity Develop.
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of
Budget and Accounting
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.
of Utilities
Mr Robertson cai]ed the meeting 'to o~qer at
· . ~.~_ Courthouse at
].0:00 a.m. (EDST) .
Mr. Robertson introduced ReYerend G.~ry lB. Thompson, Pastor of
Chester Baptist Church, who ga,~e the invocation.
1. APPROVAI, OF MINUTi;S
On motion of Mr Bookman seconded ¥,v Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the minutes of October 12, ].983, as submitted.
Ayes: Mr. Ro!)ertson, Mr. Docd, . . .
, ~ Mr Bookman and Mr Daniel
Absention: Mrs. Girone ' ~
because she was not in attendance at the
ln(3et J_nq.
2. COUNTY Al)MINi STRATOR' ,~; COMMENTS
Mr. Uedrick introduced Mr. Hugh Robertson with the Richmond News
~'' "~ . ~ -,~erf.ie].d County.
.oeaae~ who will begin coverin~ Che~d-
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Masden. Mr. Masden stated the
Planning District 19 Community Services Board serves Colonial
Heights and they have just begun a new service, the Colonial
Heights Counseling Service· He stated this is basically the same
action which 'the Board of Supervisors took when hiring a full
83-554
time psychiatrist for the Chesterfield Mental Health Center. He
stated it would be staffed with a psychiatrist, social worker and
full range of professionals to provide counseling to their
citizens. He stated thev wanted the County to be aware of this
service which is consistent with what Chesterfield offers.
Mr. Hester stated that in order to provide an enjoyable and safe
Halloween, the Parks and Recreation Department will again be
sponsoring the sixth annual Halloween Happening at the County
Stadium on Monday, October 31, 1983 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m
with a variety of activities for the children. He stated they
were encouraqing the residents of the County to participate in
this safe and well supervised event.
Dr. 'Lowe introduced Ms. Sue McClennan, recently employed Director
of Mental Retardation Services. He stated there was an extensive
search with over 40 applications submitted. He gave a brief
background of Ms. McClennan's professional experience in this
field. The Board welcomed Ms. McClennan to the County.
Mr. Masden introduced Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, recently employed
Public Information Officer for the County. He stated that she is
serving on the interim until someone can be hired full time. He
gave a brief background of her professional experience. The
Board welcomed Mrs. Mitchell to the County.
3. RESOLUTIONS
3.A. RECOGNIZING C. FRANK GEE, JR., VIRGINIA DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adop~ted:
Whereas, Mr. C. Frank Gee, Jr. began employment with the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in February,
1972; and
Whereas, Mr. Gee became the Resident Engineer in
Chesterfield County in February, ]9~1, after having served as an
Engineer Trainee in the Saluda Residency Office and as an
Assistant Resident Engineer in the Manassas Residency Office; an~
Whereas, As of November 1, 1983, Mr. Gee is being
transferred to Fairfax County to become the Resident Engineer fo/
maintenance in the Northern Virginia Division; and
Whereas, The Board of Supervisors has enjoyed a friendly,
cooperative and fruitful relationship during his tenure as
Resident Engineer in Ch~sterfield County; and
Whereas, Mr. Gee has exhibited an attitude expressing
cooperation, attentiveness, interest and thoroughness.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its deep appreciation for
the outstanding service rendered to the County by Mr. Gee; and
Further, Be It Resolved, that the Board hereby extends to
Mr. Gee its best wishes for success in his new capacity.
Vote: Unanimous
On behalf of the Board, Mr. Robertson presented Mr. Gee with the
framed resolution. Mr. Gee e~pressed his appreciation for the
cooperation shown ~o him by the Board. He stated he hoped the
Board and Department jointly could solve some of the
transportation problems that exist and he was certain that this
83-555
could be accomplished. Mrs. Girone stated that she appreciated
his input last night at the Highway meeting. She stated that
since he had been here, there has been a new mode of
communication developed between the Highway Department and the
County, the level of planning has been advanced and both are
working together to a greater degree than ever before.
Mr. Gee stated his replacement should be named within the next
two weeks and he would remain until that was accomplished.
3.B. PROCLAIMING YOUTH WEEK
Mr. Yogi Berger, Chairman of the Youth Services Commission,
requested that 'the Board adopt a resolution proclaiming November
13-19, 1983 as "Youth Week". He stated they have planned a Youth
Awards Ceremony cosponsored by the Youth Services Commission and
the James River Optimist Club. He stated the purpose of the
ceremony is to recognize youth within our community who would not
normally be recognized but who have made significant
contributions to the community.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, The youth of Chesterfield County have made
significant contributions to the community of Chesterfield and
are an important component of this community; and
Whereas, The youth of Chesterfield County are our most
valuable asset; and
Whereas, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
recognizes the many contributions of youth in Chesterfield; and
Whereas, The Board also acknowledges the efforts of the
Youth Services Commission and the Optimists of James River to
stimulate constructive activities for County youth.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims November 13 to ].9, 1983 as
Youth Week in Chesterfield County and that this designation is
hereby called to the attention of all citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated his appreciation to Mr. Berger as well as the
other members of the Youth Services Commission for the
outstanding serve they continue to render to the County
3.C. DR. WILLIAM D. DIETRICH, JR., CENTP~L BAPTIST CHURCH
Mr. Bookman requested that the Board adopt a resolution of
recognition for Dr. William Dietrich who is Pastor of the Central
Baptist Church. He stated Dr. Dietrich has served as such for the
past 30 years and will be honored on November 6, 1983 by the
congregation. He stated he is the senior preacher in the Baptist
community for the Richmond Metropolitan area, has served in
various capacities with the *~uritan Club, the Midlothian Masonic
Lodge, etc.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, Dr. William D. Dietrich, Jr. has served his
congregation and the community as Pastor of Central Baptist
Church for the past thirty years; and
Whereas, Dr. Dietrich will be honored by the Central
Baptist Church on November 6, 1983; and
83-556
Whereas, Dr. Dietrich is the senior.' preacher in the Baptist
Community in the Richmond Metropolitan Area; and
Whereas, Dr. Dietrich has given unselfishly and graciously
of his time and effort to the betterment of his fellowman
regardless of religious denomination, race, sex or nationality;
and
Whereas, Dr. Dietrich has served in various capacities with
the Midlotbian Masonic Lodge, the Ruritan Club, the Middle
District Baptist Association, the Baptist General Board of
Virginia as well as other organizations.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors publicly expresses its good fortune in
having Dr. William D. Dietrich, Jr. as a citizen of Chesterfield
County who has been an exemplary and outstanding inspiration to
all who have known him; and
Be It Further Resolved that this Resolution be presented to
Dr. Dietrich and a copy filed in the permanent papers of this
Board of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
4. SENIOR CITIZENS HALL OF FAME
Mr. Masden stated that earlier this year, the Board established,
encouraged and endorsed the Senior Citizens Hall of Fame for the
County. He stated that this was carried out by a private
organization known as the Senior Citizens Council for Chesterfiel
County and on October 13, 1983, ~]]e first presentations were made
by Mr. Robertson. He stated this was the first of an annual
event, it recognizes individuals who since the age of 60 have
made significant contributions and the individuals were selected
by a very competitive process. He stated that Mrs. Marguerite F.
Christian, Mrs. Annis M. Crowder, and Mrs. Dorothy N. Armstrong
were inducted as the first members to the Citizens Hall of Fame.
He introduced Mrs. Christian who retired from the Chesterfield
County School System in 1976 as Supervisor of Elementary
Education, has been active as a Friendly Caller for the Mental
Health Clinic, serves on the Board of Directors of the Capital
Area Agency on Aging, serves ss a Trustee and Treasurer for the
Baptist Children's Home, is coordinator of activities for the
Senior Citizens Club, is a Sunday School teacher, is a trustee
and deanconess of the First Baptist Church of Centralia, is a
hostess for the County Museum and is a voting precinct worker.
He stated she had given untiring efforts on counseling youth,
adults, and senior citizens to take advantaqe of education,
social and economic opportunities in the community. He stated she
also gives her time and attention to help the handicapped, the
elderly and needy.
He introduced Mrs. Crowder who serves as a full time volunteer at
the Chesterfield Nursing Home donating 1,200+ hours a year, has
established and operates the sewing and mending program for the
patients at the Nursing Home, visits individually with the
residents, helps with the letter writing and mail delivery, and
works with the shut ins and withdrawn residents in the community
to gradually bring them into %he group activities at the Home.
He stated she possesses the ability to relate exceptionally well
to the residents of the Nursing Home particularly those who have
little visitation from their families, conveys a warm and sincere
caring attitude and develops their confidence and friendship and
helps portray the very positive image of long term care in the
community.
He introduced Mrs. Armstrong who is a charter member of the
Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Christmas Committee and served as
Treasurer for three year and Vice Chairman for one year, is a
~mber of the Women League of Voters and serves on their Board · rectors, before electzons she presents candidates and issues
83-557
for the Nursing Home residents and provides voter information to
interested groups and organizations, is a member of Great Books
Program, is a weekly volunteer leader of the Junior Great Books
of Chesterfield Middle School, is serving on the Committee which
developed the Chesterfield History Coloring Book for grades 1-4,
is Chairman of the Chesterfield Heritage Commission and was
instrumental in having the Commission establish the research and
preserve historic sites in the County as she visited,
photographed the sites, typed the maDuscript and proofed it for
publication. He stated she continues to appear before the Board
of Supervisors and Planning Commission, taking a very high
interest in good government in the County.
He stated it was his pleasure to present these three outstanding
individuals to the Board. He presented the Board with a plaque
with the names inscribed and requested that it be displayed in
the Courthouse Al]ministration Buildimg so that all County
citizens could recognize the~:e outstanding individuals.
Mr. Robertson accepted the plaque and stated that he felt the
volunteer programs in the County are outstanding and it is a
contribution being made by the elderly which could not be made b'
anyone else. He commended all for the services they have
rendered to the agencies, institutions, etc. in the County. He
stated the plaque would be displayed in an appropriate location
for viewing by all.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.A. RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 12-26 o
Code of the County of Chesterfie].d relating to business license
taxes. Mr. Micas explained that this change is required by Stat~
law as of July 1, 1983. He stated businesses pay their license
tax in advance for the upcoming year. He stated this law would
allow a business ceasing operation during any given year, to be
eligible for a refund if the business applies for a refund to th~
Commissioner of Revenue. Mr. Carmichael stated that he would
like the Board to consider the prorate, on of taxes for the entire
year of 1983 rather than beginning July 1, 1983. He stated that
if a business ceases operation on June 30, 1983 it would not be
eligible for a refund but if it did so on July 1, 1983, it would
be which he did not feel was fair %o all taxpayers. He stated hi
has had requests for refunds for those prior to July 1, 1983.
Mr. Micas stated that the ordinance as written does not basicall
address whether the prorated refunds will apply to a business
that went out of business prior to July 1, 1983. He stated it
was his understanding that the Attorney General is now addressin
whether the State ]aw change that went into effect July 1, ]983
can also affect businesses that went out of business prior to
that date. He stated it was his recommendation that the
ordinance be adopted as written and Mr. Carmichael can then base
his consideration of requests on the ruling of the Attorney
General. He stated the ordinance as written will not eliminate
the Commissioner's ability to apply refunds to businesses prior
to July 1, 1983 if the Attorney General rules that the State law
allows this which ruling is expected in the very near future.
There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel inquired if this
matter would have to come back before the Board after the
Attorney General's ruling. Mr. Micas stated the way it is
written it will permit the refund.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
adopted the following ordinance which policy regarding refunds
for prior to July 1, 1983 will be determined by the Attorney
General:
83-558
AN O]~DINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED
BY A~END!~'~(': SECT]ON 12-26
RELATING TO BUS]NESS LICENSE TAXES
BE I'? ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended by amending Section 12-26 as follows:
Sec. 12-26. Same--Effect of abandonment or closin9 on liability
.for payment.
In the event a person, firm or corporation permanently
ceases to engage in a business, trade, profession, occupation or
calling within the county during a year for which a license tax
has already been paid, the taxpayer shall be entitled, upon
application, to a refund for that portion of the license tax
already paid, prorated on a monthly basis so that the licensee is
taxed only for that fraction of the year during which the busines:
was operated within the county. The operation of a business for
any portion of a month shall be considered a full month for
prorating purposes. The country shall remit any such funds within
thirty days of certification by the Commissioner of Revenue of
the amount owed the licensee.
Vote: Unanimous
5.B. RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES
Mr. Hedrick stated that this date and time had been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to
business license taxes. He stated this ordinance specially deals
with the exemption of business license taxes for music teachers
and other teachers of academic subjects for which the Board had
concern. He stated a report had been prepared which indicated
that there may be other areas i~volved and recon~ended a
different approach. He stated staff's recommendation is that
this matter be deferred and advertise the revised ordinance for
December 14, 1983 so that the entire issue could be addressed.
