11-23-1983 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
November 23, 1983
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. J. Royall Robertson, Chairman
Mr. C. L. Bookman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Supervisors Absent:
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Vice Chairman
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. William Diggs, Real
'Estate Assessor
Mr. Elmer Hodge, ASSto
County Administrator
Mr. Joe Horbal, Asst.
Comm. of Revenue
Mr. William Howell, Dir.
of General Services
Mrs. Mary L. Lyle,
Internal Auditor
Mr. Robert Masden, Diro
of Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Env. Engineer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir.
of Community Develop.
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of
Budget and Accounting
Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of
Social Services
Mr. Robert Wagenknecht,
Dir. of Libraries
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.
of Utilities
It is here noted that the work session scheduled for November 18,
1983 at 10:00 a.m. was cancelled.
Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
10:05 a.m. (EST).
Mr. Robertson introduced Reverend William D. Mills, Jr., Pastor
of Enon Baptist Church, who gave the invocation.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, tke Board
approved the minutes of October 26, 1983, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the minutes of November 9, 1983, as submitted.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Abstention: Mr. Bookman because he was not present at that
meeting.
83-621
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR? S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mrs. Elizabeth Welchons of the Woman's
Club of Chester· Mrs. Welchons introduced Mrs. Dodson, Mrs. Pool
and Mrs. Wood who were also present representing the Club. She
presented the Board with an Historical Coloring Book of
Chesterfield County which was their most recent project· She
stated that it shares the cultural heritage with the children of
today and the future and the proceeds will be used for
educational purposes. The Board expressed appreciation for the
books. ' -.
Mr. Hodge introduced Mrs. Mary Lou Lyle who was recently selected
to serve on the Municipal FiDance Officers Association's
Certificate of Conformance Special Review Committee. He stated
this Committee would review the audit reports of the various
localities throughout the Country. Mrs. Lyle stated she was
proud to have achieved this for the County as well as for
herself. She stated that she hoped she would be beneficial to
the Committee but she looked forward to the benefit that will
accrue to the County because of this national recognition and
because of the wealth of information that she would have access
to on financial reporting. She stated her appreciation for the
Board's and management's support of this endeavor. The Board
congratulated Mrs. Lyle on this accomplishment.
3. RECOGNITION OF YOUTH SERVICES AWARDS
Mrs. Pau].ine Mitchell introduced Mr. Lee Deal, President of the
Optimist Club of James River. Mr. Deal stated he represented both
the Optimist Club of James River and the Youth Services
Commission who co-sponsored the Youth Services Award evening
which was held at Gates Elementary School. He stated that six
individuals were honored--Elizabeth Klement who attends John
Tyler Community College; Latricia Ann Perlowski who attends
Manchester High School; Robert Joyner who attends Matoaca High
School; Almedia "Doily" Bell who attends the Chesterfield
Technical Center, Patrick Williams who attends Trinity Episcopal
High School and Timothy Booth who attends Lloyd C. Bird High
School. He stated only two of the youth were able to be here
today. He gave a brief description of the accomplishments of the
recognized individuals and why they were selected. The Board
congratulated the students on their selection as recipients of
the Youth Services Awards.
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
· Mitchell introduced Mr. William Townsend, Director of
Dnal and Adult Education for Chesterfield County Schools.
· Townsend stated that Dr. Kurt Koerber, a West German
iaiist is the founder and owner of Hauni-Werke, Koerber
Co. of Hamburg, West Germany which manufactures machinery for
tobacco industry. He stated that he and former Governor John
met, planned and started this student exchange program
years ago. He stated the purpose of this program was to
~romote vocational and cultural relations on both sides of the
Atlantic. He stated this is the only program in the world
exclusively designed for vocational students. He stated four
~ears ago there were 10 students who went to West Germany and now
there are 40 students, 25 from the United States to West Germany
~nd 15 coming from West Germany to the United States. He stated
the program is expanding to include other companies in both
~ountries such as Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds. He
introduced Diana Schnoor, Torsten Moeller, Michael Weinrich,
~orbert Fock, Carsten Meier, Jurqen Wintzen and Sven Bunger. He
~riefly summarized the background of each student. Mr. Hedrick
~tated the Board would be having lunch with the students today
chich would present an opportunity to talk with each one about
~heir experience in the United States. The Board welcomed each
student to the County.
83-622
Mr. Hedrick stated Mr~ Paul Ellsworth had been appointed as the
new Director of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce effective
December 19, 1983. He stated he currently is employed in
Albuquerque, New Me×~co.
Mr. Hedrick stated that the Board has a work session scheduled at
11:00 a.m. in Room 502 to discuss the County's Proposed
Legislative Program. He stated also the Board should reschedule
a work session which was not held on November 18, 1983 to discuss
Powhite Parkway. The Board generally agreed to set this date
later in the day.
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Dave Young with Channel 8, who was
substituting for Barbara Berlin.
Mrs. Girone stated that Mrs. Pauline Mitchell has done a fine job
notifying the media of the law regarding leaf burning. She
stated that she felt the County was doing better because leaf
burning has been eliminated on weekends but she had received a
call from a resident who has a son who cannot tolerate the smoke,
has been in the hospital and has accumulated an enormous bill.
She stated while the County is doing better, this still is a
problem affecting people's health. Mr. Daniel inquired if any
action were necessary. Mrs. Girone stated that she did not feel
this could be addressed today but hoped that citizens would
realize when there is a lot of smoke, to wait and burn another
day, not burn wet leaves, etc.
4. RESOLUTIONS
4.A. PROCLAIMING DECEMBER AS READING MONTH
Dr. John Galloway, Asst. School Superintendent, commended the
Board on the proposed resolution proclaiming December as Reading
Month in Chesterfield. He stated that in Chesterfield each day
is dedicated to reading. He introduced Mrs. Jean Copeland,
Supervisor of Primary Language Arts and coordinator f6r the
Reading Month activities. Mrs. Copeland stated that they are
excited about the activities which are planned in all the schools
She invited the Board to go to the schools to read with or to
some of the children. She stated some of the highlights would be
the conducting of an activity chart at each school showing the
number of books read, poster contests, children dressing as
characters in books, slogan contests, etc. She stated that three
of the classes in the County have been invited to the General
Assembly Building on December 1, 1983 which is the kick off day
for Reading Month and Mrs. Charles Robb will be reading to those
children and they will participate in the state-wide launch of
balloons at the Capital.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, Governor Charles S. Robb has declared December,
1983 as Reading Month in Virginia; and
Whereas, Reading undergirds thinking which enhances
excellence and creativity in the pursuit of academic, vocational,
technological and leisure goals; and
Whereas, Reading enhances intellectual and personal growth,
and advances understanding and communication between individuals
and the family, school, community, state, nation and world; and
Whereas, Reading must be promoted by the cooperative
efforts of educators, parents, representatives of business and
industry, and members of community and professional organizations
if its lifelong benefits are to be realized.
83-623
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that 'the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby designatas the month of December,
1983, as Chesterfield Reading Month and urges all County citizens
to take this opportunity to promote and participate in the
enjoyment and extension of reading as an integral part of their
lives.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Robertson presented the resolution to Dr. Galloway.
Galloway expressed appreciation for this recognition.
Dr.
4.B. PROCLAIMING PEARL HARBOR REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Hedrick stated the proposed resolution proclaiming Pearl
Harbor Remembrance Day had been requested by the Pearl Harbor
Survivors Association, Inc. He stated the Governor of Virginia
had also endorsed this designation.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, December 7, 1983 will mark the 42nd Anniversary of
the attack on Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii; and
Whereas, This Anniversary is a reminder of the vigilance
and preparedness which our Nation must maintain; and
Whereas, We owe a great debt to those members of the Armed
Forces who lost their lives in that attack, and also to those who
survived and aided in carrying out their duties to the ultimate
victory.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors that December 7, 1983 be proclaimed Pearl
Harbor Remembrance Day and calls its significance to the
attention of all our citizens.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
5. ENERGYSHARE PROGR3LM
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Jim Marilla with the Virginia Electric
and Power Company who was present. Mr. Marilla stated that Mr.
Bill Berry, President of Vepco, would be making a public
announcement about a new fuel assistance energyshare program
which is designed to help people in need pay their home energy
bills. He stated the funds will come from four sources--the
customers will be asked to add $1, $2 or $5 to their electric
bill, the Vepco employees will be asked to participate in a
payroll deduction program, large industrial and commercial
customers and fuel suppliers will be asked to contribute by
becoming energyshare partners, and Dominion Resources which is
their parent holding company has contributed up to $50,000 in
matching energy credits and up to $50,000 to assist local
agencies with their administrative costs. He stated anyone
living in the Vepco service area and meeting the eligibility
guidelines can receive these funds. He stated they can receive
up to one $600 payment which can be applied toward~ electric,
gas, wood, oil, etc. or whatever their primary source of fuel is.
He stated the program would be administered through the United
Way of Greater Richmond and in Chesterfield, the Red Cross
83-624
will be the distributing agency. He stated this will supplement
the Fuel Assistance Program now in effect in the Social Services
Department. He presented the ~oard with pamphlets outlining
additional details regarding the program.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, EnergyShare is a full assistance program to help
the needy pay their home energy bills in the service areas of
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) and Virginia Natural
Gas (VNG); and
Whereas, Funds for EnergyShare come from voluntary
contributions from customers of VEPCO and VNG as well as from
other industries and energy suppliers; and
Whereas, These companies have devised a system whereby
their customers may contribute through their monthly bills to
those less fortunate; and
Whereas, Funds contributed will be used to assist needy
persons pay for home energy needs for electricity, gas, wood,
oil, etc.; and
Whereas, This program will assist many needy people in
Chesterfield County this winter.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County that VEPCO and VNG are hereby commended
for their creative leadership and civic mindedness in helping
meet this critical need in their service areas; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the employees and citizens of
Chesterfield County are urged to participate in this salutary
program to assist the needy with their home energy requirements.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
The Board presented Mr. Marilla with the resolution. Mr. Marilla
expressed appreciation to the Board for their favorable
consideration of this matter.
6. PERSONNEL FOR REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Mr. Hodge stated this request for additional personnel is the
result of the up-swing in the economy and development has
increased. He stated two additional assessors are needed to
cover the County during the annual assessment process. Mr.
Daniel inquired if there were any unfilled positions which would
not have the priority of this request. Mr. Hedrick stated
unfilled positions are audited before they are filled but some
positions are vacant because of turnover and the County is in the
process of filling those. He stated some are being held because
it is felt they are unnecessary for operations. Mr. Daniel
inquired if it would be appropriate to use those funds for the
positions which are being held, to fund these positions. Mr.
Hedrick stated that when the budget was completed, a certain
amount was deducted from the budget for turnover and
anticipation of holding positions. He stated there may be
unexpended funds at the end of the year but i% would be difficult
to identify those funds at this point.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the establishment of two additional field appraiser
positions which will be filled January 1, 1984 for the Real
Estate Assessor's Office which cost is estimated at $25,405 and
is to be expended from the General Fund Contingency. It is noted
that these funds should be recovered from increased revenues from
the land use program and commercial assessments.