Mrs. Girone stated that there were quite a few music teachers
present who had come to attend 'the meeting today, she had
numerous response regarding this matter and she felt the Board
should hear their comments. Mr. Daniel agreed. Mrs. Girone
inquired why a deferral was being suggested. Mr. Micas stated
the County has a ~,~mprehensive business license ordinance which
taxes all businesses without exemption. He stated this would be
the first time the Board would be creating a category of exempt
businesses who would not be required to pay the business license
tax. He stated the proposed ordinance is d].fficult to administer
and creates pressures for other businesses that are socially
important to push for exemptions from the comprehensive
ordinance. He stated the alternative that staff is suggesting is
that the Board consider setting a salary ceiling for all business
categories below which no business would be required to pay a
business license tax. He stated the small businesses that make a
small amount of income are not cost effective to collect a tax
from and the more equitable approach would be to exempt all
business below that certain i~come level. Mrs. Girone stated
that people who teach children one-to-one in their home, be it
music, art, Latin, etc., are not in a business. Mr. Micas stated
that it is not illegal for the Board to exempt these categories
and it can be done but staff suggests that it is not the best
83-559
approach. He sta~-cd t..he Internal Revenue Services considers this
a business and fa×es them on the income they receive. Mr. Daniel
stated thmt he understood the problem arose when a tax return
cross reference ~dentifi~d the income as a business.
Mrs. Girone stated that she did not fee]. the income level was the
issue. She stated it is what they do that should be considered
and teaching one-to-one is not what she considered in a category
of business. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel the school age
children should be specified in the ordinance as adults aze
students as well and this w~ll cause problems. Mr. Micas stated
that the proposed o.l.[linance includes tutoring for any academic
subject including music, dance or art. Mr. Dodd stated he
supported what was being said. He stated he did not feel the
Board meant for Section 12-39 to catch everyone from those
cutting grass to music teachers and police officers. He inquired
if the Police Officers doing extra work was considered. Mr.
Micas stated that it can be done but it was not addressed in this
ordinance as it was not mentioned as an issue at the time of
advertising but it certainly can be advertised if the Board so
desires. Mr. Dodd stated he felt this should apply to Police
Officers. Mr. Bookman inquired if the Board heard the public
today and an amended ordinance were advertised, would the public
have to come back. Mr. Micas stated it depended on what action
the Board took today. He stated that the exemption could be
adopted today, it could be ~teferred or another ordinance could
advertised with a salary ceiling approach. Mr. Bookman stated
the ordinance were adopted today, it would cover the teachers
could be amended to include the others later. Mr. Micas stated
it would cover those teachers today and the Police issue could
advertised for fu[ure consideration. Mr. Dodd stated that the
Police Officers do their extra work during the Christmas season
and he would not like to have them required to obtain a business
license. He stated he hoped the Commissioner would realize the
Board was sensitive to this is~u~e and will act favorably on this
matter. Mr. Carmichael stated that he has informed the music
teachers, tutors a~]d police off~cevs that he will not require
a license until the Board makes a decision on the matter. He
stated that legally this gives him a problem as the ordinance as
written today, he cannot use any discretion as to who needs and
who does not need a license. He stated he favored exempting
music teachers, tutors, and police officers.
Ms. Nancy Van Auken, an independent piano teacher, urged the
to consider the exemption for piano teachers today because they
are represented and are sacrificing something else to be here
today. She stated that three reasons for requiring business
licenses could be that the business requires special services or
demands from the County, that the County may want to discourage
the business activity in the County and to raise revenue. She
stated that the independent teachers do not require special
services, there is no reason to try to eliminate the activity an,
the one-to-one teaching does not raise much money. She stated
that most revenue raised goes to the County school system and sh~
believes that the public teachers should be supported. She
stated that the independent teachers, although specialized and
highly trained, do not make the same money as the public
teachers nor do they receive the benefits. She stated that none
of the above reasons apply and thereby requested the exemption.
There were about 20 people present in support of the adoption of
the ordinance.
Mrs. Debbie Lamb, an independent music teacher and parent of a
child studying with another independent teacher in the County,
stated that she is concerned about the taxes on teachers and
parents. She stated they provide a special opportunity for the
children which is not available in the school. She stated this
83-560
tax will burden the teacb~rs with additional morley to pay and the
teachers will have little recourse but to increase their fees and
many parents cannot afford the increase as many are sacrificing
to pay for the independent teachers today to provide lessons for
their children. She stated tha~ some families have more than one
child studying and this license and the necessary increase could
make study prohibitive for many. She stated that the County
should be proud of the good teachers that are in the County. She
requested that the Board keep the cost of education down.
Ms. Fay Boss, Presiden~ nf +he Richmond Music Teachers
Association, which includes teachers from the entire Metro~
area, and First Vice President of the Virginia Music Teachers
Association, stated their primary concern is for the children
the teachers work extremely hard keeping up to date and gaining
new ideas with their activities and individual studies. She
stated that each teacher is an expert with ten years on the
instrument which he combines with teaching. She stated this is
best done on a one-to-one basis and is not offered in the
schools. She stated that in the City of Richmond and Henrico,
the music teac}~ers are specifically exempted from the business
license tax. She stated she supported the exemption of all
teachers who teach on a one-to-one basis.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman the Board ado
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 12-39 of
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978,
AS ~4ENDED, RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE
TAXES AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
1. That Sect~.on 12-39 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, is amended, and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 12-39. Enumerated; amoun~ of license tax.
Every person engaged in one or more of the following
businesses shall pay a license tax equal to ten dollars for all
gross receipts below five thousand dollars and twenty-hundredths
of one per centum of the gross receipts above five thousand
dollars for the businesses conducted by him as follows:
o o o
(i) Provided, however, that every individual who alone and
not in combination or association with any other entity, tutors
another individual on a one to one basis in any academic subject
or music, dance or ~rt shall be exempt from the license tax
levied by this section.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone expressed appreciation for the teachers present for
coming and expressing their views.
Mr. Daniel stated he di~ not feel it was ever the intention of
government in establishing its business license policy to includ~
those who teach on a one-to-one basis. He stated at times when
laws are written, some innocent people are included
unintentionally.
Mr. Daniel suggested that staff draft an ordinance to consider
those personnel services providing a public service outside thei]
jobs for example the police officers and also address grass
cutters, etc. in another section of the ordinance.
83-561
Mr. Hedrick stated that the concern of staff is that of
enforcement. He stated !'hat o]]ce ~ specific exemption is msde,
there will be additional requests but that a cap type situation
would be the best to avoid that issue. Mr. Micas stated that
staff could prepare an ordinance regarding police that act as
security guards and then perhaps a salary ceiling which would
involve the grass cutters, paper boys, etc. Mr. Bookman inquired
at what point does the County gain revenue. Mr. Carmichael
stated he would check into this.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
requested staff to draft an ordinance regarding exempting Police
Officers whereby those pers~3nnel services providing a public
service are outside their regular jobs and further that other
categories such as grass cut~ers, etc. also be addressed in
another ordinance both of which are set for public hearings on
December 14, 1983 at 10:00 a.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick stated that the Board would be contacted prior to the
advertising regarding the drafted ordinances.
5.C. AMENDING SECTION 14.1-21
Mr. Hedrick stated th~.s date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance amending and reenacting
Section 14.1-21 imposing an annual tax on passenger motor
vehicles, motorcycles, trucks, trailers, semitrailers and
campers. He stated the current state law does not allow a
license tax in excess of $6.50 on trailers designed exclusively
for the transportation of boa%~ and the County is charging a fee
of $8.00. He stated further the state law does not allow %he
exemption of motor vehicles used for transportation to and from
private school, Sunday school, church or other places of divine
worship according to the Attorney General's ruling. There was no
one present to address this matter.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following ordiDap~e:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CO%U~TY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS A~ENDED, BY AMENDING
AND REENACTING SEC']'I~ON !4.1-21 IMPOSING
AN ANNUAL TAX ON PASBENGE~ MOTOR VEHICI,ES,
MOTORCYCLES, TRUCKS, TRAIL~'~S, SEMITRAILERS AND CAMPERS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 14.1-21 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia i~: amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 14.1-21. Same--Trucks, trailers, busses, e~c.
(a) On each and every truck not designed and used for the
transportation of passengers, and not exempt from taxation as
otherwise herein provided, the license tax shall be as follows:
With gross weight oil 6,500 pollards or less ...... $18.00
With gross weight of 6,501 pounds to
12,000 pounds ................................ $22.00
With gross weight of ]2,001 pounds to
20,000 pounds ................................ $26.50
With gross weight of 20,001 pounds to
30,000 pounds ................................ $30.00
With gross wei~!~t of 30,001 pounds or over ..... $36.00
83-562
(b) On each trailer and semitrailer wit]] a gross weight of
1501 pounds or more, the li~onse tax shall be eighteen dollars,
and one and two wheel trailers with a gross weight of 1500 pounds
or less of a cradle, flatbed or ~[>en type with a body length of
not more than nine-, feet and a width not greater than the width of
the motor vehicle to which it is attached to the owner's own
motor vehicle and used only for carrying property belonging to
the owner of such trailer, the licensm tax shall be six dollars.
(c) On each trailer, semitrailer and camper designed for
use as living ~uarters for human beings having a gross weight of
1501 pounds or more, the license tax shall be twelve dollars.
On each trailer designed exclusively for the transportation of
boats, regardless of weicht, t_he license tax shall be six dollars
and fifty cents. No such trailer shall be operated, propelled or
drawn over a highway of this county until such license tax is
paid. ' ~
(d) In the case of a combination of tractor-trailer, or
semitrailer, each vehicle constituting s part of such
combination shall be licensed, as a separate vehicle and separate
license indicia shall be issued therefor.
(e) On each and every mother vehicle, trailer or semi-
trailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached and which
is permanently used solely for transportation of such machinery,
there shall be a license tax of twelve dollars.
(2) That this ordinance shall be effective January 1, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, ~4r. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Dodd because he fe~l.~ l. he State is aft. er too much
money and he felt it '~as unfair.
Mr. Carmichael explained that although the vehicles are not
exempt from a Countv decal thev are still exempt from personnel
property taxes if the vehicles are d~esigned to carry 10
passengers or more. ~-
5.D. POSSESSION AND USE OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and tir~,e had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ,"~inance adding Section ].5.1-23.3
to the Code of the County relating to the use and possession of
certain ammunition within Chesterfield County and providing 'for a
penalty. Mr. M.~cas stated tt,~ ~'e had been a lot of recent
publicity regarding the development of an armor piercing bullet,
commonly called "k{ller bullets". He stated in 1982 localities
were given authority to regulate by ordinance the possession and
use of these bullets and the Genera] Assembly adopted, a state law
)rohibiting the use of these bullets during the commission of a
lony but did not address the possess~.on of these kinds of
ammunition. }{e stated Henrico County has adopted an ordinance
very similar to that which is proposed which will ban the
possession of the bullets because there is no legitimate sporting
Iluse for these bullets but only to pierce the kind of bullet proof
IIvests the p°licemen use' ,
IlChief Pittman stated that the Department was in favor of ado ~tion
,,of this ordinance as there is no ~ustifiable civilian use fo~
this bullet other than to kill. He stated that bullet is
extremely dangerous as it can pene{:~ate the body and continue on
to disable an innocent bystander more so than normal ammunition.
Mr. Dodd questioned the enforcement of this ordinance and
inquired if it would mean anyt]]inq. Chief Pittman stated that it
would provide a tool that if and when the Department comes across
that type of ammunition, it can be seized and a charge made. He
stated the State law prohibits its use in the commission of a
83-563
felony and th~; would d~;al].c',w possession it} the County. Mr.
Daniel inquired about the penalty for being in violation if it
were adopted. Chiei Pittman stated the fine is not exceeding
$1,000 or 30 days Jn jail or both. Mr. Daniel stated he has
heard how bad this type of bullet is and inquired if the penalty
is enough. Chief Pittman stated thai: this is the maximum penalty
for a misdemeanor. Mr. Daniel inquired if that is as far as the
County intends to go and inquired if this should be a felony.
Mr. Micas stated as a local governing body, the Board does not
have the authority to create felonies and the maximum you could
do is penalize those in possession up to a year in the Coun!::y
jail. Mr. Dodd stated he did not have any problem with this
ordinance, but he questions how effective this would be, if a
hunters ammunition would be ~:heckc,~, etc. Chief Pittman stated
they would not be checking hunters' ammunition. Mr. Dodd ~;tated
he did not want this to be a crack in the door into banning hand
guns as they are doing in I1].inois and he would not vote in favor
of something of that nature in the future. Mr. Micas stated that
the Attorney General has ruled that Board does not have the
authority to regulate hand guns or other weapons as a local
governing body. He stated in addition, one of the County's
corporate citizens, DuPont, has requested that these not be
referred to as teflon coated bullets but by its generic chemical
name, polytetrafluoroethylene. Mrs. Girone stated that if the
Board adopted this resolution, it wa~; only 'tightening down on the
existing state law which prohibits its use and this would
prohibit its possession.