83-625
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Hedrick recognized Mr. Diggs, Real Estate Assessor, who was
present.
7. INDIRECT COST RECOVERY PROGRAM
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a
contract for the County's Indirect Cost Recovery Program with
David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. for three years which fee
will be $11,570 for the first year and $11,000 for the following
two years which fees are payable only if recoveries are realized
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Ramsey indicated recoveries made last year amounted to
$161,242.
8. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES
8.A. ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set
the date of January 11, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing
to consider an ordinance amending Section 12-116 of the Code of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to business license
taxes for commission merchants and itinerant merchants.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
8.B. ORDINANCE RELATING TO CENTRAL ABSENTEE VOTER DISTRICT
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set
the date of January 11, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing
to consider an ordinance to amend Section 7.1-1 of the Code of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to establishing a
central absentee voter district.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
9. APPOINTMENTS/RESIGNATIONS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
accepted the resignation of Mr. Richard Blanton from the Board of
Directors of the Richmond Metropolitan Authority effective
immediately and that consideration of a replacement be deferred
until December 14, 1983.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
10. CONSENT ITEMS
'~0.A. BINGO/RAFFLE PERMITS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved bingo/raffle permits for the Olaker Ballet Company for
calendar year 1983 and for the Richmond James River Lions Club,
the Chester Civitan Club, St. Edward's Knights of Columbus
Council 6456 and the Clover Hill High School Keynotes for
calendar year 1984.
83-626
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd. '
10.B. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Chepstow Road, Newgate Road, Heathland Drive,
Heathland Terrace and Chepstow Court in Salisbury, Litenfield and
Heathland-A Sections, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Chepstow Road, New¢
Road, Heathland Drive, Heathland Terrace and Chepstow Court in
Salisbury, Litenfield and Heathland-A Sections, Midlothian
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Chepstow Road, beginning at
intersection with Winterfield Road, State Route 714, and going
.09 mile westerly to intersection with Newgate Road, then
continues .11 mile westerly to intersection with Chepstow Court,
then continues .11 mile westerly to intersection with Heathland
Drive, then continues .03 mile to tie into proposed Chepstow
Road, Section B of Salisbury, Heathland; Newgate Road, beginning
at intersection with Chepstow Road~and going .13 mile southerly,
then road turns and continues .23 mile westerly to intersection
with Heathland Drive; Heathland Drive, beginning at intersection
with Newgate Road and going .08 mile northerly to intersection
with Chepstow Road, the continues .18 mile northerly to
intersection with Heathland Terrace, then continues .10 mile
northerly to a cul-de-sac; Heathland Terrace, beginning at
intersection with Heathland Drive and going .12 mile
southeasterly to a cul-de-sac; Chepstow Court, beginning at
intersection with Chepstow Road and going .07 mile northerly to a
cul-de-sac. These roads serve 72 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft.
right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Salisbury
are recorded as follows:
Litenfield Section, Plat Book 38, Page 33, March 4, ].981.
Heathland-A Section, Plat Book 40, Pages 51 and 52, Jan 11,
1982. ·
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs Girone
Mr. Dodd. ' '
day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
Dns from this Board, made report in writing upon his
~tion of Smoketree Drive, Smoketree Circle and Smoketree
in Smoketree, Sections H-1 and H-2, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone,
ed by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Smoketree Drive,
.ree Circle and Smoketree Terrace in Smoketree, Sections H-1
H-2, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established
public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
,s and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
into the Secondary System, Smoketree Drive, beginning at its
ction with Smoketree Drive, State Route 2770, and
ree Place, State Route 3101, extending northwest ,09 mile
the intersection of Smoketree Circle, then continues north .11
83-627
mile to the intersection of Smoketree Terrace, then north .06
mile to the intersection with Avebury Drive, State Route 2566,
and Durrington Drive, State Route 2785; Smoketree Circle,
beginning at its intersection with Smoketree Drive, extending
northeast .05 mile to a cul-de-sac; Smoketree Terrace, beginning
at its intersection with Smoketree Drive, extending west .06 mile
to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 24 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft.
right-of-way for these roads except Smoketree Drive, whereby we
guarantee a variable 60 ft. to 80 ft. right-of-way. These
sections of Smoketree are recorded as follows:
Section H-i, Plat Book 42, Page 12, December 8, 1982.
Section H-2, Plat Book 42, Page 59, February 25, 1983.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Smoketree South Parkway, Porters Mill Road,
Porters Mill Court, Lockett Ridge Road, Lockett Ridge Place,
Lockett Ridge Avenue and Lockett Ridge Court in Smoketree South,
Section B, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Smoketree South
Parkway, Porters Mill Road, Porters Mill Court, Lockett Ridge
Road, Lockett Ridge Place, Lockett Ridge Avenue, and Lockett
Ridge Court in Smoketree South, Section B, Clover Hill District,
be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Smoketree South Parkway,
beginning at its intersection with Lucks Lane, State Route 720,
extending south .08 mile to the intersection of Lockett Ridge
Avenue, then southwest .07 mile to the intersection of Porters
Mill Road; Porters Mill Road, beginning at its intersection with
Smoketree South Parkway, extending southeast .05 mile to the
intersection of Porters Mill Court, then southeast .03 mile to
intersection of Lockett Ridge Road; Porters Mill Court, beginning
at its intersection with Porters Mill Road, extending southerly
.11 mile to a cul-de-sac; Lockett Ridge Road, beginning at its
intersection with Porters Mill Road, extending northeast .13 mile
to the intersection of Lockett Ridge Place, then northwest .05
mile to the intersection of Lockett Ridge Avenue, then northwest
.08 mile to a cul-de-sac; Lockett Ridge Place, beginning at its
intersection with Lockett Ridge Road, extending east .05 mile to
a cul-de-sac; Lockett Ridge Avenue, beginning at its intersection
with Lockett Ridge Road, extending southwest .06 mile to the
intersection of Lockett Ridge Court, then west .05 mile to the
intersection of Smoketree South Parkway; Lockett Ridge Court,
beginning at its intersection with Lockett Ridge Avenue,
extending south .04 mile to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 85
lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft.
right-of-way for all of these roads except Smoketree South
Parkway which has a 60 ft. right-of-way and Lockett Ridge Court
which has a 40 ft. right-of-way. This section of Smoketree South
is recorded as follows:
Section B, Plat Book 40, Pages 8 and 9, November 4, 1981.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83-628
10.C. AUTOMATE CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S PAYROLl.
Mr. Ramsey stated that the Circuit Court Clerk had requested that
his office payroll be printed through the County's automated
payroll system. He stated the Board should appropriate the
payroll of $175,000 in order that these funds flow through the
County's accounting records. He stated this appropriation would
be totally offset by revenue and there was no additional cost
involved. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the
Board increased revenues and the appropriation for the Circuit
Court Clerk's Office by $175,000 for the remainder of the fiscal
year in order to handle this office's payroll by the County
accounting system. -
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone
Absent: Mr. Dodd. '
11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
~i.A. ST. LEGER SQUARE PROPOSAL FOR POWHITE PARKWAY
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of the St. Leger Square proposal for
Powhite Parkway/Route 288 until DeCember 14 1983 at the request
of Mr. John Smith. '
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone
Absent: Mr. Dodd. ·
I1.B. APPROPRIATION FOR PAVED DITCH ON WHITE BARK TERRACE
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board:
1. Appropriated $3,325.00 from 111-1-00880-0000 Industrial Park
Reserve Account.
e
Authorized the payment of $3,325.00 to Kenbridge Building
Systems for the installation of approximately 150 ft. of
paved ditch on White Bark Terrace.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
ll.C. LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SERVICES
Mr. Hedrick stated this request was basically to authorize the
transfers and enter into contracts for the studies approved
previously by the Board for the Turner Road and Enon areas. Mr.
Balderson presented the proposals and stated the variation in
prices is because of the land area and magnitude of the studies.
Mr. Bookman inquired about the study for the Powhite/Genito area.
Mr. Balderson stated staff is going through the process now and
is conducting interviews for the selection of a consultant for
this study. He stated a memo was sent dated November 16, 1983
outliDing the Scheduling of events to occur. He stated it was
expected that the results would be brought to the Board at the
December 14, 1983 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded Mr. Daniel, the Board:
1. Authorized the County Administrator to enter into contract
with Harland Bartholomew and Associates for the Turner Road
Study in an amount not to exceed $15,248.
2. Authorized the County Administrator to enter into contract
with Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates, Inc. for the Enon
Study Area in an amount not to exceed $22,265.
Transferred $15,248 from the General Fund Contingency for
the Turner Road Land Use and Transportation Study.
Transferred $22,265 from the General Fund Contingency for
the Enon Land Use and TranspOrtation Study.
83-629
0
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
ll.D. STREET LIGHT COST INSTALLATION APPROVAl.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved the installation cost of $409 for a street light to be
located at 4533 Haymarket Lane with funds to be expended from the
Dale District Street Light Funds.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs Gironeo
Absent: Mr. Dodd. '
ll.E. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
deferred consideration of street light requests in Thompson
Estates and at the intersection of Ken Drive and Ecoff Avenue
until December 14, 1983 when the Supervisor of the District would
be present.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone
Absent: Mr. Dodd. '
12.
12 .A.
UTILITIES ITEMS
SEWER AND WATER FINANCIAL STATUS REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer
financial status reports.
12.B. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR EAST AVENUE ROAD PROJECT
Mr. Daniel inquired if there had been previous condemnation
actions regarding this project. Mr. Welchons stated there had.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
denied the counteroffer of $25,000 and authorized the County
Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the
following property owners if the amount as set opposite their
names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the
County Administrator notify said property owners by certified
mail of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the
property which is to be the subject of said condemnation
proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be and
it hereby is declared in full force and effect immediately upon
passage. ~
Carlton A. and Renzal M. Palmer
Deed Book 1085,
Page 404, Tax Map
118-13(1)-6
$905.00
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
12 .C.
12.C.1.
CONSENT ITEMS
WATER CONTRACT, QUEENSMILL, SECTION E-]
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W83-129CD/6(8)3295 - Queensmill, Section E-1
Developer: Queensmill Corporation
Contractor: Best Backhoe and Excavating, Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $98,080.70
Estimated County Cost: 36,897.70 Cash Refund
17,850.00 Refund through connections
54,747.70
Estimated Developer Cost: $43,333.00
Code:. 559-1-00556-0000
83-630
And further the Board appropriated $40,587.47 from 563 surplus to
380-1-63295-7212 which includes a 10% contingency.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
12.C.2. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT ALONG ROUTE 1 AND HAPPY HILL ROAD
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman and County Administrator to
execute any necessary easement agreements for Vepco along
Jefferson Davis Highway and Happy Hill Road which is necessary
for Vepco to relocate poles for safety improvements at the
intersection.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
12.D. REPORT OF DEVELOPER WATER AND S~ER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
13. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick stated the Highway Department had formally notified
the County that the roads in the following subdivisions had been
officially accepted into the State Secondary System effective
November 15, 1983:
Lost Forest, Section B
Windwood Lane - Beginning at the intersection with
Bent Wood Lane and running easterly 0.03 mile to tie
into existing Windwood Lane, Route 2836, in Lost
Forest, Section C.