Mr. James Goff stated he had discussed this with many individuals
around the state and country. He stated that there was a problem
with the terms "polytetrafl~oroethylene" and with "similar
ammunition" both of which are very open to discussion because of
their vagueness. He stated the "bullet proof vests" also are a
misnomer. He introduced Mr. John Hopp, a former State police
officer for 21 years, an active participant in the selection of
soft body armor by the Mary]ond State Police, and a
representative of the National Rifle Association.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the same terms are used by Henrico
County. Mr. Micas stated that this is basically the same
ordinance as Henrico and same definition used by the State.
stated to his knowledge there has been no problem with
interpreting or enforcing the ordinance.
He
Mr. John Hopp, field representative for the National Rifle
Association (NRA), stated that he was present to address concerns
of this type of legislation. I~e stated he had experience with
similar types of legislation, tie stated it was true that the
State of Virginia d~d not elect to include possession in its law
and they had very good ~easons for doing so. He stated that NRA,
hunters, gun collectors, etc. do not wish to inhibit the law
enforcement officers in any way. He stated that perhaps the
media's exposure of what makes armor vulnerable is probably a
greater threat than the ammunition itself. He stated that he has
testimony from the Justice Department and the Treasury Department
as to the problems of definition and why possession was not
included. He presented the Board wit]] the material. He stated
there are enforcement problems and definition problems. He
presented a letter from ~he Department of Treasury, Mr. Robert
Palace, Attorney General for that Agency, stating that they are
still struggling with the definition on a federal level; however,
because of efforts between tho arms manufacturer and law
enforcement and the NRA he feels this type of ammunition is no
longer readily available on the open market. He presented the
letter to the Board as well. He suggested the Board study the
highly technical data that i~; included in the material. He
stated he felt a lot of innocent people would be hurt if it were
passed. He stated the State Legislature had benefit of this
information and that is why they elected not to include
possession.
83-564
Mr. Do~"!~:! stated that he is a member of the NRA and he has not had
the first communication from anyone regarding this matter. He
inquired if there were any way to address the problem or word the
ordinance that would be acceptable. Mr. Hopp stated the NRA
supports the State legislation as i~ exists and that they are
concerned with t:.he possession portion. He stated that it takes
an expert in a laboratory to determine if it is illegal
ammunition. He stated that he did not see how a law enforcement
officer without technical training or the benefit of a laborator'
could determine if an individual has contraband ammunition. He
inquired if a trained officer cannot tell, how could you expect s
innocent person or sportsman to know what be has. He stated
there is a lot of other ammunition that will penetrate soft
armor, not only the teflon coated. He stated this would cause a
problem with enforcement, with probable cause for arrest, etc.
He stated if the intent of this is to protect the law enforcement
officers, he felt the State law is as far as it can go legally,
with the protection that t~he honest citizen should have. He
stated he had been involved in the selection of armor for his
former agency, he has had the opportunity to travel nation wide
to talk to law enforcement officers and executives in the federal
agencies. He suggested the Board contact the FBI at Quantico,
the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and
Fire Arms and ask them directly if this wording is enforceable
and will it do what it is supposed to. He stated he felt this
destroys the respect ~',r law when it becomes unenforceable. He
stated that he was against this ordinance and also against
publicizing what makes the law enforcement of£icers vulnerable.
Mrs. Girone stated that the citizen who suggested this ordinance
is an attorney and was called to court and cannot be here. She
suggested the matter be de~erred until the citizen could be
present and until this material presented could be reviewed. She
inquired if Mr. Hopp was speaking the opinion of the NRA. Mr.
Hopp stated that of the NRA, the Secret Service, the FBI and the
BATF. She inquired if he were in favor of citizens possessing
this type of bullet. Mr. Hopp stated he knew of no use or need
for it, however, a ban and the intent of this legislation was to
stop that which will penetrate armor, and it is not the only
one. He stated that the federal government is attempting to
define that to where we can impact on the crin~inal element as
well as protect the right of the gun owners. He stated this can
be used through interpretation to remove ali. ammunition. Mrs.
Girone inquired if he were concerned that this was a step toward
gun control. Mr. Hopp stated that there are forces, through
legislation, who would like to take away all ammunition. Mrs.
Girone stated that the Board does not have that type of authority
and she felt they would not approve gun control. Mr. Hopp state(
that in effect it would be, according to the wording that is
presented. He stated again enforcement is a problem and the
probably cause for arre~t. He stated there is ammunition
available today that does not fall into this category that is
coated such as nyclad made by Remington Arms, which is used for
target shooting on indoor ranges to remove lead pollution, and i~
a legitimate ammunition which would be outlawed.
Mr. Bookman stated he felt that an officer who did not suspect
that the bullets were coated, would not make an arrest. He
stated that the intent is that if they uncovered some ammunition
which they felt were ill~g~], it would be tested and the party
responsible would be charged. He stated if that occurred once o!
twice, the message would go out not to possess such ammunition.
Mr. Hopp stated he had not heard where anyone had that
ammunition and there has been no problem in Virginia according t¢
the State Police Superintendent. Mr. Bookman stated that since
this was instituted by someone who is not present, we should
defer the matter to listen to his comments. Mr. Dodd stated tha~
83-565
the staff should do .~ome further investigation into this matter.
Mrs. Girone stated tt~at she was not anti-NRA as her son is a
member.
Mr. Rapdy Harrington stated that the proposed amendment is too
broad in what it encompasses. He stated that teflon coated
bullets are referred to as well as similar bullets. He inquired
what is similar. He inquired if anyone knew what a "French
Arcane" bullet is. He stated this is a pointed bullet and a lot
of ~be ammunition is poipt. }{e inquired ]f all pointed bullets
would }~-~ considered similar and how the officer will determine
which is and which is not. He stated as far as he knows there
is no such thing as a "bullet proof vest", there are bullet
resistant vests up to a certain caliber. }le stated there are
cases where the bullet proof vests have been penetrated by a .22
caliber bullet depending on the perspiration, weave, etc. He
stated that the ~4 buckshot from a shotgun will also penetrate
most bullet proof vests. He proposed that the sentences be
stiffened in the County for those who use it in the commission of
a felony rather than legislating definitions of legal and
illegal ammunition. Mrs. Girone inquired if he were in favor of
people being allowed possessio;, of those types of bullets. Mr.
Harrington stated that he did not feel anyone should possess
teflon bullets as there is no reason to have them. Mrs. Girone
inquired if he were in favor of banning those bullets. Mr.
Harrington stated no because he did not know how this would be
enforced. Mrs. Girone inquired if he were suggesting that
nothing be banned. Mr. Harrington stated ~he State law not only
imposes this in the commission of a crime or felony but it also
says that if you are found to use this ammunition, the penalties
are much stiffer. He s~ated he did not know how the criminal
could be directed to use whic!~ ~mmunition. He stated he uses
pointed project~]es in hunting, and french arcane are pointed
tool steel. He stated who will say that the word similar will
not apply to his ammunition.
Mr. Goff stated that there are many standards for body armor and
he outlined the criteria. He stated this is a highly technical
field, involving the layers, the weave, the angle of penetration
the conforming to the body, etc. for bullet proof vests.
stated small caliber bullets sometimes penetrate vests as he has
seen in Vietnam. {{e stated %here are so many variables and
factors involved which will ban every projectile. He stated tha'
based on information from 1977, 40% of the deaths to officers
were injuries to the head, 51% to upper torso and 9% to the
limbs. Mrs. Girone inquired if they sddressed this ordinance
when it came before }{enrico County. Mr. Goff stated they were
aware of it in Henrico and he just happened to see this in the
newspaper under another heading. Mrs. Girone indicated that thi~
was advertised in the newspaper for this hearing. Mr. Golf
stated that the bullet proof vest is a misnomer. He stated for
clean more humane kill in hunting, you want a projectile.
Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. Golf was in favor of banning the
possession any kind of bullet. Mr. Golf stated he was in favor
of banning some bullets but this is very misleading. He stated
the law abiding citizens would not have the ammunition in the
first place and the criminal will not be able to be regulated.
He stated that basically any weapon that is standard can
penetrate bullet proof vests depending on the conditions, etc.
and otherwise they will go to straight head shots anyway. He
suggested that the matter be voted on today as there is no reaso
for deferral. Mrs. Girone stated that a constituent had
requested this matter be considered and she felt an obligation t,
defer this m~tter to allow this gentleman's views to be
considered. Mr. Golf ~tated some of the people present today
might not be able to attend. Mr. Daniel stated additional
information could be presented at the deferred date. Mrs. Giron,
stated that the minutes of the meeting would be available for
those who wished to review them.
83-566
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred further consideration of this matter until Noven~oer 23,
1983 at 10:00 a.m.
Vote: Unanimous
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC }.{EARING RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
Mr. Micas stated that this proposed ordinance would include
in our business license structure, taxes for a personal service
for those businesses that provide services to other businesses,
for example, providing software serv~'es. Mr. Carmichael stated
that this would broaden the catch-all phrases that exist in that
ordinance. He stated there had been several instances where they
had to base decisions on practice rather than actusl County
ordinances. Mr. Daniel inquired about computer software and if
it can be taxed as personal property. Mr. Carmichael stated that
the Attorney General rulJ. ng is very broad and he felt there would
be additional legislation in the next session of the General
Assembly which would be more clear. Mr. Daniel inquired what
would be done by the County if additional legislation is not
passed. Mr. Carmicha~l stated he would follow the guidelines of
the Attorney General. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr.
Daniel, the Board set the date of December 14, 1983 at 10:00 a.m.
for a public hearing relating to business license tax.
Vote: Unanimous
7. CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF AIRPORT HANGARS
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the following for construction and financing of the
airport hangars:
The awarding of the construction contract to Ne Di
Construction Company at a price of $~34,000.
The awarding of a contract to Central Fidelity Bank,
subject to negotiation of terms and conditions, for a
revenue bond issue at 70% of Prime floating rate for a term
not to exceed 12 years for the amount of the
construction contract plus $10,000 for contingencies and one
year's debt service reserve required by Central Fidelity.
The Treasurer is authorized to advance cash needed from the
General Fund during construction unt~.l proceeds from the
Central Fidelity revenu~ bond issue are received.
e
Appropriated $444,000 from revenue bond proceeds to the
Airport construction sccount.
And further the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO NEGOTIATE TI{E TERMS OF
CERTAIN PROPOSED AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS AND OF THE INDENTURE OF
TRUST PURSUANT TO WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE ISSUED, AND PROVIDING
FOR OFFICIAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"), has
constructed and is operating an airport (the "Airport") in the
County; and
WHEREAS, the Public Finance Act, as amended, authorizes the
Board of Supervisors of the County, without the approval of the
qualified voters of the Coup%y, to borrow money and to issue
bonds of the County to pay all or part of the cost of appropriate
projects so long as such bond. s are payable solely from the
revenues of such ~rojects; and
83-567
WHEREAS, the County is planning to construct hangars at the
Airport to be leased to corporate and private aircraft operators
at the Airpor%~; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to finance the cost of
constructing such h,~nqars throuqh the issuance of its airport
revenue bonds, the payment of the principal of and interest on
which would be secured by the pledge of the revenues of the
Airport, including the revenues to be derived by the County from
the leasing of such hangars; and
WHEREAS, the County has received a proposal from Central
Fidelity Bank pursua]~' to which the County would issue to such
bank the County's airport revenue bonds in the principal ~n~ount
of appr(~ximately $520,000, which bonds would bear interest at a
rate equal to 70% of such bank's prime rate as determined from
time to time and would mature within ten years of their issuance;
and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors desires to authorize the
appropriate officials of the County to negotiate with such bank
the definitive terms of such bonds and of the indenture of trust
pursuant to which such bonds would be issued, such terms to be
subject in all respects to the further approval of this Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors wishes to express a moral
commitment to timely repayment of principal and interest; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors desires to provide for
"official action" with respect to such bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. (a) It is hereby determined that the cost of the
hangars referred to in the recitals to this resolution to be
constructed at the Airport shall be financed through the issuance
by the County of its airport revenue bonds ~.n the principal.
amount of approximately $520,000 (the "Bonds"), the payment of
-the principal of and interest on which shall be secured by the
pledge by the County of the revenues of the Airport, including
the revenues to be derived by th~ Coun'ty from the leasing of such
hangars. It is further determined that it is in the best
interest of the County that the Bonds be sold through negotiation
to Central Fidelity Bank (the "Bank") in accordance with the
terms of its proposal referred to in the recitals to this
resolution rather than through competitive bidding.
(b) In furtherance of the foregoing determinations,
the County Administrator, the County Attorney and other
appropriate officials of the County are hereby authorized to
negotiate with the Bank the definitive terms of the Bonds and the
terms of the indenture of trust pursuant ~o which the Bonds are
to be issued, such terms to be subject in all respects to the
further approval of 'this Board of Supervisors.
2. This resolution shall constitute a "bond resolution~' or
"some other official action" toward the issuance of bonds within
the meaning of Section 1.103-8(a) (5) of the Income Tax
Regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department of the United
States of America.