0.03 mi.
Forest Acres Lane - Beginning at the intersection with
Bent Wood Lane and running westerly 0.03 mile to tie
into proposed Forest Acres Lane in Centralia Gardens.
0.03 mi.
Bent Wood Lane - Beginning at the northwestern end
of existing Bent Wood Lane, Route 1908, at its
intersection with Forest Acres Lane in Lost Forest,
Section B and running northerly 0.03 mile to the
intersection with Windwood Lane, then continuing
northerly 0.03 mile to tie into existing Bent Wood
Lane, Route 1908, in Lost Forest, Section D.
0.06 mi.
Lost Forest Drive - Beginning at the northern end of
existing Lost Forest Drive, Route 1910, in Lost
Forest, Section B, and running northerly 0.01 mile
to tie into existing Lost Forest Drive, Route 1910,
in Lost Forest, Section C.
0.01 mi.
Lost Forest, Section D
Cedarbend Lane - Beginning at the intersection with
Lost Forest Drive, Route 1910, and running southwesterly
0.12 mile to the intersection with Bent Wood Lane.
0.12 mi.
83-631
Bent Wood Lane - Beginning at the northern end of
State maintained BentWood Lane, Route 1172, and
running northerly 0.03 mile to the intersection
with Bent Wood Court, then continuing northerly
0.06 mile to the intersection with Cedarbend Lane,
then continuing northerly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-
de-sac.
Bent Wood Court - Beginning at the intersection with
Bent Wood Lane and running easterly 0.04 mile to end
in a cul-de-sac.
~engt~h
0.15 mi.
0.04 mi.
14. WORK SESSION ON LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Hedrick stated originally it was planned that the work
session would be held in Room 502 but if there were no
objections, it would be held here in the Board Room.
Mr. Micas stated that he would briefly explain the two JLARC
studies which may potentially and adversely affect the County's
financial resources and funding from the State. He stated he
would also be reviewing the package of legislative issues which
is an unabridged version of ideas from department directors and
the Board may not want to sponsor all at the General Assembly.
He stated on December 7, 1983 the Board will be meeting with the
legislative delegation and the Board may wish to amend the list
as submitted.
Mr. Micas stated the JLARC study on state aid to localities made
two major conclusions that will affect Chesterfield. He stated
first, they identified a funding disparity from the State to
localities between counties and cities. He stated there was a
difference in State aid between cities and localities in that
counties receive $122 more per capita than cities. He stated of
that $122, $92 was determined as a disparity in additional state
funding for highways in counties and the majority of the
remaining difference, $30 was a disparity in educational funding.
He stated the focus of the Municipal League and the cities will
be to create new sources of revenue so that this disparity in
education between cities and counties can then be transferred
directly to cities. He stated from the County's point of view,
we will ask our legislators to be conscious of any attempts to
create additional or change funding formulas that will adversely
affect Chesterfield. He stated in addition, they also concluded
that cities were subject to greater fiscal stress than counties.
He stated they determined there is a greater percentage of
elderly and those in need in cities~ and JLARC concluded that
this difference could justify additional and greater funding from
the state. He stated that one thing that JLARC failed to point
out was that the existing federal programs already dramatically
favor cities in terms of funding formulas, for example, revenue
sharing, HUD grants, block grants, etc.
He stated the JLARC report on highways in its form last year made
a number of recommendations and, if adopted by the General
Assembly, would adversely affect the County's existing formula
for highway funding. He stated after last year's report, JLARC
went back and not only studied construction funding from state to
localities but also operations and maintenance funding and will
issue a report in about a month which will include amended
recommendations on highway funding for construction as well as
operations and maintenance. He stated that the County has reason
to believe that many of those conclusions made last year will be
included in the report which will be issued shortly and, if
adopted, will adversely affect Chesterfield. He stated we will
again request the legislators to be conscious of any changes that
may be suggested to implement recommendations of the JLARC
83-632
study on highway funding.
He stated these two studies will more than likely be addressed by
the General Assembly in the 1984 session. He stated the JLARC
studies address both reallocation of existing money and creation
of new sources of money and the County should be concerned about
both issues.
Mr. Micas presented the Board with the proposed 1984 Legislative
program. He briefly reviewed the highlights and key items on th,
list. Mr. Bookman stated he had some questions regarding #2 and
the apartment gross receipts tax. Mr. Micas stated that
currently owners of real estate complexes provide rental housing
and do not pay any business license tax and the question arose if
this was equitable when all other businesses have to pay taxes.
Mr. Bookman stated he is in the mobile home business, but he did
not see any difference between the rental of a mobile home and ar
apartment. Mr. Hedrick stated that when the legislators are
presented With the list, that this item be addressed as far as
equity between the two.
Mr. Micas stated that 912 seeks to increase ability of localitie~
to contribute up to 25% of general revenue sharing funds, not to
exceed $500,000, to be matched by the Highway Department provide~
that the total funds available from the Department should not
exceed $5,000,000. He stated in the past the Highway Department
has objected because they felt it might induce a run on the
secondary and primary road funds. He stated that the County has
put in a state-wide cap which should eliminate their objection t¢
the bill but they may find another objection. Mr. Hedrick stated
that Fairfax County will be asking for a bill this year to allow
for match of funding regardless of source so it would not be
restricted to revenue sharing. He stated they had a bond issue
for a certain amount and they may try to obtain matching funds.
Mr. Daniel inquired if Chesterfield should do the same thing.
Mr. Micas stated that we could change the recommendation and
eliminate the requirement that it be tied to revenue sharing but
in the past we have always felt it would create a red flag which
would not be wise. He stated that Fairfax receives more in
revenue sharing and he questioned if this were a desirable
legislative tactic to eliminate that requirement.
Mr. Micas stated that Item 923 regarding involuntary commitments
to State hospitals unless the State funds any additional costs
was very important. Mrs. Girone stated that the committees and
the entire body of VACO had adopted a resolution requesting the
State funding. Mr. Micas stated that they are becoming very
sophisticated to where the mandates do not look like mandates and
restrictions, but looks like a minor change in procedure but in
reality requires additional local funding. Mrs. Girone stated
the entire issue should be addressed and perhaps restated.
Mr. Micas stated that 924 opposes the reduction in administrative
reimbursement by the State for local social services
departments from 80% to 71%. Mrs. Girone stated there should be
a big emphasis on this matter. She stated the Social Services
Board decided that they would like to have a separate legislatiw
breakfast meeting in the near future but a date has not yet been
selected.
Mr. Daniel stated that the School System should consider having a
formalized structure of itemizing the issues that are important
to them as well. He suggested that Mr. Hedrick
contact Dr. Sullins and advise him of the procedure for the
legislative program and obtain their comments and input. Mr.
Micas stated Mr. Masden has continuing contact with the School
System.
83-633
Mr. Micas stated that #34 would provide for a statute of
limitations of 90 days for contesting zoning decisions. The
Board agreed that this statute of limitations should be amended
to 30 days.
Mrs. Girone stated that she felt several items might be
categorized as priority items. She stated some are minor items
that need to be addressed while others are top priority. Mr.
Micas stated that he would categorize priority items which would
be sent to the Board prior to it being sent to the legislative
delegation and then if the Board has additional priority items,
they can be added. He stated as the list stands now, this will
be submitted to the legislative delegation unless the Board has
changes. There were no additional changes mentioned. Mr. Micas
stated that the most effective approach is for the elected
officials to participate in the legislative program and represent
issues.
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION - LEGAL MATTERS
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went
into Executive Session to consult with legal counsel on legal
matters relating to the Uniform Statewide Building Code and
Fralin and Waldron vs. Chesterfield County and to consider the
condition, acquisition or use of real property for public purposes
as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) and (2), respectively,
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Reconvening:
The Board recessed for lunch at the Vo-Tech Center with the Hauni
Students.
Reconvening;
16. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES
83SR195
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Lonnie and Betty Bolton
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 79-14 (1) Parcel 8 and
better known as 9012 Shawonodasee Road (Sheet 22).
Ms. Bolton was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request for a period of five years subject to the
following standard conditions:
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.
t
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
n.ot be placed on a permanent foundation.
83-634
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available the,
shall be used. '
6o
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.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83SR191
In Dale Magisterial District, Betty Stephenson requested renewal
of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
she owns. Tax Map 66-1 (3) Ampthill Gardens, Section 2, Lot 48
and better known as 6515 Hill Road (Sheet 22).
Ms. Stephenson was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Daniel, 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.
e
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.
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
So
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
Dot be placed on a permanent foundation.
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.
Ayes:
Absent:
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Dodd.
83SR193
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Elsa A. Small requested renewal
of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to E. Hicks, brother of the applicant. Tax Map 97-4 (2)
Central Park, Block 12, Lots 20-23 and better known as 10125
Beaumont Avenue.
83-635
A gentleman was present representing the applicant. There was n(
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr.
Roberts·n, 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
Dot 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.
Ayes: Mr. Roberts·n, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83SR192
In Dale Magisterial District, Paul D. Maxwell, Sr. requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
whiCh he owns. Tax Map 52-11 (1) Parcel 4 and better known as
4507 Cogbill Road (Sheet 15).
Mr. Maxwell was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Roberts·n, 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.
0
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available they
shall be used. '
83-636
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.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83SR194
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Aubrey W. Minson, II requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which belongs to Aubrey Minson, father of the applicant. Tax Map
149-13 (3) Ivey Tract, ~]ock B, Lot 10A, llA and 12 and better
known as 15902 Meridian Avenue (Sheet 41).
Mr. Minson was present. 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 ].eased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
3e
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) 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.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83SRI96
In Matoaca Magisterial District, James and Vivian Crane
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 79-14 (1) Parcel 9 and
better known as 9006 Shawonodasee Road (Sheet 22).
Mrs. Crane was present. 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:
83-637
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 mob
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to
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 the
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.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone
Absent: Mr. Dodd. '
83S197
In Bermuda Magisterial District, William D. Sandy requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to J. Alexander, employer of the applicant. Tax Map
116-2 (1) Parcel 25 and better known as 12030 Jefferson Davis
Highway (Sheet 32).
Mrs. Sandy was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Daniel, 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. '
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.
83-638
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs Girone
Absent: Mr. Dodd. ' '
17. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
83S167
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JOE M. DUGGINS requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a multi-family
dwelling (3 units) in a Community Business (B-2) District on a
0.55 acre parcel fronting.approximately 115 feet on the east line
of Perrymont Road, approximately 100 feet south of Chester Road,
and better known as 8511 Perrymont Road. Tax Map 81-4 (1) Parce
18 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of
this application. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr.
Robertson, the Board accepted the request of the applicant for
withdrawal of this case.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
A~sent: Mr. Dodd.
83S160
In Bermuda Magisterial District, MARTIN E. WHITLEY requested a
Conditional Use to permit a stock farm (goats and donkeys) in a
Residential (R-7) District on an 8.0 acre parcel fronting
approximately 280 feet on the north line of Swineford Road
approximately 250 feet east of its intersection with Westwood
Street. Tax Map 53-15 (1) Parcels 2 and 20 (Sheets 16 and 23).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 60 day
deferral of this request. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until January 25, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
82S096
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROCK PORT LAND COMPANY AND
REALTY FEASIBILITY & MARKETING CORP. requested rezoning from
Agricultural (A) of 3.5 acres; and Residential (R-12) of 12.8
acres to Residential Townhouse-For-Sale of 16.3 acres; plus a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the
bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a parcel which lies
approximately 280 feet off the west line of Courthouse Road,
measured from a point approximately 1,900 feet south of its
intersection with Hull Street Road. Tax Map 49-11 (1) Part of
Parcels 14 and 16 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to certain condition's and
the proffered condition with deletion of references to water
lines. Mr. Balderson stated the proffered conditions submitted
by the applicant are noted in the staff report. He stated there
is a reduction in densitY from 115 to 98 units as well as a site
plan indicating that reduction. Mr. Bookman inquired if the
developer is still restricted to 40 units prior to providing a
second access. Mr. Balderson stated 50 units is normal. Mr.
Jeff Collins stated that Condition #9 states 50 and that is
acceptable. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
83-639
e
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan
prepared by Charles C. Townes and Associates, revised June
8, 1983, shall be considered the plan of development.
A maximum of 98 units shall be permitted.
Conditions stated herein notwithstanding, all bulk
requirements of the Residential Townhouse-For-Sale (R-TH)
District shall be applicable.
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
eastern and southern property lines. All existing
vegetation, except underbrush, shall be maintained within
this buffer. Existing vegetation shall be supplemented with
additional plantings, and/or berming to provide effective
year-round screening. As part of schematic plan approval, a
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted. Landscaping of these buffer areas shall be
accomplished in conjunction with phasing of development.
Ail public roads shall have a minimum fifty (50) foot right
of way.
Ail public roads shall have a pavement width not less than
forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. These roads
shall be constructed to VDH&T specifications and taken into
the State system prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Proposed Heatherwood Lane shall be stubbed into adjacent
property to ~the west. At the terminus of the road, a
temporary turnaround shall be constructed to State
specifications.
No grading, clearing or other construction shall be
permitted until such time that all approved construction
easements and right of way are obtained for the Courthouse
Road/Heatherwood Lane intersection.
e
10.
11.
No more than fifty (50) building permits shall be issued
until a second public road access is provided.
Should VDH&T and Planning Staff determine that Cobblestone
Court will not be extended as a public road, a permanent
cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the northern terminus, a~
the developer's expense, and accepted into the State system.
When a second public road access is provided, the remaining
fifty-five (55) building permits may be issued. Prior to
obtaining occupancy for the last fifty-five (55) units, the
second public road access shall be taken into the State
system.
12.
If desired by the property owner, the driveway to Tax Map
49-12 (1) Parcel 24 shall be relocated at the expense of the
developer to provide access to Heatherwood Lane.
And further the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
A water and sewer line shall be extended to the' houses on
along Courthouse Road. This is to be one (1) water and one
(1) sewer line, stubbed off in a location that would permit
these homeowners to connect to the system at their expense.
We will agree to a maximum of 6 units per acre.
We will agree to a maximum of 2 facades alike on any one
building.
4. We will agree to a maximum of 10 units to each building.
83-640
Ayes:
Absent:
We will agree to a minimum of 1,000 square feet for each
unit (townhouse).
We will agree to exterior material of either cedar siding,
hardboard siding, brick, or a combination of the three.
Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Dodd.
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).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this case. He stated it was deferred by the Board of
Supervisors in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to
review the request and work with the Supervisor and area
residents· He stated there has been an amended plan submitted to
the Planning Department relocating the facility further to the
southeast. Mr. Micas stated since the compromise is to move the
location of the rezoned parcel, the Board should readvertise and
hear this at the next meeting. Mr. Jeff Collins was present
representing the applicant.
Mrs. Elizabeth Colbert inquired if Dr. Jordan could hire an
additional veterinarian to help him at this location. Mr. Micas
stated he could hire someone else unless this is specifically
addressed. Dr. Jordan stated he would like to leave this open as
he would like someone to help on his days off and it would not be
expanding the practice or facilities in anyway. Mrs. Colbert
inquired if the conditions recommended would be applied to the
new location. Mr. Micas stated that wa~ the intent. Mrs.
Colbert inquired if the mobile unit would be allowed to park near
the road for advertising. Mr. Balderson stated the site plan
shows all the parking behind the lot or beside the building.
Mrs. Colbert inquired if he would be allowed to operate his
mobile unit when the clinic is opened or would all the work be
handled in the clinic. Mr. Bookman stated he would have to do
all the work in the clinic or the unit. Mrs. Colbert stated the
neighbors would also like Dr. Jordan to remove the two sheds on
the newly proposed site.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
authorized staff to readvertise this request for January 25, 1984
because of the site location change and with the change in the
amendment allowing a veterinarian to assist Dr. Jordan on his
days off.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S129
In Matoaca Magisterial District, LEONARD COX requested a Condi-
tional Use to permit a boarding house (9 tenants) in a
83-641
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).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this
case and recommended denial. Mr. John Dicks was present
representing the applicant. He stated there are several
concerns. He stated that Bremo Avenue is not a street, but a
dirt alley and due to some sewer construction work several years
ago, it is not in the shape it should be. He stated the
recommendation of denial primarily relates to the concern over
the alley way. He stated that they propose to include parking
behind the structure rather than on-street parking and stated he
had presented Mr. Robertson with copies of letters from the
neighboring residents who are now agreeable. He stated this is
compatible with the neighborhood. He stated the reason the
deferral was requested, was to allow him and Mr. Robertson to see
if there were any reserve sewer funds held to fix areas such as
this when not completed as required. He stated they are
satisfied that there are no such funds. He stated the applicant
is prepared to accept the zoning for the intended use with the
stipulation that no occupants of this dwelling would be allowed
to have automobiles until the road situation is resolved. He
stated it would cost $2,500 to pave from Bremo Avenue to the
parking area but there is also a question regarding the
right-of-way access which has existed for over 20 years. He
stated the applicant would like approval as originally proposed
by the Planning staff with the exception that the applicant,
instead of being required to pave Bremo Avenue, would agree that
none of the occupants could have automobiles until such time as
the applicant either was in a financial position to make
arrangements to pave the road or either the road came into the
State System.
Mr. Bookman inquired why the utility contractor did not pave this
and/or why funds were not held and requested that an answer be
provided.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Micas stated that if this is approved, the condition should
be that the applicant will not allow any tenants to have
automobiles until such time as the road .is paved or taken into
the State System as it is inappropriate to tie it to the
applicant's financial condition.
Mr. Balderson stated the zoning ordinance does require that the
applicant provide at least five parking spaces and those parking
spaces be paved. Mr. Dicks stated that they would be agreeable
to pave the spaces even if they would not be able to use them in
order to satisfy the zoning requirements.
Mr. Robertson stated that he had mixed feelings about the
situation. He stated the neighbors are complimentary about the
present tenant of the building, some are concerned about nine
students occupying the residences, etc. He stated he was
concerned with the paving as well as changing this from a 2
family unit to a building with 9 occupants. Mr. Bookman stated
someone is responsible for repaying the street if they put in
sewer and did not return it to the proper shape. Mr. Robertson
stated this is an alley, but there is a question as to whether or
not it was ever paved. He stated he had reviewed pictures
83-642
which indicate it was not paved but reputable neighbors stated it
was paved. Mr. Hedrick stated that the Utilities Department
feels fairly confident that the alley was put back in its
original condition and maybe a little better, however, there is a
difference of opinion between the Utilities Department and the
neighbors. Mr. Bookman suggested a deferral to decide if the
Utilities Department and the new owner could divide the paving
cost since there is a debate as to what did or did not exist.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Robertson,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this request be deferred
until January 25, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dicks inquired if the street situation were resolved, would
that answer all questions. Mr. Robertson stated that he would
not be on the Board in January and he could not speak for the new
Supervisor. Mr. Hedrick stated that if restoration is made, it
would have to be funded from the Utilities Department as he did
not feel there would be grounds to go back to the contractor.
83S091 (Amended)
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SIGMA DEVELOPMENT, INC. re-
quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of
approximately 50.5 acres and to Office Business (O) of
approximately 34.5 acres with a Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit use and bulk exceptions to the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. This property fronts approximately
2,400 feet on the west line of Chippenham Parkway and located
approximately 1,100 feet north of Midlothian Turnpike. This
property also fronts the east line of Chinaberry Drive and is
located approximately 550 feet north of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax
Maps 19-9 (1) Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 and 19-13 (1) Parts of
Parcels 4 and 5 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. He stated since receipt
of the staff report by the Board, the applicants have submitted
requested amendments to conditions 933, 34 and 40b. A copy of
the amendments were distributed to the Board.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr. was present representing Sigma
Development. He stated this 85 acre tract adjoins the already
approved Boulders Office Park and that the 34.5 acres which
adjoins Chippenham Parkway would be an extension of the Boulders
Office Park and would be developed in accordance with that zoning
case. He stated the apartments would be on a 50.5 acres which
would surround tw9 sides of a very attractive lake and would
house 285 apartments. He stated the intensity of use would be
lower than established by the zoning ordinance. He stated the
differences which existed have been resolved except for the
letter that has been presented. He stated that staff felt the
location of the apartments was inconsistent with their thinking.
He stated the Planning Commission indicated the location of
apartments suggested by the applicants was appropriate. He
stated the amendment to 40b can be eliminated as that can be
resolved within the discretionary definition of facility for
which they had substituted clubhouse. He stated the two changes
which the applicant would like considered are: ~3. changing to
permit 14 units per building instead of 10; and 934. to eliminate
the requirement for a third access. He stated the original
application may have required a third access but with the revised
plan, there is no need for a third access.
83-643
Mr. Balderson stated there is a requirement in the subdivision
ordinance to provide a third access after 239 units. Mr. Willey
stated there would be no use of the ].and to the west of the
powerline except to put the main entrance through at the point
designated as second access point. Mrs. Girone inquired how this
would affect the office area. Mr. Willey stated the access woul,~
be further out Chinaberry Drive in conjunction with the extension
of Boulders I. He stated the idea being you do not want traffic
from the office going through the apartment complex. He stated
the Planning Commission, based on the traffic study that was
provided to the staff by Wilbur Smith an~ Associates, designed
140 units or one-half be built until another access out to
Midlothian or other streets was provided. He stated the report
indicates that there would be one car more every 12 minutes if
you went from 140 to 285. He stated he did not feel this was an
imposition on the traffic pattern and and it was economically
impossible to develop in two phases. He stated they would like a
waiver to this as well. He requested the Board approve the
report of the Planning Commission recommending the 285
apartments, the 220,000 square feet of offices which comes fully
within all conditions with the Boulders I, that the applicant
have slight dispensation of the number of units developed from 10
to 14 per building, and that the applicant be allowed to have
only two accesses to the apartment project instead of three.