3. The Clerk of this Board of Supervisors is hereby
authorized and directed to see to the immediate filing of a
certified cody of this resolution with the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County and within ten days thereafter to cause to be
published once in a newspaper off general circulation in the
County a notice setting forth in brief and general terms the
amount of the Bonds and the purpose for which the Bonds are to be
issued.
83-568
4. Ali resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict
herewith are he. reby ret.c .nled.
5. This res~],,~on shall take effect upon its adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
8. RESIDENTAL CARE NEEDS
The Board agreed that a Residential Care Needs Task Force be
established which would consist of:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A member of the Board of Supervisors
A member of the School. Board
A member of the Social Services Board
A member of the CommunJ~y Services Board
A member of the You~h Services Con~ission
A Judge of Juvenile Court System
The Superintendent of Schools or his designee, the Human
Services Direct,,r, and the Director of each Department
represented above shall serve as ex-officio members.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, %he Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board to contact the Chairmen of
the respective Boards or Commissions listed above and the Chief
Judge of the Juvenile Court to designate a member to study and
make recommendations relal~g to Residential Care needs in
Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone requested that the letter to the School Board also be
sent to Dr. Howard Sullins.
9. TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
Mr. Bookman stated he felt the limits for the tax relief for the
elderly and handicapped should be increased. He stated that he
felt the proposed income levels should be as follows and the net
worth should be increased to $5('),000:
Percent
Tax Relief
Proposed
Income Level
100%
50%
25%
$10,500
$].0,500-$i2,000
$12,000-$!4,000
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board se% the
date of December 14, 1983 at 10:00 a.m.. to consider an ordinance
relating to tax relief for the elderly and handicapped as
indicated above.
Vote: Unanimous
10. REOUEST FROM CHESTERFIELD QUARTERBACK LEAGUE
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved the request from the Chesterfield Quarterback League and
increased the contribution to the League from $3,000 to $4,000
which original amount had been budgeted and further the Board
appropriated $1,000 from the General Fund contingency account
which will be used to offset game officials costs.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hester introduced Mr. James Stewart, Commissioner of the
Chesterfield Quarterback League, who was present.
83-569
motion of Mr. Dodd seconded by Mrs =lrone, the Board accepted
39,900 of USDA funds for the Juvenile De%en[ion Home and further
d $9,900 to revenue and $9,900 to the Detention ~-!ome's
ital equip]t~ent series.
: Unanimous
1 B. CIIANGE IN BYLAW~ OF YOI.]II S}qPVI COS~ISSION
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved
chanqe in the Youth Services Commiasion bylaws which amended
~ VII, Section 3, si'ating that the Executive Committee
~hall be elected in the month of September rather than in June.
Zote: Unanimous
.1.C. BINGO PERMITS
)n motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved
'equests for bingo and/or raffle permits from the La Societe Des
.0 Homes et 8 Chevaux for calendar year 1984 and the Optomist
~lub of Bermuda, Inc. for calendar year 1983.
~ote: Unanimous
.2. APPOINTMENTS/RESiCNATIONS
motion of Mr. Daniel., seconded bv Mr. Bookman, the Board
:ccepted the resignation of Mr. william Gill from the
lhesterfield County Toll Road Authority and the Appomattox Basin
industrial Development orporat].on effective December 31, 1983.
C '
Unanimous
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
n motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
pproved the installation of street lights at the following
ocations with funds to be expended from the District Street
ight Funds as indicated:
Intersection of Gatesgreen Drivo and Sa]~:ra Church Road Dale
District. '
Scarsborough Drive, between Swahhmore Road and Route 147
Midlothian District. '
~te: Unanimous
Dodd presented a petition from residents of the Thompson
Subdivision and requested 'that staff prepare a report on
request.
.B. ST. LEGER SQUARE PROPOSAL FOR POWtiITE PARKWAY/ROUTE 288
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
Mr. John Smith's request for a deferral of the St. Leger
83. proposal for Powhite Parkway/Route 288 until November 23,
te: Unanimous
~3-570
13.C. ENTITLEMENT STATUS FOR CITY OF HOPEWELL
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
supported the City of Hopewell's entitlement status under the HUD
Community Development Block Grant Program and that the OMB
redefinition of Metropolitan Statistical areas should not affect
Hopewell's entitlement status and encouraged the support of HR1
which would enable Hopewell to continue to receive CDBG
entitlement funds.
Vote: Unanimous
13.D. BOTANY WOODS PROJECT
Mr. Dodd stated that he would like 'to introduce five ladies who
were present regarding the Botany Woods Project in the Bensley
area. He stated that the proposed resolution states the history
and the problems that would exist if this project is approved as
proposed. He requested Board support for denial of the project
by HUD as it will adversely impact this area. Mr. Daniel stated
two years ago, the Board voted for denial of the townhouse to
apartments and the developer was advised of what could be
acceptable but every step has been taken to break that intent.
Mr. Dodd stated that when the County Attorney advised of what
could be done, the Board thought it would be done on an
individual basis rather than wholesale of all the buildings and
staff is looking into this matter at this time. He stated it was
not his understanding that the developer could wholesale the
entire area. Mrs. Girone stated that this goes a lot farther
than opposing rental units versus individually owned units. She
stated that the Social Services Department can vouch for the
tremendous impact on people and stated that social and economic
factors should also be addressed.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, in August of 1968, the Chesterfield County Board of
Zoning Appeals granted a use permit to allow construction of one
hundred sixty multi-family units on the Botany Woods site; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 1970, the Board of Supervisors approved
rezoning of the Botany Woods parcel to Residential
Townhouse-for-Sale; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1974, the Botany Woods subdivision plat
was recorded allowing construction of one hundred twenty-five
townhouses-for-sale; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 1981, the Board of Supervisors denied
the request to rezone the Botany Woods parcel from Residential
Townhouse-for-Sale to Residential (R-7) with a Conditional Use to
permit one hundred sixty-eight multi-family units; and
WHEREAS, this denial action was taken based on the area
residents concern about rental units instead of an owner occupied
project; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 1981~ the County Attorney advised the
Board of Supervisors that the Botany Woods project could be
constructed in accordance with the recorded subdivision plat and
the individual units legally rented; and
WHEREAS, in January of 1983, the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development advised the County that they were
considering approval of funding a one hundred unit rental complex
at Botany Woods; and
83-571
WHEREAS, in February of 1983, the County advised the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development, through the A-95
review process, of the inconsistency with the spirit and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance by providing rental housing on the Botany
Woods site rather than owner occupied and requested that the
developer be required to obtain a more appropriate zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Botany Woods proposal, while technically within
the confines of the law, proposes to locate rental units in a
well established single family residential area; and
WHEREAS, The Route 1-301 corridor is already heavily
concentrated with very low income families, many living in
structures needing rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, public transportation services and other public and
commercial facilities to support the residents of the proposed
project are not accessible to the site and residents; and
WHEREAS, as the federal and local housing strategy are more
appropriate when geared toward deconcentrating low income groups
and facilitating economically integrated communities rather than
increasing the geographic concentration of low income persons in
the 1-301 corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors strongly opposes the location of additional
rental units in this predominantly single family neighborhood and
urges the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to
deny any funding for newly constructed rental housing.
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the County finds that
additional newly constructed subsidized units in the 1-301
corridor will unduly increase the concentration of low income
people in the 1-301 area without benefit of public transportation
and community support facilities and urges the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to consider along with the County
more creative housing programs which better meet the needs and
conditions of the 1-301 corridor of Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd requested that Congressman Thomas J. Bli!ey and other
representatives receive a copy of this resolution. Mrs. Girone
requested that Mrs. Jean Smith also be informed of the
resolution.
14. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
14.A. REPORT OF WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL STATUS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report of the water and
sewer financial status.
14.B. ORDINANCE TO VACATE PORTION OF THREE PINES, SECTION 3
Mr. Bookman excused himself from the meeting as he was not
certain but thought he might have a possible conflict of
interest.
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of an
eight foot easement across Lot 4, Block C, Three Pines, Section
3. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion
of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the
following ordinance:
83-572
An Ordinance to vaca~ a portion of an 8 ft. easement across
Lot 4, Block C, Three Pines, Section 3, Clover Hill
Magisterial 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 43, at
page 61.
Whereas, Frank F. Ports, Jr. has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion
of an $ ft. easement across Lot 4, Block C, Three Pines, Section
3, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield, Virginia, more
particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 43, at page 61,
made by Kenneth L. Barton, dated June 10, 1983. The portion of
easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as
follows:
A portion of an 8 ft. easement across Lot 4, Block C, Three
Pines, Section 3, as shown shaded in red on a plat made by
Potts and Minter, dated September 22, 1983, a copy of which
is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance.
Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and
Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of easement sought to be vacated and the vacation
will not abridge the rights of any citizen.
Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by 'the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County, Virginia:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of easemen
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, 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 grantor and Joan C. Smith, or
her successors in title, as grantees.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Bookman.
Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting.
14.C. CONDEMNATION FOR EAST AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amounts
as set opposite their names are 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.
83-573
Jordan D. Temple and Barbara J. Temple
Frances S. Gornto
Vote: Unanimous
DDlt8-9/5
DDl18-9/7
$275.00
$50O.00
14.D. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS
14.D.1. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF RICHMOND
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for a Supplemental Water Agreement which
amends the present City of Richmond/County Water contract and
would increase the charge for water received by either party from
$0.25 per 100 cubic feet to $0.40 per 100 cubic feet as well as
provides for supplying water in emergency situations without the
requirement to install a meter with the amount of water delivered
to be determined by the supplier and charged at the above rate
plus 10% to cover personnel and overhead expense.
Vote: Unanimous
14.D.2. UNCOLLECTIBLE WATER AND SEWER BILLS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board charged
off $11,139.84 in uncollected water bills and $16,621.00 in
uncollected sewer bills for calendar year 1982, a copy of which
list is filed with the papers of this Board.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick stated the Department will continue to try to collect
these bills through the collection agency.
14.E. CONSENT ITEMS
14.E.1. INSTALLATION OF WATER LINE IN BROOKSIDE SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for William M. Harmon who submitted the low bid of
$24,966.50 for Contract W83-101B/6(8)3016, installation of water
line in Brookside Subdivision, and further the Board transferred
$27,496.15 from 567-1-36000-9402 to 380--1-63016-4393.
Vote: Unanimous
14.E.2. REPLACEMENT OF WATER LINE ON PETERSBURG AND SNEAD STREET
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for Southern Construction Company who submitted the bid
of $14,606.90 for Contract W83-110/6(8)3104 for replacing the
water line on Petersburg and Snead Street and further the Board
appropriated $16,067.59 from 563 surplus to 380-1-63104-7212. It
is noted that the developer of Chestermill will pay $1,487.00
toward this improvement.
Vote: Unanimous
14.E.3. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM REGINALD AND JESSIE GLIDEWELL
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to accept, on behalf of
the County, a deed of dedication from Reginald E. and Jessie B.
Glidewell, Tax Map Section 24-10, which dedication was required b5
the Board of Zoning Appeals for the granting of a building permit
on an unimproved road.
83-574
Vote: Unanimous
14.E.4. VEPCO EASEMENT AGREEMENT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. 'Bookman, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to execu~.e an easement agreement conveying a 15 ft.
wide easement to Vepco for the installation of a buried cable to
serve the Simplified Direction Finding System to be relocated at
the County Airport.
Vote: Unanimous
14.F. REPORT OF DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
15. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on the Dale
Park Funding.
Mr. Hedrick stated the County had been officially notified that
the roads in the following subdivisions had been formally
accepted into the State Secondary System, effective as indicated:
Length
Creekwood Subdivision (10-7-83)
Litchfield Drive - Beginning at its intersection with
Newby's Bridge Road, Route 649, extending southerly
0.09 mile to the intersection of Buttermere Court, then
southerly 0.27 mile to the intersection of Farmhill
Lane, then southerly 0.13 mile to the intersection of
Towchester Drive, then southerly 0.07 mile to a
temporary turnaround.
0.56 mi.
Buttermere Court - Beginning at its intersection with
Litchfield Drive, extending southwest 0.09 mile to a
cul-de-sac.
0.09 mi.
Farmhill Lane - Beginning at its intersection with
Litchfield Drive, extending northerly 0.19 mile to the
intersection of Hadley Lane, then northeast 0.08 mile
to tie into existing Farmhill Lane, Route 2237.
0.27 mi.
Hadley Lane - Beginning at its intersection with
Farmhill Lane, extending northwest 0°07 mile to a cul-
de-sac.
0.07 mi.
Towchester Drive - Beginning at its intersection with
Litchfield Drive, extending southeast 0.07 mile to the
intersection with Brixton Road, then easterly 0.19
mile to the intersection of Collingswood Drive, then
easterly 0.07 mile to the intersection of Round Hill
Drive, Route 2235.
0.33 mi.
Brixton Road - Beginning at its intersection with
Towchester Drive, extending north 0.13 mile to the
intersection of Collingswood Drive, then north 0.16
mile to a cul-de-sac.
0.29 mi.
Collingswood Drive - Beginning at its intersection
with Brixton Road, extending southeast 0.22 mile
to the intersection of Towchester Drive.
0.22 mi
83-575
Belmont Hills West, Section C (10-11-83)
Welch Drive - Beginning at its intersection with
Old Creek Road (Route 2222) extending westerly
0.09 mile to a cul-de-sac.
William Gwyn Estates, Section D (10-11-83)
Dumaine Drive - Beginning where State maintenance
ends, with Dumaine Drive, State Route 2606, and
going 0.03 mile easterly to intersection with Tanya
Terrace, then continues 0.03 mile easterly to a
temporary turnaround.
Tanya Terrace - Beginning at intersection with
Dumaine Drive and going 0.11 mile northerly to a
cul-de-sac.
Brandywine Forest, Section C (10-11-83)
Saint Joan Avenue - Beginning at its intersection with
Dakins Road, State Route 688, extending northeast
0.09 mile to the intersection of Saint Joan Court.
Saint Joan Court - Beginning at its intersection with
Saint Joan Avenue, extending north 0.05 mile to a
cul-de-sac.
Brandywine Forest, Section D (10-11-83)
Saint Joan Avenue - Beginning at its intersection with
Saint Joan Court, extending east .06 mile to the
intersection of King Charles Court, then east .05 mile
to a dead end.
King Charles Court - Beginning at its intersection with
Saint Joan Avenue, extending south .06 mile to a
cul-de-sac.
Chesswood, Section D (10-11-83)
Lost Forest Drive - Beginning at the western end of
State maintained Lost Forest Drive, State Route
1910, and running westerly 0.21 mile to the
intersection with Greatbridge Road.
Greatbridge Road - Beginning at the northern end of
State maintained Greatbridge Road, State Route 3061,
and running northerly 0.03 m~]e to the intersection
with Lost Forest Drive, then continuing northerly
0.01 mile to end in a dead end.
Length
0.09 mi.
0.06 mi.
0.11 mi.
0.09 mi.
0.05 mi.
0.11 mi.
0.06 mi.
0.21 mi,
0.04 mi.
18. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board went
into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and
acquisition or use of real property for public purposes as
permitted by Sections 2.1-344 (a) (1) and (2), respectively, of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended..
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
83-576
19. CONTOUR DIRECTOR
Mr. Hedrick stated that Mr. Elmer Hodge attended a special called
meeting of the Metropolitan Richmond Convention and Visitors
Bureau (CONTOUR) this date. He stated the purpose of this group,
of which the County is a member, is to promote convention and
tourism in the Metropolitan area. He announced that Mr. Alan
Williams, County Administrator of Hanover, had been selected as
the first General Manager of the Metropolitan Richmond Convention
and Visitors Bureau. He star. ed this was an excellent appointment
and he was confident Mr. Williams would do a good job. He stated
that Mr. Williams will be with the Board within the next several
meetings to discuss plans for CONTOUR with the Board.
20. AGREEMENT WITI{ HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REGARDING POWHITE PARKWAY
Mrs. Girone stated that Delegate John Watkins was out of town and
could not be here today. She stated that this proposed
agreement with the Highway Department is another step in the
County's positive attitude in acquiring the right of way and
building of Powhi%e Parkway. She read a portion of the
agreement. On motion of the Board, the Chairman of the Board,
the County Administrator and the County Attorney are hereby
authorized %o execute an "Agreement Providing for the Acquisition
of Right of Way for the Powhite Parkway Extension by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation".
Vote: Unanimous
16. MOBILE HOME REQUESTS
Mr. Dodd stated that the Board would proceed with the mobile
homes and zoning cases and outlined the format of the hearings.
He stated that all would have an opportunity to express
themselves.
Mr. Dodd stated that he is involved in the mobile home business
but is not directly related to the sales aspect. He requested
that anyone who might be considering purchasing a mobile home
from his company, to please so indicate in order that he might
disqualify himself and excuse himself from the meeting.
83SR131
In Dale Magisterial District, George and Cynthia Orange requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park: a mobile home on property
which they own. Tax Map 66-4 (1) parcel 13 and better known as
6706 Hopkins Road (Sheet 22).
Mr. Balderson stated staff had discussed this request with the
applicants and they are incapacitated and cannot be present at
the meeting. Mr. Daniel stated that this is a hardship case.
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 recuirements 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.
83-577
0
5o
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
83SR175
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Patricia A. Jordan requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which belongs to Herbert Waldrop, father of the applicant. Tax
Map 81-16 (5) Central Park, Block 7, Lots 19 through 22 and
better known as 10002 Beaumont Avenue (Sheet 23).
Mrs. Jordan was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
0
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.
m
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.
Sm
Where public (County) wa%er 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
83SR176
in Matoaca Magisterial District, David C. Belcher, III requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which belongs to Emma Cox, mother of the applicant. Tax Map
186-4 (1) parcel 26 and better known as 21811 Ferndale Avenue
(Sheet 52).
83-578
Mr. Belcher was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot 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.
Se
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
e
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
83SR177
In Bermuda Magisterial District, George E. Baldwin requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which he owns. Tax Map 67-3 (1) parcel 41 and better known as
2668 Drewry's Bluff Road (Sheet 23).
Mr. Baldwin was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
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.
83-579
e
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.
0
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
83S178
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Maggie Allen requested a Special
Exception to park a mobile home on property which belongs to
Raymond Allen, son of the applicant. Tax Map 149-13 (3) Ivey
Tract, Block B, Lot 18 and better known as 15708 Merridian Avenue
(Sheet 41).
Mrs. Allen was represented by her daughter-in-law. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, 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 compli~d 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.
e
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
17. REZONING REQUESTS
83S129
In Matoaca Magisterial District, LEONARD COX requested a Condi-
tional Use to permit a boarding house (9 tenants) in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.188 acre parcel fronting
approximately 50 feet on Light Street and approximately 160 feet
on Bremo Avenue, and located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads and better known as 3310 Light
Street. Tax Map 182-14 (1) Parcel 64 (Sheet 53/54).
83-580
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant's attorney had requested a 30
day deferral of this request. Mr. John Dicks was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present to
discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr.
Bookman, the Board deferred consideration of this request until
November 23, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
83S139
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BARBARA S. POWELL requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) of a 1
acre parcel fronting approximately 175 feet on the east line of
Grove Road approximately 1,250 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike
and better known as 731 Grove Road. Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny Dell
Acres, Lots 28 and 30 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the representative for this case requested
that it be placed at the end of the zoning agenda today. It was
generally agreed to do so.
83S058
In Midlothian Magisterial District, MIKE McQUAgE requested
rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O), plus a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the
bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a 2.59 acre parcel
fronting approximately ninety (90) feet on the west line of Old
Bon Air Road, and located approximately 1,200 feet north of its
intersection with Robious Road. Tax Map 17-8 (1) Parcels 3 and 5
(Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recom~.ended
denial of this request. Dr. McQuade was present and stated that
he felt the use is compatible with the area and that eventually
the area will be zoned commercial as the price of land will be
too high for residential. He stated the precedent for office use
has already been set at the Robious Road and Old Bon Air
intersection with the Robious Hall Shopping Center. He stated
this use would be an excellent transitional use between the
shopping center and the residential area. He stated that the
area residents want to maintain the area as it is but changes are
coming. He stated that subdivisions will be coming in the area
and the present landowners will deny themselves the future
possibilities of selling their land for commercial uses. He
stated that currently the property in the area is zoned R-7 but
is more rural as the homes have large tracts of land. He stated
that he and other landowners will develop a subdivision in the
area if this request is not approved.
There were 12 people present in opposition. Mr. Donald Pollard,
Pastor at Mt. Nebo Baptist Church, stated that they had met on
several occasions requesting that the area remain as it is. He
stated it is an historical area, they do not want their taxes to
increase and they do not want their life style to be interrupted.
He requested the Board to deny the rezoning.
Mrs. Joan Gregory stated that she has lived at 1334 Old Bon Air
Road for 20 years. She stated that she speaks for the residents
of Old Bon Air Road in that they do not want the area rezoned for
business of any type but want it to remain residential. She
stated that it is not necessary to rezone their neighborhood for
office use when there is so many other locations available. She
stated traffic is already a problem and they would not like to
see the situation get worse. She stated that their homes are on
large tracts of land but that is the way they want it to remain.
83-581
Mr. Abraham Day stated that be lives at i. 160 Old Bon Air Road. He
requested the Board deny this request as he was born and raised
here and is now 70 years old and his Church is also located here.
Dr. McQuade stated that he has talked with most of the people in
the area and he is not without feeling for them but the area will
change. He stated his property is already zoned R-7 and he will
not need additional zoning approval to develop a subdivision. He
stated, however, he would be willing to accept a home occupation
with no more than 25% of his home as an office and one assistant.
He stated his dreams and aspirations are tied up in this property
as are the neighbors and something will develop in the area. He
stated he would live in the home and have his office as well.
Mrs. Girone inquired if that would need a separate application.
Mr. Balderson stated that it would be an amendment to this
conditional use, more restrictive than the conditional use
originally applied for, and the Board could consider it under the
current application. He stated that what Dr. McQuade is
referring to is a conditional use planned development which would
allow a change in the home occupation definition whereby he could
enumerate specifically what he wanted to do. He stated for
example, Dr. McQuade could have his own office in his residence
provided that it did not exceed an area greater than 25% of the
gross floor area of any one floor. Dr. McQuade stated that he
would prefer that it be 25% of the total floor area of the house
as he could build a two story cheaper than a one story but if the
Board requires a one story, he would agree. He stated that he
would like to have one assistant working with him in the case of
an emergency. He stated if that is not agreed to, his wife could
work for him.
Mrs. Rosa Brown stated that the residents were opposed to any
offices at all. She stated it seems that Dr. McQuade is trying
to get offices one way or another and the residents are opposed
to all that he has proposed. She stated that they know that
things will change but they do not want to be pressured into
having the changes because they have large tracts of land in the
area. She stated that no matter what scheme is used, it is still
an office and they are opposed.
Mrs. Girone stated that she had been to a nun~er of meetings at
the Church regarding this matter. She stated that there are a
number of elderly people who have lived here for their entire
life, there is a second and third generation there, and there are
new people who have made their homes here. She stated that they
all want this area to remain residential. She stated they
accepted the shopping center in the area but are against
commercial development here. She stated that the people consider
this spot zoning. She stated that the land is R-7 and a
subdivision can be built on it but the people are opposed to the
office use.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
denied this request.
Vote: Unanimous
83S085 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, RICHARD L. JORDAN requested a
Conditional Use to permit a veterinary hospital in an
Agricultural (A) District on a .80 acre parcel fronting
approximately 150 feet on the northeast line of Woodpecker Road,
and located approximately 300 feet southeast of its intersection
with Bixby Lane. Tax Map 161-11 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 48)
83-582
Mr. Robertson stated that although he lives in this neighborhood,
he has no financial interest in the request today but Dr. Jordan
has served as his veterinarian for the past several years. He
stated that he could not think of a more fitting place for a
veterinarian than in an agricultural area. He inquired if the
County Attorney felt he had a conflict in this matter. Mr. Micas
stated that Mr. Robertson did disclose that he has had a
contractual ~elationship with the applicant but having disclosed
that it does not appear he has any financial interest in the
outcome of this case and he did not feel he had a conflict of
interest. He stated Mr. Robertson could participate or could
choose not to. Mr. Robertson stated he would participate.
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Jeff Collins was present
representing the applicant. He subm~.tted a petition signed by
250 area and Matoaca District residents in favor of this request.
He stated this request is for a veterinary hospital which is an
agricultural business. He stated the concern for setting a
precedent for business has its merits in some instances but the
idea of a conditional use is to limit what a parcel can be used
for, in this case the location of this veterinary hospital in an
area where livestock are born and bred. He stated in the event
other requests for business were submitted, the conditional use
process would leave ample opportunity to curtail inappropriate
zoning for the area. He stated Dr. Jordan is now operating in
the area in a mobile unit serving the farmers and residents in
the general vicinity. He stated that he is not a dog and cat
veterinarian but he is a well respected agriculturally oriented
veterinarian and a city atmosphere would not be conducive to his
clients. He stated he wishes to provide better and more
efficient service to those clients. He stated there would be no
odor nuisance as the conditions recommended by staff and agreed
to by the applicant will allow no outside runs or kennels and any
overnight boarding will be within the confines of the building
itself. He stated the parking would be located behind the
building, the building is a log home design and would most likely
be thought of as a residence. He stated the site is located 250
ft. from the nearest residence and did not feel this would be
detrimental to the area property values.
Mr. Whaley Colbert referred to the Planning Commission's reasons
for denial which were that there was no precedent in the
immediate vicinity for commercial use such as that proposed and
that the area is characterized by either single family
development or development of large parcels which are vacant or
farms, etc. He stated the request had been deferred five times
and he felt this indicated something was not right. He requested
that the Board follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission which was unanimously supported.