Mrs. Girone inquired if staff would have any problem with the siz~
of the buildings. Mr. Balderson indicated, given the design, it
was acceptable.
Mr. Robert Henley, representing B.F.M.L. Associates, the LynMar
Company, PH Corporation, M.K. Realty Corporation and ROD
Corporation was present. He presented and read a letter which
indicated that his clients have an interest in the property which
surrounds this proposed development. He stated B.F.M.L.
Associates owns Beaufont Mall, LynMar owns Chesterfield Village
Apartments and ROD Corporation and MK own property to the north
of the property. He stated his clients' opposition to the
proposed rezoning is not to the land use concept but to the
related aspects. He stated that they would request the Board to
deny this request unless the following concerns are addressed
through conditions: 1. Water run-off and drainage; 2. an
assurance that the undeveloped parcel remain undeveloped, and 3.
the traffic. He stated there are some minor objections as well
but these are the most significant. He stated that he felt Sigma
had approached a large scale zoning in a piecemeal fashion but
that it should be considered as one development and suggested
that a condition be included which would state that no building
permit be issued on Boulders II until the road network is
completed and additional access is developed in addition to the
present Chinaberry Drive-Midlothian Intersection; that the
applicant be required to fully retain storm water runoff from
Boulders II; that there be a certification that the dam is
presently safe and require the developer to maintain the dam in
the future at his expense with a bond to be posted to insure
compliance; that an open space easement be deeded over the
parcel west of the power line to restrict future development; and
that access to Carnation Drive should be required at the expense
of the developers. He stated this rezoning presents the last
83-644
opportunity for the Board to require a connection to Carnation
Drive as this is the last piece of property lying against
Carnation Drive. (A copy of the entire letter is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
There was no one else present to discuss this matter.
Mrs. Girone stated that she felt the Planning Commission's
conditions were very good with the exception of the phasing. She
stated she felt phasing was good and it has its place, but she
did not see any advantage of phasing at this particular site.
She inquired through what process does the new Chinaberry become
part of this. Mr. Balderson stated the developer would have to
submit a schematic plan to the Planning Commission for the road
realignment in conjunction with approval for the apartments
through the site plan review process. Mr. Bookman inquired if
the dam is sufficient to hold the runoff or will the Corps of
Engineers inspect a dam of this nature. Mr. Balderson stated
they do not as a rule, but there are some questions relative to
the water runoff and the use of the pond as a partial retention
during construction. He stated those would be reviewed by the
Environmental Engineering Department as part of the normal
process and will be addressed in some detail at that point. He
stated as far as the security of the dam, that is not addressed
but it is the developers responsibility to see to it. Mr.
Bookman stated that before all the runoff goes into the pond,
will someone certify that the pond is capable of handling the
runoff. Mrs. Girone stated that she understood that this is
standard procedure for the Environmental Engineering Department.
Mr. Hedrick stated that it was and, in addition, under certain
conditions if it endangers life below the dam, the State Water
Control Board also has jurisdiction and staff does check this
through the respective agencies. He stated it will be
accomplished during the site plan review process.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved this request subject to he following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the textual
statement dated September 2, 1983 shall be considered the
plan of development.
The Residential (R-7) tract shall be limited to the
development of a maximum of 285 multi-family units on 34.5
acres, subject to phasing in accordance with the conditions
stated herein.
o
The Office Business (0) tract may be developed for a maxi
of 220,000 square feet of office space (10% maximum for
medical space).
e
At the time of schematic plan approval, the Planning
Commission may approve a decrease in office space and an
increase in medical space prOvided documentation is
submitted which proves that traffic generated by the
change does not exceed that generated by 220,000 square
feet of office space.
Office space shall be considered those uses permitted in
Office Business (0) District plus the following:
be
coffee shops and cafeterias located in the same
building or'structure housing general offices;
restaurant, exclusive of fast food or drive-in,
facilities contained within a separate building or
structure;
83-645
Be
e
e
10.
banking facilities, including drive-ins, when contained
in separate buildings;
health club, including indoor court facilities, con-
tained in the same building housing general offices;
e. business schools.
(This condition supersedes Article XIV, O Office Business
District, §21-148, (a) through (m) of the Textual
Statement.)
Building permits for no more than 285 multi-family units may
be issued with sole access to Route 60 via Chinaberry Drive.
Prior to release of any temporary or final occupancy
permits, the following improvements shall be constructed and
VDH&T inspection approved:
Se
Improvement to Route 60 and Chinaberry Drive
intersection.
Chinaberry Drive reconstructed to four lanes from Rou~.e
60 to its intersection with the northernmost access
point into the multi-family development.
Prior to schematic plan approval for any office use, the
following shall be accomplished:
Construction plans for improvements to Jahnke Road; the
Powhite/Jahnke interchange; the Chippenham/Jahnke
interchange; access between this property and Jahnke
Road, and extending turn lanes at the intersection of
Jahnke and Buford Roads to accommodate traffic from
this development shall be approved by the County and
VDH&T Staffs in accordance with the Jahnke-Chippenham
Development Area Study, prepared by PRC Voorhees and
any adopted County plans.
be
Funding for the aforementioned improvements shall be
committed, as determined by County and VDH&T Staffs.
The exact design of intersections described in Condition ~6
shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of
schematic plan review and such improvements shall be so
constructed as to yield no lesser level of service
(inclusive of development traffic) than currently exists·
Prior to release of any building permits for any office
uses, a contract for cons%ruction of the road improvements
specified in Condition ~6 shall be let.
Prior to the release of any temporary or final occupancy
permits for any office uses, the improvements specified in
Condition #6 shall be constructed and VDH&T inspection
approved.
Other than construction traffic, there shall be no access
Jahnke Road until the road improvements specified in
Condition 96 are complete, as determined by County Staff.
Construction traffic via Jahnke Road shall be confined to
the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Furthermore, if it
becomes necessary, due to complaints from area citizens,
these hours shall be modified at the request of the
Staff.
83-646
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
No schematic plan approval shall be granted for any site
that conflicts with proposed roads incorporated in an
adopted County plan. Rights of way for connecting
Chinaberry Drive to Beaufont Mall and Carnation Drive shall
be dedicated to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted,
prior to the issuance of the first building permit. This
requirement may be modified by the Planning Commission at
the time of schematic plan approval.
Ail State-maintained roads shall have a minimum thirty-six
(36) feet of pavement and curb and gutter, except as noted
herein. The VDH&T and/or the Planning Commission may
require additional pavement.
The Chinaberry Drive typical section shall be designed and
constructed with forty-eight (48) feet of pavement
(excluding the width of the gutter pan), curb and gutter and
a divided median.
The developer shall construct right-turn lanes along
Chinaberry Drive at major intersections, as warranted by
VDH&T, during the entrance permit process.
If the vertical alignment of Chinaberry Drive does not meet
VDH&T's design criteria, the developer shall install street
lights according to Vepco's and VDH&T's specifications to
provide adequate lighting for sight distance at night. The
developer shall be responsible for installation,
maintenance, and operating costs.
Approval of the master plan does not imply that the County
gives final approval of any particular road section.
Working interpretations of any and all conditions and/or
exceptions to the application shall be made by the Planning
Commission at the request of the Planning Department upon
submission, review and approval of schematic plans, as
required by ~21-34 (1) (4)c of the Zoning Ordinance.
Furthermore, the Commission may conditionally approve
schematic plans to ascertain that 'they will be in confor-
mance with the approved master plan and other applicable
Ordinances.
Except where expressly referred to herein, approval of this
application does not guarantee that the developer can build
or construct facilities in the future in accordance with
present regulations. If County standards are more or less
restrictive than those established herein, the County may
require construction to adhere to the more restrictive
standards.
A copy of any covenants, deed restrictions and amendments
related to the property owner's association shall be
approved by the Planning Department and the County
Attorney's Office for adherence to County Ordinances prior
to recordation of such documents.
No uses shall be permitted which would use any water or
sewer system other than the Chesterfield County public
utilities system. Approval of this request does not
obligate the County to extend water or sewer lines. All
extensions and necessary improvement costs shall be borne by
the developer. Prior to construction, water and sewer plans
shall be submitted to and approved by the Utilities
Department. (U)~
Notwithstanding the exceptions to use and bulk regulations
granted herein, approval of the application by the Board of
Supervisors does not obligate the Planning Commission to
approve a particular schematic plan which is not in
conformance with the spirit, intent and purpose of this
request.
83-647
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
The number and location of fire hydrants shall be determined
by the Chesterfield Fire Department. The developer shall
bear the cost for installation of hydrants. (FP)
All utility lines shall be provided with underground
distribution.
All private drives (where there is no adjacent parking)
shall be paved to a width of not less than 25 feet with curb
and gutter. Depending upon the particular situation, this
condition may be modified at the time of schematic plsn
review.
Ail exterior lighting shall be low level. The design of
light fixtures shall be approved by the Planning Commission
in conjunction with schematic plan review.
The applicant and/or developer shall provide an accurate
account of the drainage situation showing existing drainage
and the impact individual ~racts, as they are developed,
will have on that tract as well as the surrounding area.
The developer shall submit plans for on- and off-site
drainage control to Environmental Engineering for approval.
These plans shall explain the method and facilities to be
utilized in the hydraulic engineering of the project and
shall be approved by Environmental Engineering prior to land
clearing. Environmental Engineering may impose conditions,
requirements or measures which it deems necessary to insure
that proper drainage control is provided and maintained.
The approved plan shall be implemented in whatever stages or
phases acceptable to and necessary as determined by En-
vironmental Engineering. (EE)
The applicant and/or developer shall submit plans to
Environmental Engineering for erosion and sediment control
for individual tracts as they are developed. Such plans are
to be comprised of vegetative and engineering practices to
be utilized as erosion and sediment control measures for the
project. Generally, such practices shall be those outlined
in the Virginia Soils and Water Conservation Commission's
"Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 2nd Edition, 1980."
Additional requirements and measures may be instituted by
Environmental Engineering upon review of the plans. The
plans shall be approved by Environmental Engineering and
implemented prior to the clearin~ of any land, cutting of
any trees or other disturbance of the parcel's natural
state. (EE)
No structure shall exceed a height of six (6) stories.
(This condition supersedes Article III, Division 4, Section
21-38 Generally (C) of the Textual Statement.)
Directional signs or park directories shall not exceed 100
square feet in area. (This condition is in addition to
Directional Signs/Park Directories of the Textual
Statement.)
Freestanding signs shall be limited to two (2) faces. (This
condition is in addition %o Freestanding Identity Signs of
the Textual Statement.)
Building signs shall be limited to one company name and/or
company logo and shall be affixed so as not to project more
than eighteen (18) inches from the building structure.
(This condition supersedes Building Signs 2 and 4 of the
Textual Statement.)
Prior to, or in conjunction with, the first schematic plan
review, a plan for the preservation and maintenance of
Beaufont Springs shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval.
83-648
33. The total number of dwelling units in any one building or
such structure shall not exceed fourteen (14) and no
structure shall exceed a length of 200 feet.
34. A second public road access shall be provided and
constructed prior to occupancy of the 51st dwelling unit.
35. In the multi-family tract, buildings 'shall be set back a
minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from all public streets,
private drives and entrances.
36.
37.
In the multi-family tract, all structures shall set back a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet from any parking space.
In the multi-family tract, sidewalks shall be provided and
shown on the plan at the discretion of the Planning
Department. Such sidewalks shall have a width of at least
four feet.
38.
In the multi-family tract, parking spaces shall be provided
at a ratio of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. A centrally
located storage area for boats, trucks, campers, travel and
utility trailers shall be provided, the total of which may
be subtracted from the total number of required parking
spaces.
39.
Ail multi-family structures shall be separated by a minimum
of thirty (30) feet.
40.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan review in the
multi-family tract, a plan showing recreational facilities
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
These plans shall include at least:
two (2) tennis courts which shall be provided and
constructed in conjunction with the first 100
multi-family units and
a community building and swimming pool which shall be
provided and constructed in conjunction with more than
100 multi-family units.
41.
Where multi-family units abut a public road, the buildings
shall front the public road or the rear of buildings shall
be screened from view of the public road.
42.
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained around the
perimeter of the Residential (R-7) District. At the time of
schematic plan review, a plan for the treatment of these
buffer areas shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval. Other than approved access points to
Chinaberry Drive and signs permitted herein, there shall be
no facilities permitted in these buffer areas.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S120
In Midlothian Magisterial District, H.M.K. CORPORATION requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of 8 acres;
to Office Business (O) of 84.15 acres; and to Convenience
Business (B-l) of 83.95 acres; plus a Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit'exceptions to use and bulk requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance encompassing the entire 176.1 acres. This
property lies in two separate tracts. The northern tract fronts
approximately 1,800 feet on the north line of Jahnke Road and
approximately 4,200 feet on the west line of Chippenham Parkway,
and lies northwest of the intersection of these two roads. Tax
Map 11-5 (1) Parcel 10; Tax Map 11-9 (1) Parcel 2; Tax Map 11-13
83-649
(1) Parcels 15 and 16, and Tax Map 19-1 (1) Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 (Sheets 1/4 and 9). The southern tract fronts
approximately 900 feet on the south line of Jahnke Road,
approximately 50 feet west of Chippenham Parkway. Tax Map 19-1
(1) Parcels 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request.
Mr. Clarke Plaxco with The Planning and Design Collaborative was
present representing Mr. Perel and HMK in planning on this
project and zoning matters. He stated HMK is an affiliate of
General Services Corporation whose companies have
developed/redeveloped and still own and operate over 9,000,000
square feet of rental space in Virginia and North Carolina. He
stated some properties in the County include Chesterfield Vil]
Apartments, Cloverleaf Lake Apartments and Beaufont Mall. He
stated the applicant has been working on this project over the
past 10 years and has prepared a development concept and zoning
package which maximizes the opportunities of the site and
minimizes the impact on Jahnke Road and Crestwood Farms. He
stated they have worked with the County staff, the Planning
COmmission, the Virginia Department of Highways, the Richmond
Metropolitan Authority, attended Mrs. Girone's monthly meeting
and met with the Crestwood Farms residents. He presented slides
indicating the concept of the project by reviewing the location;
the road network and rail road; the soils, slopes and drainage
analysis; the buffered conditions; conceptual plan including
office space, lake, natural buffers, mixed use development for
office, hotel and retail uses; single family development;
collector/distributor roads from the freeway system; etc. He
stated there are some advantages to this in that the sum of the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts as they derive mu~
support. He stated the office buildings will generate business
for the hotel, the hotel and office buildings will generate
business for the retail shops, etc. and this eliminates trips
being made to other areas. He stated with the residential and
hotel uses on site, you begin to have 24 hour activity which
increases security in addition to other security systems in
place. He presented slides of Columbia, Maryland with mixed use
indicating how it appears and is arranged.
Mr. Plaxco stated that, as requested by Crestwood Farms, they
have agreed to maintain three story buildings and residential
uses adjacent to Crestwood Farms and they have restricted the
uses to only residential uses. He stated that the staff did fin.
the project is consistent with the General Plan including the
most recent development. He stated they have agreed and acc~
28 of the 31 conditions recommended by staff. He stated they
would like to modify conditions 9, 15 and 16 which require HMK
give land without compensation. He stated that 915 deals with
dedicating 35-40 acres and they would do so contingent only upon
being able to develop the entire project. He stated 9 and 16
constitute the taking of land without compensation to benefit
other developers as it improves their land values and their
proposed projects. He stated that they propose an amendment to
this which would require HMK to reserve the points of access but
not to give them away. He stated the developer feels this would
be more equitable for all concerned and is consistent with Count,
policy.
Mr. Plaxco stated that he would like to address the concerns of
Crestwood Farms which are outlined in four categories. He state
that their objection 91 was lack of buffer. He stated the
applicant has proffered another condition which will provide a
250 ft. buffer of undisturbed and/or landscaped supplemented
buffer adjacent to Crestwood Farms and ].00 ft. adjacent to the
school. He stated he will also build an 8 ft. fence through the
open space to further shield and protect Crestwood Farms. He
stated he would do this buffering even though it exceeds anythin
required by Chesterfield County.
83-650
He stated that objection #2 was no transitional use. He stated
the developer will proffer an additional condition which will
provide a 300 ft. transitional zone over and above the buffer
area, restricted to residential uses only. He stated the
developer had previously requested residential or office but wi~
restrict this to only residential and the heights will be
to three stories for townhouse buildings. He stated other type
buildings could have an additional two floors below those three
in order to follow the topography. He stated the maximum dent
is 12.5, the effective density within the R-15 district is only
8.3, which also complies with the request especially when you
consider that any multi-family units in the project will be at
least 250 ft. from Crestwood Farms which is actually about 600
700 ft. on the illustrative plan.
He stated objection ~3 was commercial uses and heights. He
stated that their objection to commercial uses was based on
certain factors which they felt they have addressed within the
buffers and the transitional zones and the traffic. He stated
besides this, incorporation of commercial uses is essential to
any development becoming economically feasible on the site
because of the access system required in order not to overload
Jahnke Road. He stated the Virginia Department of Highways has
given approval in principal of the concept of accessing this
directly from the Powhite Parkway. He stated without commercial
uses a developer cannot afford the collector/distributor system
and access to Powhite which will cost approximately $5,000,000;
without this access system the developer will be limited by the
General Plan amendment to 356,000 square feet of office which is
obviously not economically feasible to distribute over 175 acres
that leaves no alternative for tract I except residential uses
and since the traffic from even residential uses would not be
permitted to Jahnke Road because it would overload it according
to the General Plan, the access would have to be through
Crestwood Farms via Whittington Drive. He stated single family
houses would not be marketable next to Powhite Parkway nor shoul~
this valuable piece of land in the County be used for such a low
tax producing use. He stated, therefor.e, with the 250 ft.
buffers, a 300 ft. transition zone, no access through Crestwood
Farms, direct freeway access to the project, minimum impact to
Jahnke Road as a result of the freeway access, a contained site
which would not influence land use changes on Jahnke Road and
conformance with the General Plan, commercial use as proposed is
a compatible land use. He stated the heights are permitted in
the zoning ordinance and are not excessive. He stated other
projects were permitted to build with six stories within 100 feet
of single family homes adjacent to this project. He stated HMK
is restricted to no more than three stories for only residential
uses and that has to be 300 feet from the single homes and
anything higher than three stories has to be over 550 ft. away.
He stated that twelve story buildings would not be visible from
Crestwood Farms viewed from a 6 ft. height. He stated although
it is intense it is a more logical and rational pattern of land
use than other developments of this retail nature in the County.
He stated this is the state of the art in planning, less
disruptive to traffic, compatible, viable, logical, rational, an(
reasonable land use. He stated this project is not'intense as
far as traffic is concerned. He stated this project is not
intense if you consider its location on the site next to the
freeway system, the traffic that they have shown does not impact
local roads, the density relative to similar projects are much
lower, and the logic of the mixture of use as well as the
buffering and transitional zones are compatible.
83-651
He stated they will provide 20% of the area as open space
exclusive of roads which is appro×imately 30 acres including the
lakes; as requested by Crestwood Farms, they did provide
illustrative site plans with legends; provided a cross section whi,
because of the buffering would have no impact on Crestwood Farms;
and they have also proffered a condition to notify Crestwood Farms
of any schematic plan review on any portion of the project so
that they may contribute and respond to any plans to be reviewed
by the Planning Commission. He stated they have met all the land
use objections of Crestwood Farms, it is consistent and in
conformance with the General Plan; they have agreed with 28 of the
31 conditions of the staff and requested only modifications to the
other three in order to establish an equitable situation in the
market place for HMK; they have agreed to dedicate the Powhite
Parkway pursuant to being able to develop the project, the
Highway Department has approved in principal the access system
and the traffic issue has been addressed, and it does not impair
Jahnke Road or Crestwood Farms. He stated the time is now to
approve this project, as any delay will add $5,000,000 because of
the schedule of Powhite. He stated that if they are not able to
modify the plans for Powhite at this time to get access
underneath, the bridge will cost $5,000,000 plus the $5,000,000
for the rest of the construction. He stated $10,000,000 would
probably forever preclude the County from capitalizin~ on the
best located and accessible site in 'the County. He r~quested
Board approval of this request.
Mrs. Girone inquired about the time frame for the project. Mr.
Plaxco stated that it would be a 7-10 year project and would
begin within four to five years, which would be about a five to
15 year build out. Mrs. Girone inquired about the donation for
Powhite. Mr. Plaxco stated that once the General Plan amendment
to build out the other portion of 175 acres is approved, they
~ill donate the 40 acres for Powhite. Mr. Daniel inquired if
zoning approval would require that amendment. Mr. Micas stated
that the General Plan amendment would still have to be
considered.
Mr. Bill Axselle was present representing the Crestwood Farms
residents. He stated these are well-established, long-term
residents who are concerned about the quality of life. He stated
that he also views the concern of those who are not immediately
adjacent to the parcel, but from other areas. He stated the Bon
Air Historical Society, the Brighton Green Subdivision, the Bon
Air Civic Association, the Crestwood P.T.A. and the residents of
Southam are opposed. Approximately 100 people were present in
opposition to this request. He distributed additional
information, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this
Board, regarding office use comparisons and hotel room
comparisons. He stated that the applicant has addressed two of
the four concerns, but they do not feel they are adequate. He
stated that the application is basically in the same format for
~hich the Planning Commission recommended denial. He stated
staff has recommended three conditions which they feel are very
important but to which the developer has not agreed. He stated
they have not addressed the question of the commercial use and
the density that will generate unbelievable traffic.