Mr. Ralph Zink, on behalf of Mr. Thomas Stafford who is the sole
owner of all the undeveloped property in Stafford Place which
includes about 35 lots, was present. He stated that Mr. Stafford
was opposed to this request ~n its proposed location which he
feels is too close to the subdivision and will hinder further
development of the subdivision. He stated that this will be a
personal loss to him as well as to the County in revenue. He
stated he would like to see the clinic built but a substantial
distance from the neighbors and if this were done he did not feel
there would be any objection by area residents.
Mrs. Cindy Covington stated that she lives in the ir~ediate
vicinity of this hospital and they are opposed to this request.
She stated they bought out in the country because they thought it
was farm land and they do not want this facility located next to
their home.
83-583
Mrs. Elizabeth Culvert stated that %his proposed building would
be 150 ft. from her property. She stated that this will cause
traffic problems. She stated that most people bought in the
country to be awsy from commercial business and she was opposed
to building the hospital at this location.
Mr. Leroy Culvert stated that he bought his property when he
retired. He stated that he does not want this building built so
close to his home as there is a lot of vacant land in the area
and felt they should consider other options. He stated he is not
against Dr. Jordan building the hospital but the location.
He requested the Board to protect the existing property owners.
Mr. Dodd inquired what was at the corner Sandyford and
Woodpecker Roads. Mr. Culvert stated there is a plumbing shop
and a vacant building. He stated there is no other commercial
development in the area.
Mr. Andrews stated there is a store at the intersection which has
existed for 30 years and not a vacant building. He stated he did
not want the subdivision ~n the country when it was proposed
either but they did not fight its development. He stated he was
in support of the hospital being constructed.
Mr. Les Pell stated that he owns all the surrounding property
and he was in favor of the hospital construction as there would
be no disturbance to other property owners.
Mr. Jeff Collins stated the reason for the deferrals was to meet
with the property owners to work out some of the problems but
they could not. He stated the building would be over 200 ft.
from the nearest house and 150 ft. from the Culvert's property
line.
Mr. Bookman inquired why this parcel was selected rather than one
further down the road. Mr. Collins stated that Dr. Jordan has an
interest in this particular portion as his wife is the daughter
of the gentleman who owns the entire parcel. He stated the
remaining land is for the other children. Mrs. Culvert stated
during one of the deferrals it was suggested that ~his hospital
might be moved 150 ft. down the road. Mr. Collins stated that
the applicant wanted to move the building an additional 150 ft.
to the east but the indication from the residents, was that this
was not acceptable either so they decided to keep the original
site as proposed.
Mrs. Girone stated that a similar situation existed in Midlothian
District and it is working fine and is next to single families
homes. She stated that there have been no problems and it has
been in existence for 4 or 5 years. She stated that she would
not like to see outside runs and overnight stays. She stated the
area residents should come and view this location to see how it
does work well.
Mr. Bookman inquired about the possibility of moving it down the
road as once suggested. Dr. Jordan stated that he lives on the
other side of the property and at one time they were considering
renovating the home for the hospital but it would not be
economically feasible.
Mr. Culvert stated that a meeting was held with Mr. Belcher and
Dr. Jordan and it was suggested to move it back off the road to
see if that would be feasible but he never heard from Dr. Jordan.
Mr. Bookman stated he felt there were things being said that
would lead to a reasonable solution.
Mr. Robertson inquired if a deferral would be helpful. Mr.
Collins stated this general area is where the facility would have
83-584
to be built. He stated that they would meet with the residents
as they have in the past but nothing was agreed upon at that
time. Mrs. Girone stated that there are some existing parcels
that are commercial and inquired why it could not be moved there.
Mr. Collins stated it was strictly because this parcel was
available; it is not straight commercial use but oriented towards
the agricultural use in the area and it is a need in the
community.
Mr. Bookman stated that it seems the residents would be agreeable
to it being moved 150 feet down the road. Mr Collins stated that
he was not aware of that. Mr. Robertson inquired if the proposed
building could be put to the southside of the present building.
Dr. Jordan stated that if he went south it would have to be on
the location where his house is as there is no other property
available to him. He stated he could not go behind the home as
there is a big ravine but he did not know if he could work around
that. Mr. Robertson stated he did not want to deny the request
as he felt it would be compatible with the area and suggested a
deferral and he would work with the residents in the area and the
applicant.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Robertson,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that his matter be deferred
until November 23, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Robertson stated he would try to work with all concerned to
obtain an agreement during this 30 day period.
83Sl12
In Bermuda Magisterial District, FIRST PIONEER REALTY, INC. re-
quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) of a
25.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,300 feet on Old
Centralia Road and approximately 400 feet on Centralia Road, and
located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these
roads. Tax Map 97-7 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions and
proffers offered by the applicant. Mr. Jeff Collins was present
representing the applicant. He stated that they had met several
times on this application with the area residents. He stated
there was one item that needed clarification that was brought to
his attention today. He stated that during the negotiations with
the residents, the applicants proffered the square footages for
the homes and the applicant now wants the flexibility to build
smaller homes if approved by the architectural committee. He
stated with these square footages being proffered, he had a
feeling that if an application with less footage came before the
Building Officials Office and the Planning Department, they would
say it could not be done. He inquired how this could be
resolved. Mr. Micas stated he did not know if the existing
proffers addressed that. He stated there is a problem changing
proffers at this point but there may be away to address this
concern in the existing proffers.
Mr. Dod~ stated there is a lot of frontage on Old Centralia Road
and inquired if this required right of way to possibly put a road
in. Mr. Collins stated that another request is coming up today
adjacent to this to the west and they have discussed the
possibility of a street being constructed with Mr. Thomas in the
meetings with the Planning Commission. He stated the adjacent
83-585
applicant is being represented by another firm and they have met
with them and discussed that possibility but there are no solid
plans concerning that at this point; however, there is an
understanding that a through street is desirable.
Mrs. Joanne Bogese of First Pioneer Realty stated that they have
met with the area residents and she presented a copy of the deed
restrictions and a copy of a letter that went to Mr. Balderson an~
the Planning Commission. She stated they met with the people and
that is why there is no opposition present. She stated there main
concern was to have the larger houses fronting on Old Centralia
and Centralia Roads but when they got i~nto the back she wanted
the ability ~ construct smaller homes. She stated she did not
understand what the proffer meant but now she realizes that once
the square footage is in the conditions it will have to remain.
She stated that if they want to bring a small home in and the
architectural commit~ne approved it, it would now be unacceptable
because of the proffer. She stated the proffer as proposed now
would defeat the entire purpose.
Mr. Micas stated the proffers from the letter were incorporated
verbatim in the staff report and they create an architectural
committee but they do not give that committee discretion to waive
the square footage and they cannot be changed at this point.
Mr. Daniel stated at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Thomas
indicated that these were minimum square footages, in fact he
made it very clear that these were the minimum living space
requirements. Mrs. Bogese stated that Mr. Thomas attended
several meetings and that it was agreed that the architectural
committee could allow smaller homes on an individual lot basis
and that is why they agreed ~o the larger homes in the front.
Mr. Micas stated that this could be referred back to the Planning
Commission as that was were most of the matters were negotiated.
He stated they could amend the proffers there and would avoid the
legal problem of considering changing the proffers at the Board
level. Mrs. Bogese stated that was agreeable as the square
footage is a problem. Mr. Dodd stated he was not particularly in
favor of R-12 and he would prefer R-15 as this area has some real
impacts. Mrs. Bogese stated the Chester Homeowners agreed with
this as they gave them all brick foundations, plans of what they
intended, etc. She stated the staff report is the intent that
everyone agreed on.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Bookman, resolved that the Board defer consideration of
this matter to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the
proffers.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Balderson indicated it would be on the Planning Commission
agenda in December and would come back to the Board in January.
83S114
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CENTRAL FIDELITY BANK re-
quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of a
35.30 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the south
line of West Providence Road, approximately 1,450 feet west of
Ramsgate Lane. Tax Map 39-5 (1) Parcel. 31 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain proffered conditions.
Mr. Jim Park was present representing the applicant and stated
they are in accord with the proffers and had met with the Bexley
Civic Association. There was no opposition present. Mr. Bookma~
indicated he had not received any complaints or concerns
regarding this matter. Mr. Daniel indicated there was no
opposition at the Planning Commission meeting.
83-586
On motion Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request with acceptance of the following proffered
conditions:
Any subdivision lot abutting Upper Beaver Pond shall have a
lot area of at least 30,000 square feet, a lot width of at
least 125 feet and a rear yard of at least 75 feet. Front
yards shall be at least 50 feet and side yards shall be at
least 20 feet.
Any subdivision lot not abutting Upper Beaver Pond but
situated such that any portion of the lot is within 350 feet
of Upper Beaver Pond shall have a lot area of at least
25,000 square feet and a lot width of at least 115 feet.
Front yards shall be at least 50 feet, side yards shall be
at least 20 feet and rear yards shall be at least 50 feet.
Houses constructed on lots described in ~1) above shall
contain at least 2,000 square feet of floor area if two or
more stories in height and 1,800 square feet if one story
height. Square footage shall be measured exclusive of
decks, porches, stoops, garages and storage areas.
The following proffered conditions shall be incorporated
into the restrictive covenants:
So
Above grade foundations and chimneys for houses
constructed on lots described in (1) above shall be of
brick or stone.
be
No fence shall be constructed in any front yard
area on any lot described in (1) above.
Ce
Storage buildings and garages shall be attached to
houses on all lots described in (1) above·
Houses constructed on lots described in (1) above shall
have permanent roofing surfaces consistent with the
structure's architectural character and be of one of t~
following materials:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cedar shakes or shingles
Concrete shingles or tiles
Clay shingles or tiles
Slate shingles or tiles
Asbestos Supra Slate or other asbestos
look-alike" slate material.
Ail flashing for these roofs shall be copper. Vent
pipes on these roofs shall be so located or otherwise
treated to be relatively inconspicuous.
Vote: Unanimous
83S121
In Bermuda Magisterial District, VALERIE ZAMBRISKI requested re-
zoning from Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O) plus a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the
use (flower and g~ft shop), and bulk requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance on a 0.44 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet
on the south line of West Hundred Road approximately 100 feet
east of Buckingham Street, and better known as 4613 West Hundred
Road. Tax Map 115-10 (2) Snead Curtis Addition, Lots 3 and 4
(Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mrs.
Zambriski was present. Mr. Dodd inquired if this was for retail
sales. Mrs. Zambriski stated it was. There was no opposition
83-587
present. Mr. Dodd stated that although the Planning Commission
approved this request he dissgreed with their decision as no
where in that general vicinity is there retail sales but only
office uses. He stated he felt this would set a precedent for
retail sales in the future. He stated the residents behind this
area have accepted the office use but they were not ready for
retail sales. He stated he h~d received several calls with
regard to this. He ststed he hoped this would not cause a
hardship but he would have to recommend denial.
Mr. Justin Armstrong, a local realtor, stated that there is a
firm contract for sale of this property and not an option. He
stated they had not receive any opposition to this request and he
felt this was an appropriate use. He stated this is a flower and
gift shop and not strictly commercial business. He stated he felt
this fit in with Chester as a village and is more conducive than
a number of offices that could go in there and recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Dodd stated that office use is
acceptable but he could not approve zoning for retail sales and
the people in the area are in agreement with this. He stated
this would set a precedent and another use which could be heavier
would have to be approved. He stated he and the Bermuda District
Supervisor before him have tried to zone this area office without
causing an impact and his word is at stake and he would have to
do what he thought correct. He stated he could approve an office
use today but not retail sales. He stated people do not have any
confidence in government and this is what was stated and he would
have to continue with the reasoning established.
Mr. Bookman inquired if office zoning were acceptable. Mr. Dodd
stated he could approve that today. Mr. Armstrong stated he coul¢
not speak for the owners on that matter today as it might change
the tax structure, etc. Mr. Daniel sug.gested that a deferral or
withdrawal might be in order. Mr. Armstrong stated that he could
not make any decision today regarding this case.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Robertson, resolved that this request be denied.
Vote: Unanimous
83S123
In Dale Magisterial District, LORI I. LTD. PARTNERSHIP requested
an amendment to a previously granted rezoning and Conditional Use
Planned Development (Case 80S124) to permit exceptions to
conditions of zoning and to the bulk requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance on a 20.87 acre parcel fronting approximately 970 feet
on the northeast line of Lori Road, approximately 900 feet
southeast of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-3 (1) Parcel 8 and Tax
Map 95-8 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
of this request subject to certain conditions and proffered
conditions. Mr. Edward Winks was present representing the
applicant. Mr. Daniel stated that the reasons for the amendment
are the reduction of the average square footage and an upgrade of
the townhouse for sale that is to be built and he has been
assured this is a quality development. There was no opposition
present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the two (2) Master
Plans prepared by Edward H. Winks Architecture, dated
6/23/83 and 7/13/83, shall be considered the plan of
development.
83-588
e
The structures shall be similar in architectural style to
and no smaller in size than those depicted in the renderings
and floor plans prepared by Edward H. Winks Architecture,
dated 7/13/83.
No unit shall be smaller than 1,032 gross square feet and
the overall average unit size shall be a minimum of 1,120
gross square feet.
No more than 50% of the interior lots may be reduced to
sixteen (16) feet in width, and in a ten-unit block, no more
than five (5) lots may be reduced to sixteen (16) feet in
width.
The average width of interior lots in blocks of six or more
units shall be eighteen (18) feet or greater.
The average width of end lots shall be thirty-three (33)
feet or greater.
Ail sixteen (16) feet wide interior lots shall have a
minimum of 1,440 square feet. However, the average interior
lot area shall be 1,510 square feet or greater.
Parking spaces may be reduced to a width of nine (9) feet
provided the area saved by the one (1) foot reduction is
provided in landscaped areas, either adjacent to or within
the parking areas. Required setback areas or common areas
may not be calculated as required landscaped area. The
required landscaped area need not be continuous but shall
have at least one (1) tree in each separate area. Each
landscaped area shall have a minimum of 100 square feet, and
a minimum width of ten (10) feet. In conjunction with
schematic plan review, a landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval.
A minimum of two (2) twenty-four (24) foot lanes, face of
curb to face of curb, curb and gutter and a median shall be
constructed along both public road cul-de-sacs. The public
roads shall have a minimum right of way of sixty (60) feet.
10.
The above conditions notwithstanding~ all conditions of Case
80S124 and R-TH bulk requirements shall apply.
And the Board accepted the reaffirmation of the proffered
condition to extend sewer service to the Smith property.
Vote: Unanimous
83S128
In Matoaca Magisterial District, JAMES A. NIMMO requested a
Conditional Use to permit motor vehicle repair in an Agricultural
(A) District on a 0.11 acre parcel which lies approximately 180
feet off the north line of Hickory Road, measured from a point
approximately 400 feet west of Halloway Avenue. Tax Map 173-16
(1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 48).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommend denial
of this request with the applicant to discontinue the business
within thirty days of final action by the Board. Mr. Nimmo was
present and stated that he agreed with everything the Planning
Commission asked that he do but it was still denied. He stated
he is trying to make a living for himself as he was laid off of
work, has had four operations, and he has been unsuccessful in
obtaining employment. He stated he is not asking to open up a
large business but something that can carry him through until he
83-589
could find work. He stated there was no opposition in the
neighborhood. There was no opposition present. ~{r. Robertson
stated the felt this was an opport~]nlty for Mr. Nimmo to
supplement his income and he felt it should be approved for a
period of two years to see how things develop.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following' conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for James A.
Nimmo and shall not be transferable nor run with the land.
This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to
exceed two (2) years from date of approval and may be
renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and demonstration
that the operation has not proven a detriment to adjacent or
area property.
This Conditional Use shall be limited to the operation of an
automobile repair business, exclusively.
No employees, other than the applicant, shall be engaged in
this operation.
Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 7:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No Sunday operation
shall be permitted.
Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two (2)
customer vehicles plus vehicles belonging to the applicant.
All driveways and parking areas shall either be paved or
graveled.
Not more than two (2) customer vehicles shall be permitted
on the property at any one time.
There shall be no additions or alterations to the exterior
of the garage related to this operation.
9. There shall be no signs relative to this use.
10.
11.
12.
No junk automobiles, automobile parts, equipment, supplies
or other miscellaneous items associated with this operation
shall be stored outside the existing garage.
Ail work on automobiles or work on any parts thereof shall
be conducted entirely within the existing garage.
Only customer vehicles awaiting repair and/or pick-up and
employee vehicles shall be parked on this property. There
shall be no vehicles stored on this property which have b~
in accidents and are awaiting insurance estimates.
Vote: Unanimous
83S136
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ARCHITECTONICS, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of
a 7.08 acre parcel fronting approximately 310 feet on the west
line of Turner Road approximately 1,100 feet north of Elkhardt
Road. Tax Map 29-5 (1) Parcels 4 and 5 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Bookman inquired if anyone on the Board had a problem with
him participating in the discussion of this case. He stated he
had received a ruling on the matter. The Board indicated they
did not have any concerns.
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommend denial
of R-9 and approval of R-12 zoning. Mr. Carl Starget, President
83-590
of Architectonics, Inc., stated they agreed with the
recommendation for R-12 zoninq. He stated they had an indication
that R-9 would be acceptable but, after revi. ewing the area, the
Planning Commission recommended R-12.
Mr. Frank Cowen stated that he represented several of the
residents of the area on Turner Road, Mr. and Mrs. Albert
Shoomake, Mr. and Mrs. Owens, Frances Pinnell, Mr. and Mrs. Elmer
Condrey, and Mr. Owen Cravett. He stated they are long term
residents and they would prefer to have the zoning remain as it
is because of the traffic congestion in the area. He stated that
between 11:55 a.m. and 12:00 noon today, 58 cars went by Mr.
Shoomake's home and then again between 12:30 p.m. and 12:33 p.m.,
46 cars went by. He stated in 1979 the property in question,
was to be zoned for a day care center, and staff stated that any
use which would increase traffic in this vicinity should be
prohibited. He stated the sight dj.stance in the area is bad and
any turning movement would be hazardous and the entrance for this
proposed development is in a hazardous area. He stated the
people are concerned because across the street there is an
additional 25 acres and this case would set a precedent for the
area to be developed further. He stated there is undeveloped
land where people could run streets between Ruthers and Turner
Roads and there would be more subdivisions than could be counted.
He stated the people want this to be denied and if this is not
done, to at least let a traffic study be accomplished for 'the
entire area before any decision is made. He stated that he
understands this is a political issue but, to these people~ it is
not political as they have been living there for 30+ years. He
stated it should not be determined on political issues but on its
merits.
Mr. Owen Craddock, present on behalf of! his father who owns a 10
acre parcel to the south, stated he would like to see a planned
study of the area as other land will be developed and he would
like to have something set forth that they can go by. He stated
the Highway Department plans to widen the road and it will be a
hardship on the people in the area when the construction does
take place plus any other building that may be going on. He
stated that the Manchester Fire Department serves that area and
Turner Road is hazardous as he has served with that Department.
He stated any zoning on this road should be deferred until the
road is corrected.
Mr. Dodd stated that in 1979 when he served on the Planning
Commission, Turner Road was discussed on both sides of Route 360.
He stated at that time the County was doing a Bon Air Plan, etc.
and did not want to get into another pi. an. He stated he felt
that some of these areas were changing now such as Turner Road,
Enon Area, etc. and that these issues should be addressed now.
Mr. Starget stated they were aware of the traffic on Turner Road
and the area. He stated there was some concern regarding the
size of lots and frontage which would have 90 ft. with existing
homes having about 130 ft. road frontage. He stated he did not
think they were condensing the area with R-12.
Mr. Daniel inquired when the study would be completed. Mr.
Balderson stated that with current resources it would take 6
months to a year. Mr. Hedrick sta'ted that this would be
expedited and could be completed far sooner than that. Mrs.
Girone suggested having an outside consultant do the study who
would have the most objectivity. She stated there is a problem
with the workload of the Planning staff at this time. Mr. Dodd
questioned whether this should be discussed at this particular
time although he agreed with what she was saying.
Mr. Bookman stated that he lived closer to this property than
other relative, cousins, etc. and it has been blown out of
proportion. He sta~:ed there are 23 parcels between Elkhardt and
Cloverleaf Drive. He stated business zoning is already at the
corner of Cloverleaf Drive. tie stated that he knew when he
83-591
of this request that Turner Road is two-thirds funded for
improvements and it is expected within two years to be four
laned. He stated if each one of these parcels are allowed to
develop onto Turner Road in that maDner, he felt it was poor
planning. He stated we need to consider what we are going to do
with the entire are~. He stated to allow 23 entrances onto
Turner Road, money will be thrown away as we might as well fight
what we have now. He stated he feels a study is necessary now.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred this case for 90 day
and authorized a traffic/land use study to be completed. Should
the study not be completed in that time, the applicants should be
notified as well as all involved to save them from coming down to
the meeting. He stated he felt the study should be accomplished
by an outside firm in this case. He stated it is a sensitive
area and it needs careful consideration. He stated he felt the
decision in 1979 not to ~to ~nything until Turner Road was
improved was wise. He s~ated the study may recommend residential
but because he felt commercial might be a good idea, he did not
gamble with that, ~l~tt ~s why he asked for the study as it is a
whole lot of land in the area. He stated the people are
suffering from a tremendous build up of traffic and to blindly
start developing subdivisions is not appropriate. Mr. Daniel
inquired if an appropriation were also necessary for the study.
Mr. Hedrick stated he thought there were funds within his
discretion to complete the study but if it runs over that he
would have to come back to the Board for consideration.
Mrs. Girone seconded the motion.
Vote: Unanimous
83S137
In Dale Magisterial District, CENTRALIA ASSOCIATES requested re-
zoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 5 acre
parcel fronting approximately 400 feet on the north line of
Centralia Road approximately 1,050 feet east of Iron Bridge Road
Tax Map 96-9 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. A representative of the applicant was
present. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved this request.
Vote: Unanimous
83S138
In Bermuda Magisterial District, GLENN F. PERKINS requested re-
zoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) of a 50 acre
parcel fronting approximately 950 feet on the south line of
Centratia Road approximately 1,250 feet east of Chester Road and
also fronting approximately 900 feet on the east line of Chester
Road approximately 1,250 feet south of Centralia Road. Tax Map
97-6 (1) Parcel I0 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to acceptance of the proffered
conditions. Mr. Jim Hayes, was present representing the
applicant. He stated they are aware there is concern for anothe~
road from Centralia Road to Chester Road and they have talked
83-592
with Mr. Townes' office concerning their planning for a
subdivision in tha~ area. He stated they plan to continue
working with them to make sure the plans are compatible and
whatever comes before the Planning Commission concerning the
layout of the land and the traffic plans is compatible. He
stated they certainly expect their development to be compatible
with the existing homes in the area with regard to the proffered
conditions. He stated particularly the square footage which is
always a concern. Mr. Dodd stated he would like something firm
regarding the road. Mr. Hayes inquire(] if Mr. Dodd had any
suggestion since no subdivision plan had been prepared at this
time. He stated the topography is extremely rolling and it is
indicative on the soils map with a creek, a swamp, etc. He
stated this would preclude a road coming in that direction. He
stated south on the old Shirley plan may be an appropriate place.
He stated they have no problem with connectin~ the access to
Chester Road but they cannot go all the way to Old Centralia Road
because they don't own the Froperty. Mr. Balderson stated that
the property could be zoned today with the access issue resolved
but the normal process would be to go through the subdivision
procedure. He stated that another parcel was under consideration
earlier which went back to the Planning Commission so that they
could renegotiate the proffers. He stated the question now is
accessing the property and that could be handled through the
subdivision of this and staff could come up with a reasonable
collector street plan dealing with these two properties. He
stated the other alternative is to send it back to the Planning
Commission for Conditional Use I,and Development which would be a
combination of rezoning the property and developing a subdivision
tentative plan all in one request.
Mr. Hayes stated that Mr. Thomas had requested approximately the
same thing as Mr. Dodd in his desire to have that road planned
which they certainly will do. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd stated that he originally thought this was a R-15 area
but if the road can be accomplished a lot of it will be R-15 lots
and if the road can be nailed down he could concede some square
footage.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request subject to the following proffered conditions and
directed the Planning Commission, when they approved the
subdivision plans for this area to tie these two parcels together
for additional access to Old Centralia Road:
1. County sewer and water will be used for all development.
2. Minimum square footage for homes as follows:
a)
b)
c)
Ranchers - 1400 sq. ft. finished
Cape cods & Tri-levels - 1600 sq. ft. with 1000 sq. ft
finished.
Two stories - 1800 sq. ft. with 900 sq. ft. finished.
The following shall be incorporated into the Declaration of
Restrictions and recorded with the subdivision plat:
a. No lot shall be used other than for residential
purposes. Only one residence may be constructed on each
plated lot as recorded, nor shall said plated lots be
subdivided or re-subdivided.
b. Exclusive of the main dwelling, no building, structure,
outbuilding, playhouse, fence or wall shall be erected,
placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans
and specifications and a plan showing the location of the
same have been filed w~th and approved by the Architectural
Control Committee as to square footage, quality of
workmanship and materials, harmony of exterior design and/or
color with existing structures, and as to location with
respect to topography and finished grade elevation.