~r. Axselle stated the applicant talks about the buffered and
landscaped areas and there is no commitment that it would be
~ndisturbed. He stated that they had offices adjoining the
single family neighborhood of Crestwood Farms and they have
~roffered a 300 ft. area in which it would be residential zoning,
~he problem is that the type of zoning they requested and the
definition is not residential solely. He stated residential
means single family or multi-family residential only. He stated
that this in fact includes a number of office uses; when they say
offices it includes by redefinition of the code a lot of
businesses; and when they say B-1 business, it in fact includes
B-2, B-3 or higher business uses. He stated this was a little
83-652
misleading. He stated the applicant basically did provide a
transitional use but they feel the height requirements are
inadequate and the density is too high. He stated that they felt
all the commercial or retail use should be deleted and they made
no change in any respect. He stated, that they are proposing
1,000,000 square feet for commercial use which is in addition to
1,470,000 square feet for offices, hotel rooms and residential
units. He stated they requested office use but the developer is
still seeking commercial zoning in e~cess of B-1 and the uses
allowed in that district are approved only by special exceptions
or conditional uses. He stated there are still major
disagreements with the height restrictions; that the open s~ace
provisions are inadequate as he felt most of the space would be
in flood plain or along the buffer area; that the Board has in
the past preserved the residential zoning in the Bon Air area and
they find no justification for abandoning this practice now;
that they felt it was poor land use to place residential use next
to commercial; they questioned the Deed for 1,000,000 additional
square feet in commercial use as what exists is adequate and
inquired about its impact on those existing commercial areas~
they have doubts that there is a market for such a grand center
or the ability of the developer to complete such a project.
Mr. Axselle stated that he felt a very reasonable, beau%ifu]~
office park could be built at the portion of the project where
they are proposing this massive commercial undertaking and this
would be more compatible. He stated he did not feel any
commercial use is appropriate on the HMK property and that any'
office development north of Powhite should be limited in height
nearest Crestwood Farms and allowing greater height near
Chippenham. He stated the density is another major problem as it
determines the amount of traffic that will be generated and
affects all residents of the County as well as those who live
there. He stated that the area has tremendous traffic problems
at peak traffic hours. He stated the Powhite Extension will help
to some extent but will not eliminate the problem i~ediately.
He stated on July 27, 1983, the Board approved the Jahnke
Chippenham Development Area Study Land Use Plan and it
established in the plan that if you are to have office it should
be to a density of 7,850 sq. ft. per acre and if you are going to
have commercial, it should be at a density of 9,850 sq. ft. per
acre. He stated this the total project is 176 acres, they w~.ll
lose 35 acres to Powhite Parkway, there is 36 acres set aside
for residential and 19 acres in hotels and 24 acres in
residential property in the project. He stated there will be 62
acres for retail and office use and 1,470,000 for office and
1,000,000 for retail which totals 2,470,000 for both. He stated
this is 39,838 sq. ft. per acre. He stated this is five times
what the Board said four months ago should be done in this area.
He stated even if you used the 9,880 square foot figure, it is
still four times that density. He stated that there were nine
projects that we compared and they took exception to two of them
and we have a list of who we spoke with and stand by the data; he
stated this is the most intensive hotel, retail, office use, far
exceeding the density allowed at any time on any project in
Chesterfield or Henrico. He stated that density is a problem
because density means traffic and traffic means problems. He
stated what the developer is proposing is comparable to
Cloverleaf Mall, Beaufont Mall, the Hyatt House, and Brookfield
plus the new hotel planned for Brookfield plus all the existing
office development at Brookfield plus all the proposed office
development at Harbour Point in Brandermill plus all the office
use planned for Moorefield plus the Chesterfield Village
Apartment complex and the Cloverleaf Lake Apartment complex on
this 141 acres when the other densities are on 343 acres. He
presented an exhibit indicating these square footages, relative
to acreage, office use comparisons and hotel room comparisons.
He stated that the people of Crestwood Farms realize how valuable
this property is, but they want it developed in a fashion that
83-653
is consistent with the neighborhood, 'the Jahnke Chippenham Land
Use Plan and consistent with good land use planning. He stated
that has not been accomplished today. He stated the substance of
the amendments has not changed the objections.
Mr. Plaxco stated that it is the developers intent to the leave
the buffer natural, offering to landscape out into the proposed
project; the 250 ft. buffer excludes ro~ds; they would change the
fence to a wall and maintain it and they will restrict the R-15
to residential uses only except for the accessory uses such as
club house, swimming pool, etc.
Mrs. Girone stated this is one of the concerns she had as she
reviewed the application. She stated the applicant is now
talking about the fence, the buffer, settling on residential and
not office uses and then there is a page and a half where o~her
uses such as group homes, amusement parks, etc. are discussed.
Mr. Plaxco stated the intent was to list those uses allowed in
R-15 District and they will eliminate all but residential and
accessory uses. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this was a problem
with the application as we talk about one thing and-then add in
others. She stated a Conditional Use Planned Development is
specific and you know exactly what is going where. Mr. Bookman
inquired if time would allow them to reduce the density of the
project and/or the B-1 uses to be designated. Mr. Plaxco stated
that they could consider reducing but they cannot reduce the
magnitude of the project as they have to build that much to pay
for the access through the retail uses and it has to be done this
way. He stated there was only 300 residential units total. He
stated they felt this was good planning ~or everything in one
area. He stated that he felt they have met most of the
objections but to eliminate the retail uses is, essentially,
non-negotiable. Mr. Bookman stated that this is four or five
times as much as the consultant recommended for property in this
area. Mr. Plaxco stated that this could, be discussed further but
he did not know how much it could be reduced in order to afford
the access and he did r~ot know if they could come off of this
figure. He stated he did not understand, that those figures were
to be the maximum development for the County.
Mr. Dick Keller of Kellerco stated that the road network will
serve the density very efficiently. He stated that they have
looked at the County's request in conjunction with the State
Highway Department's staff, from the right hand side of the
railroad south to Midlothian and projected traffic to 1990,
looked at morning and afternoon peak hours, considered all the
proposed development of this tract plus the tracts to the south
in that seven year period, have taken traffic counts on
Midlothian Turnpike from Chippenham Parkway west, and they have
an excellent data base. He stated that they used the ITE trip
rates which the County suggested for this entire corridor. He
stated there is an emerginq trend where developers are being
asked to contribute to road improvements and there is a important
relationship to what they can provide and the type and density of
land issue. He stated a different more intense land use density
is proposed here under an entirely different and far more
sophisticated road network. He stated this network will cost a
lot more money. He stated they have analyzed this entire
corridor and he is confident that, as proposed, it minimizes the
impact on the Jahnke Corridor, disperses traffic to the south and
the Sigma traffic can penetrate this situation taking pressure
off of Midlothian. He stated he felt this network is very
efficient and 10-15% of the trips will stay on-site.
83-654
Mr. Bookman stated he did not feel the residents of Crestwood
were opposed to the property being developed but this density is
4 and 5 times what has been done in this area generally or the
County. He stated if time can help eliminate this, he could
support a delay but if it cannot, there is no need to proceed to
continue the process with this application. Mr. Plaxco stated
they would be willing to meet with Crestwood Farms again but the,
need enough retail space in the project in order to afford the
access, otherwise there is no economically feasible land use for
tract 1. He stated the density figure is based on the General
Plan but the access system as shown here provides a far greater
degree of access than the General Plan amendment did. He stated
that zoning development density was based on a certain level of
access and this is much more increased and the General Plan
amendment says with increased access, increased density can be
built on the site. He stated the traffic is handled with far
less impact on Jahnke Road.
Mrs. Girone stated that she could understand his viewpoint as a
planner that this is a good plan. She stated what we are talki
about is site selection. She stated that she read the entire
package submitted by the applicant and there is high rise dense
city development on every picture in the book. She stated the
nearest application to this that she can see is Rockerfeller
Center in New York City. She stated that she felt this was even
more dense than Tyson's Corner. She stated the second
publication Mr. Plaxco gave, Southeast Retail Real Estate News,
included a paragraph which says "adapt to local needs in talking
about multi-use development" and "you have to be adaptive to the
local situation" and then it continues on discussing density,
multi-use developments and stacking people and stacking uses in
China and Thailand. She stated this is a fascinating concept for
a planner but this site is just overwhelmed by this proposal as
well as the community. She stated Bon Air is a small residential
village which has its own commercial center, has watched the
development of Route 60 with two major malls a few feet from thi~
situation, there is a hospital across.the street, a school that
is involved, and this is a tremendous impact on the community.
She stated she realizes the need for retail in order to
compensate for the access but this commercial use is so close to
the village and is just not an acceptable use. She stated that
all know this land will develop but this application represents
an overdevelopment of the land and it places in peril the health
safety and welfare of not only the citizens who reside there but
the citizens who travel on Jahnke and Chippenham and Route 60.
She stated she felt this had the potential of destroying their
accessibility to their homes, the hospital, and to the schools.
Mr. Plaxco stated they have tried to buffer the transitional
zones and the very detailed traffic analysis shows that this is
not the degree of impact of this project. He stated they are
proposing stacked uses. He stated they have adapted to local
conditions, there are no 40 story buildings but have gone to a 1~
story building, there is a $5,000,000 access system for this
property, they have adapted to the site location and this is the
right place for this project. He stated they would be willing to
accept a 30 day deferral in order to meet again with Crestwood
Farms residents.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the Board was just as disturbed with both
sides of the development as everything was discussed was on the
Crestwood Side. Mrs. Girone stated she was disturbed with the
entire project.
Mrs. Girone moved denial of this request as it represents
overdevelopment of the land and it places in peril the health,
safety and welfare of not only the citizens living in the
community now but the people who travel on Jahnke, Chippenham and
Route 60 and it has potential for destroying the residents'
83-655
accessibility to the hospital, the school, to the homes and thc
established businesses.
Mr. Bookman stated because he felt the application is so far
apart from what can realistically be done and be feasible, he
seconded the motion.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes.
Reconvening:
83S122 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, CELESTINE D. HICKS AND WALTER L.
CROSS requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit
exceptions to the use (rest home) and bulk requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.63 acre
parcel fronting approximately 135 feet on the north line of Tott'
Street, approximately 400 feet west of Chesterfield Avenue, and
better known as 3500 Totty Street. Tax Map 182-13 (4) Orange
Hill, Block D, Lot 5 (Sheet 53/54).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mrs.
Hicks was present representing the application. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr.
Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the follow
conditions:
The Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted fo
the purpose of operating a rest home for a maximum of ten
(10) persons.
e
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated September 1,
1983, shall be considered the plan of development.
e
The driveway and parking area shall be surfaced with six (6
inches of ~21 or #2lA stone. The driveway and parking area
shall be defined by durable material (i.e., timber curbing
or other similar treatment).
Other than normal maintenance, there shall be no exterior
alterations or additions to the existing structure to
accommodate this use.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, schematic
plan approval shall be granted.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S141
In Midlothian Magisterial District, FI-TECH, INC. RETIREMENT
TRUST requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Office
Business (O) of 5.3 acres and from Residential (R-7) and
Convenience Business' (B-l) to Community Business (B-2) of 12.9
acres plus a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing thc
entire 18.2 acre tract to permit exceptions to the use and bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This parcel fronts
approximately 1,000 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike
approximately 700 feet west of Coalfield Road. Tax Map 15-11 (1)
Parcels 5 and 6 (Sheet 7).