83-593
c. The Architectural Control Committee is composed of the
following persons: Don Farren, Jr., Glenn Perkins, Paul
Barr, Ernie Taylor, and one other selected by developers and
home owners. The Architectural Control Committee will act
only in the event any item in the Declaration of Re-
strictions is not complied with. In the event of a death or
resignation of any member of this Committee, a replacement
will be appointed by the side that lost the member.
d. The committee's approval or disapproval as required in
these proposed restrictions shall be in writing. In the
event the committee or its designated representative fails
to approve or disapprove within 30 days after plans and
specifications have been submitted to it, or in any event,
if no suit to enjoin the cons%ruction or alteration, after
notice in writing of said construction has been received by
said committee, approval will not be required and the
related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully
complied with.
e. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public
view on any lot except that one sign of not more than seven
square feet advertising the property for sale or rent may be
displayed; two signs used by a builder to advertise the
property during construction and sales period may also be
displayed; also, one sign may be displayed at the entrance
of subdivision of not more than twenty-four square feet.
f. No trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn or other
outbuildings erected on any lot shall at any time be used as
a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any
structure of a temporary character be used as a residence;
provided, however, this clause shall not be construed to
prevent domestic held quarters being installed over a
detached garage or other outbuilding.
g. No homeowner's trailer shall be parked over 12 hours in
any one week on any lot or driveway so as to be visible from
the street.
h. No live stock, cattle, hogs, or goats, any dog kennel
as defined by ~he Chesterfield County Code in existence as
of the date of the recordation of these restrictions shall
be allowed on any lot, nor shall any noxious or offensive
trade or activity be carried on thereon, nor shall anything
be done thereon which shall be or become an annoyance or
nuisance to a good residential neighborhood.
i. No lots shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground
for rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste shall be kept
in sanitary containers. All incinerators or other equipment
for the storage or disposal of such materials shall be kept
in a clean and sanitary condition in rear yards only. Trash
to be picked up by public or private service shall be kept
outside the bounds of any road in the subdivision and kept
wholly on the individual lots.
j. No horse or pony shall be stabled or pastured on any
lot or parcel of land.
k. No unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked on any lot
herein for more than 60 days unless it is parked in an
enclosed garage.
1. No trees measuring six inches or more in diameter at a
point two feet above ground level may be removed without the
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
Approval for the removal of trees located within fifteen
feet of the main dwelling or accessory buildings will be
83-594
granted unless such removal will substantially increase the
beauty of the property. This shall not apply to clearing
right of ways, and/or easements, for construction of
roadways, drainage and utilities, or for garden or trailer
space.
m. The following are prohibited until it has been approved
by the Architectural Control Committee:
No fence shall be erected, placed, or altered on
any lot.
0
No antenna other than a television antenna shall
be installed.
No swimming pool shall be constructed above
ground.
No single story main structure shall be of slab
construction.
No masonry other than brick or stone shall be left
exposed on any structure.
n. Restrictive covenant requiring exterior finish
materials to be one of the following:
2.
3.
4.
Beaded Hardboard Siding
Woodsman Siding
Wood Siding
Brick Veneer
o. Ail utilities are to be underground.
p. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be
binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them
for a period of twenty (20) years for the date these
covenants are recorded, after which time said covenants
shall be automatically extended for an additional period of
ten (10) years unless an instrument signed by a majority of
the then owners of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to
change said covenants in whole or in part.
q. Once developer sells land, he is no longer responsible
for these covenants.
Vote: Unanimous
83S139
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BARBARA S. POWELL requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) of a 1
acre parcel fronting approximately 175 feet on the east line of
Grove Road approximately 1,250 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike
and better known as 731 Grove Road. Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny
Acres, Lots 28 and 30 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the representative of the applicant is
and the case will not have to be taken out of sequence. He
stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this
request. Mr. Earl Nance was present representing the applicant.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr Bookman, the Board
approved this request.
Vote: Unanimous
83-595
83S140
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WILLIAM B· DUVAL requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) of 61.8
acres and to ResidentTial (R-15) of 38 acres plus a Conditional
Use Planned Development encompassing the entire 99.8 acre tract
to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. This parcel fronts approximately 220 feet on the
northeast line of Hicks Road approximately 800 feet northwest of
Cardiff Lane. Tax Map 39-3 (1) Part. of Parcel 3; Tax Map 39-6
(1) Parts of Parcels 9 and 23; and Tax Map 39-7 (1) Parts of
Parcels 1 and 4. (Sheet 14).
Mr. Bookman stated he ha¢l a potential conflict of interest as his
son is doing business with t~he applicant and excused himself from
the meeting.
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions and
acceptance of proffered conditions by the applicant·
Mr. Delmonte Lewis was present representing the applicant. He
stated they had met with residents of the area and they do concur
with the recommendations. Mr. Ted McGary representing the
resident committee who met with them on the project was present.
Mr. Daniel stated at the Planning Commission there was no
opposition. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, ~he plan prepared
by Lewis and Owens, Inc., dated July 25, 1983, and textual
statement, shall be considered the master plan.
Forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of Hicks Road, for %he entire length of the
property abutting the road, shall be dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
Prior to recordation of the subdivision plat, a detailed
plan for the Hicks Road access showing pavement widths
including turn lanes, existing and proposed right of way and
easements, and sight distance profiles shall be submitted to
and approved by the Planning Department and VDH&T.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
following exceptions to the R-12 and R-J5 bulk requirements
shall be grantor, d:
Parcel A (R-15)
Se
A 2,500 square foot exception to the required 15,000
square foot lot requirement. Fifty (50) percent of the
total number of lots shall be 15,000 square feet or
larger and the average lot size shall be a minimum of
25,700 square feet.
A fifteen (15) foot exception to the 100 foot front
width requirement at the established building line on
maximum of 10% of the lots and a ten (10) foot
exception on the remaining lots. The record plat sha~
designate those lots which are to be developed with
fifteen (15) foot lot width exception.
83-596
Parcel B (R-12)
A 2,500 square foot exception to the required 12,000
square foot lot requirement. Fifty (50) percent of the
total number of lots shall be 12,000 square feet or
larger and the average lot size shall be a minimum of
12,500 square feet.
A fifteen (15) foot exception to the ninety (90) foot
front width requirement at the established building
line.
A two (2) foot exception to the ten (10) foot side yard
setback requirement.
A five (5) foot exception to the corner side yard
setback requirement of twenty (20) feet when back to
back and thirty (30) feet when back to side.
Density in Parcel A shall not exceed 1.7 lots per acre and
in Parcel B 2.85 lots per acre.
The following proffered conditions shall be incorporated
into the restrictive covenants and shall be recorded with
the subdivision plat:
No home shall be erected or altered on any lots until
the construction plans have been approved in writing by
an Architectural Control Committee. Particular
attention shall be given to quality and types of
material, exterior design, harmony with existing homes
and location with respect to topography and finish
grade. One member of the Committee shall be selected
from the Surreywood Civic Association. This member's
sole responsibility shall be to insure that all
restrictive covenants and proffered conditions are
adhered to.
mw
There shall be a minimum of 70% of homes with more than
one story (two story or 1% story). There will be no
more than 25% ranch style homes and no more than 5%
tri-level homes. No ranch style homes will be built on
adjoining lots. There shall be no bi-level or split
foyer homes allowed.
Each house shall include an attached utility storage
area.
Ail houses must have some exterior appurtenance on
either the front or side elevation such as, stoops,
porches, decks or breezeways. These exterior
appurtenances must have a minimum of 40 square feet.
No fences shall be permitted between the residence and
the street line. Split rail fences or other wooden
fences may be built between the rear of the house and
the rear lot line. The split rail fences may be backed
with wire to provide animal retention. There shall be
no metal or chain link fences; permitted.
Ail visible foundations shall be constructed of brick
only on all exterior walls.
Ail exterior chimneys shall be constructed of brick
only.
h. No prefabricated houses will be erected on any lots.
No aluminum siding will be used with the exception of
aluminum trim.
83-597
All windows shall be double hung with wooden mullenso
Storm windows and by windows of standard construction
will be allowed.
ko
Roof pitch except for covered porches shall have a
minimum of 5" rise per foot.
All one and one-half (1%) story homes will have at
least one corner window.
Prior to recordation, the restrictive covenants shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
And further that the following proffered conditions be accepted:
There shall be no clearing or other disturbance of the area
within the 100 year flood plain except utility and drainage
easements. The flood plain area shall otherwise remain in
its present natural state.
2. Ail homes shall conform to ~ colonial architectural style.
3. Size of Homes
The following minimum square footage shall govern house
size. Attached covered porches, covered stoops,
breezeways and garages shall not be included in
computing minimum square footage.
Parcel A (R-15)
One story (ranch style) - 1,500 gross square feet
Two story or 1% story - 950 gross feet on first floor with
a total of 1,800 gross square feet
Tri-level - 880 gross square feet on ground floor level
Parcel B (R-12)
One story (ranch style) - 1,056 gross square fee%
Two story or 1% story - 830 gross square feet on first
floor with s total of 1,400 gross
square feet
Tri-level - 880 gross square feet on ground floor level
Thirty (30) lots in the northernmost sect~ioD of Parcel A
(i.e., adjacent to the Hudson Property) shall be recorded at
the same time, or as, the first section which goes to
record.
A ten (10) foot buffer shall be recorded along the south
line of Parcel B, Lots 19 and 20, Block D. This buffer
shall be for the sole purpose of precluding access to Dowd
Lane.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Gironeo
Absent: Mr. Bookman.
Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting.
83S145
In Matoaca Magisterial District, V. C. Supetran requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit medical and
professional offices in a Residential (R-7) District on a 1 acre
parcel fronting approximately 125 feet on the west line of Iron
Bridge Road approximately 2,700 feet north of Lewis Road. Tax
Map 114-1 (1) part of parcel 1 (Sheet 31).
83-598
Mr. Balderson stated tile Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jeff Collins was
present representing the applicant and pointed out that the
subject parcel to the immed~a~e north went through a conditional
use in the past and at that point ii1 time a common entrance was
required for the adjacent parcel to the south and they will be
using that common entrance to serve this parcel. He stated the
property is not owned by the Shoosmith family but by Spencer,
Inc. and there is no problem with the conditions as recommended.
Mrs. Girone stated that she di¢~ not want ~:o see Route 10 become
another Route 60 with str~'~ zoning and felt the area should be
planned but she did not have a problem with the zoning case. Mr.
Balderson stated that he had met with the individuals who are
interested in the remainder of the site and they have indicated
they would like to come in with some a~ditional land use and
would do it under a plan so he felt they were moving toward that
plan. Mr. Collins stated they ]lad approached him regardir~g a
plan for the parcel south of this piece. ~r. Dodd stated that
staff is looking at a restrictive sign ordinance in Midlothian
and he would like to see this happen between the Courthouse and
Chester before it is too la~e. Mr. Bal. derson stated that this
study is moving along and it could be applicable County-wide. Mr.
Daniel stated that he has stated publicly that he will not zone
on Route 10 until there is a plan. He stated if it is there you
can use it, if it is new he would talk about it. He stated there
has not been any development from the Courthouse to the City
limits for the past several years.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notw~thstanding, the site plan
prepared by Charles Townes and Associates, dated July 14,
1983, shall be considered the plan of development.
A turn lane, twenty-six (26) feet from the centerline of the
southbound lane of Route 10, with curb and gutter, shall be
constructed along the Route 10 ~rontage. This lane shall be
constructed to VDH&T standards and taken into the State
system prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
0
A single access shall be permitted to Route 10. This access
shall be located at the northernmost property line and shall
be constructed so as to permit shared access with adjacent
development to the north.
The building shall be constructed of materials other than
cinder block or metal. The specific design and colors shall
be approved by the Planning Comr~!ission in conjunction with
schematic plan review.
One freestanding sign shall be permitted to identify this
use. The total aggregate square footage of signs shall not
exceed 0.5 square feet for each one foot of Route 10
frontage. Business signs may be illuminated, but shall not
be luminous. Prior to erection of any signs, colored
renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval.
In conjunction with schematic plan review, a site
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval. Plants shall consist of ornamental
trees and shrubs.
The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk
requirements of the Convenience Business (B-l) District
shall be applicable. (Note: This requires a twenty (20)
foot side yard building setback.)
Vote: Unanimous
83-599
83S147
In CloveY Hill Magisterial District, SANDRA W. ACREE requested
renewal of a previously granted Conditional Use (Case #80S075) to
permit a family day care home (9 children) in a Residential (R-7)
District on a 0.5 acre parcel fronting approximately forty (40)
feet on Wenatchee Court approximately 300 feet east of Wenatchee
Road, and better known as 9901Wenatchee Court. Tax Map 27-8 (6)
Reams Run, Section B, Block B, Lot 1] (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Ms. Acre~
stated there was no opposition to this request and the conditions
were agreeable. She stated that the Planning Commission had
approved this without a time limit and she would like this
approved as well. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve
this request without any time limits subject to the following
conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Sandra W.
Acree, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run
with the land.
No more than nine (9) children (exclusive of the applicant's
children) shall be cared for at any one time.
3. No signs shall be permitted.
A minimum of three (3) graveled parking spaces shall be
provided on site. These spaces shall be in addition to the
parking spaces for the applicant's vehicles.
Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No Sunday o~
shall be permitted.
Vote: Unanimous
21. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went
Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and litigation
involving Solow vs. Chesterfield County as permitted by Section
2.1-344 (a) (1) and (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, %he Board adj
at 4:45 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on November 9, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
Richhrd L. HedriCk
County Administrator
83-600