83-656
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to the imposition of certain
conditions. Mr. Jim Hayes was present representing the
applicant. He stated that they have worked closely with
homeowners, the members of the Church, the staff, Dr. Moszer and
Mrs. Girone. He stated that they have come to an agreement with
the conditions according to the addendum to the conditions. Mrs.
Girone stated that we want to develop the corridor study for
signs for Route 60 and we want to affirm that signs here conform
to that study. She added that the applicant will be allowed two
major signs to identify the project and one sign per property
that fronts on Route 60 which should be within 10 ft. of the
right of way. She stated that she felt condition 4.c. should be
eliminated. She stated the problem is that the plan for Route 60
is coming along in January and they do not want to commit to
something outside of that but this project has been going along
and we do want to commit to the five signs just identified. Mr.
Hayes stated that condition 4.c. refers to building mounted
signs. Mrs. Girone stated that she did not want to address that
as that will be deferred until later to work on the entire sign
package. She stated the signs approved today will be allowed
even if the sign study recommends against such signs. The
applicant inquired if the corridor plan allows for building
mounted signs, can they have them. Mrs. Girone stated yes, but
she did not want to go any further today and wanted to defer the
remainder until the entire package is ratified for Route 60. The
applicant inquired if the sign package was deferred until June,
what would happen. Mrs. Girone stated that if the developer were
ready prior to the sign package being adopted, the staff has the
ability to approve whatever is necessary. Mr. Hayes inquired
about other signs. Mr. Balderson stated all other signs would be
governed by the standards established for the sign package for
Route 60. The applicant inquired if any thoughts had been given
to building mounted signs. Mrs. Girone stated that staff has
written a proposal but the Board has not yet met on it and the
Board hopes to address it in January. Mr. Hayes stated they are
in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Balderson stated for
clarification that condition 16 does not have any binding effect
on the Highway Department as the County cannot obligate them to
anything. Mr. Hayes stated it binds the applicant to do the
engineering analysis of the drainage situation, confront the
Highway Department with that and work with them in light of the
fact that they must cross that road in the same location as
drainage to bring in sewer and it would be mutually beneficial.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan,
prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated July 14,
1983, and textual statement shall be considered the plan of
development.
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
southern property line. If a day care center is developed
within the Office Business (O) tract, a fifty (50) foot
buffer shall be maintained between the playground and the
southern property line. Buildings shall be oriented to
provide buffering between proposed parking areas and
existing single family residential development. Should the
applicants desire to place a fence in these buffer areas,
the fence shall be located on the northern edge of the
buffer. The buffer shall consist of existing vegetation
supplemented with additional plantings, where necessary, to
effect a proper screen. These buffers shall be installed in
conjunction with the phasing of development and as
determined by the Planning Commission through schematic plan
83-657
Se
review and approval. A landscaping plan depicting these
requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review.
(This condition supersedes General Conditions, VI of the
Textual Statement.)
The architectural style and quality of buildings shall be
similar to that exemplified in Sycamore Square and
Midlothian Station. Renderings shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review.
(This condition supersedes General Conditions, V of the
Textual Statement.)
SIGNS
be
Ce
Two freestanding signs, visible from Route 60, not to
exceed 100 square feet in area, shall be permitted
identifying this development and the tenants therein.
Individual buildings shall be permitted one
freestanding sign each, not to exceed 5 feet in height
and an area not to exceed 10 square feet. These signs
will be located a minimum of 10 feet from right of way
lines for continuity. These signs shall be similar to
each other in size, shape, and material, and a
rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for
approval in conjunction with site plan approval.
Signs may be illuminated, but may be luminous only if
the sign field is opaque with translucent letters.
do
Directional signs (entrance/exit, etc.) shall be
governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements.
eo
Prior to erection of any signs, a comprehensive sign
package to include colors, materials and typical
designs shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for
approval. Signs shall blend with the architectural
style of the development in conjunction with the
proposed plan for the route 60 corridor.
(This condition supersedes General Conditions VII of
the Textual Statement.)
The following exception shall be granted to the parking
requirements for day care centers:
Parking skall be provided at a ratio of 1 space for each 20
children enrolled, up to a maximum of 6 spaces, plus 1 for
each employee. The parking area and driveways shall be
designed to provide an area for embarkation and
disembarkation. This area shall be connected to the main
building by a sidewalk and designed to preclude children
crossing any driveway or parking area. The driveways,
entrances and exits shall be designed to provide a traffic
flow which precludes backing onto a right of way and/or
vehicles stacking up and/or overflowing onto a right of way
(This condition supersedes General Conditions VIII of the
Textual Statement.)
83-658
e
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
Parking areas shall have at leas% five (5) square feet of
interior landscaping per parking space. Each landscaped
area shall contain a minimum of fifty (50) square feet and
shall be at least five (5) feet wide. At least one tree
having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet shall be
provided for each 200 square feet of interior landscaped
area. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs or
ground cover not to exceed three (3) feet in height. Such
landscaped areas shall be located so as to divide and break
up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required
setbacks or buffers shall not be calculated as required
landscaped area. A landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for
approval in conjunction with site plan review.
A landscaping plan for the required fifty (50) foot setback
area along the Midlothian Turnpike frontage shall be
submitted to the Planning Staff for approval in conjunction
with site plan review. This plan shall include ornamental
trees, shrubs and evergreens of sufficient density, height
and combination types, so as to minimize the visibility of
driveway and parking areas from Route 60. Except where
entrance driveways cross the 50 foot setback area, existing
trees of 6 inches in caliper or greater shall be maintained
and not be disturbed.
All exterior lighting shall be concealed source lighting and
not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. and positioned so as
not to project liqht into adjacent properties. Only
lighting as required for security purposes will be allowed
after midnight. In conjunction with site plan review,
lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for
approval.
Ail sidewalks shall be constructed of a combination of
brick, cobblestone, or exposed aggregate concrete. Samples
of materials and a sidewalk plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Staff for approval in conjunction with site review.
Prior to release of a building permit, sixty (60) feet of
right of way, measured from the centerline of the Rouble 60
eastbound lane, for the ent~.re length of the property, shall
be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted.
Additional pavement, a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet from
the centerline of the Route 60 eastbound lane, and curb and
gutter shall be constructed along Route 60. In conjunction
with the first schematic plan review, a Master Plan shall be
submitted which shows the ultimate pavement wideninq and the
phasing of these improvements. The phasing shall be done so
as to preclude having any gaps in pavement widening along
the entire frontage of the property. This plan shall be
approved by VDH&T and the Planning Department prior to the
release of a building permit.
The proposed internal public road shall either have: (a) a
sixty (60) foot right of way or (b) a fifty (50) foot right
of way with a ten (10) foot utility easement adjacent to one
side of the right of way for its entire length. Dedication
of this road may occur in phases and in conjunction with
phasing of the development.
The public road and the westernmost access drive shall be
constructed with a divided median and one lane of pavement,
24 feet face of curb to face of curb, on each side of the
median for a distance of fifty (50) feet south of the
intersection with Route 60. Access to either the public
road or the westernmost driveway shall be prohibited within
150 feet of Route 60. Pavement width of the public road may
then transition to a width of forty (40) feet, face of curb
to face of curb, and the private drive may transition to a
. width of twenty-four (24) feet, face of curb to face of
curb.
83-659
14.
Approval of the Master Plan shall be deemed schematic
approval for the proposed internal public road.
15.
Concrete curb and/or curb and gutter shall be installed
around the perimeter of parking areas, driveways and roads.
16.
Prior to any clearing and/or grading, the drainage culvert
under Coalfield Road shall be analyzed to determine if
improvements are necessary. Cost and installation of any
necessary improvements shall be a cooperative effort betwee]
the developer and VDH&T.
17. There shall be no day care center permitted in the O Tract.
(Note: There can be no access from this development to the
adjacent property to the east until such time as Conditional
Use Planned Development approval is granted to allow com-
mercial access through residentially zoned property.)
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S154
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BROAD ROCK LAND CORPORATION
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of
a 66 acre parcel lying approximately 740 feet off the south line
of Smoketree Drive, measured from a point approximately 2,400
feet west of Courthouse Road. Tax Map 27-9 (1) Part of Parcel 1
and Tax Map 27-13 (1) Parcels 1, 2 and 3 (Sheets 7 and 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Delmonte Lewis was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition to the
request. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the
Board approved this request.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S155
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GEORGE B. SOWERS, JR. &
ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to
Residential (R-9) of a 10.39 acre parcel fronting approximately
420 feet on the north line of Reams Road approximately 200 feet
east of Reykin Drive. Tax Map 27-6 (1) Parcels 12 and 13 (Sheet
8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the request for R-9 but approved R-12. He stated the
applicant has proffered conditions for the R-9 request which he
distributed. Mr. George Sowers was present. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr.
Robertson, the Board approved this request for R-9 and accepted
the following proffered conditions:
Ail dwelling units shall be a minimum square footage of 1100
square feet livable space.
2. Ail foundations shall be brick.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83-660
83S157
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, J.j. JEWETT requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) of a 76.4
acre parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the south line of
Genito Road approximately 2,000 feet east of Otterdale Road. Tax
Map 46-10 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet ].2).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had reco~nended
approval of this request. Mr. Oliver Rudy was present
representing the applicant. He stated the applicant is
subdividing 78 acres into seven lots. He stated he would prefer
it remain agricultural but the subdivision ordinance requires
before you can get approval of a subdivision it has to be
zoned residential. Mr. Jewett stated that the lots will all have
the necessary road frontage, they will have horses, etc. but
because of the ordinance they have to be R-40. He stated he can
come back later and rezone each parcel individually which will
cost about $3,500. He stated he felt it was wrong for 5+ acre
parcels to be zoned R-40. After considerable discussion of
various alternatives, the applicant amended his request to cover
the portion of the parcels not in flood plain as indicated by the
flood plain line on the papers filed with this Board.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request for rezoning to R-40 from Genito Roa~ to
the 100 year flood plain line with the remaining portion
remaining agricultural.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S161
In Matoaca Magisterial District, JAMES T. BUSH CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC. requested a Conditional Use to permit a landfill in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 10.0 acre parcel fronting
approximately 950 feet on the south line of Bailey Bridge Road
approximately 1,300 feet southwest of Quailwood Road. Tax Map
76-7 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Bush was present. Mr
Leroy McLaughlin inquired how long this use would be permitted
and were there any harmful gases escaping from the landfill area.
Mr. Balderson stated this application was for a three year period
of time and no harmful gas escapes from this type of material
which is stumps, trees, e~c. not garbage. Mr. McLaughlin stated
he has not had any problem in the past. Mr. Bush stated that
sometimes there is an activity at the Church and they would not
interfere with that. Mr. Balderson stated these extenuating
circumstances did not need to be written in.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for James T.
Bush Construction Co., Inc., exclusively, and shall not be
transferable nor run with the land.
2. No dumping shall be permitted closer than 100 feet from the
south, east and west property lines. This 100 foot area
shall be considered a buffer zone and shall not be cleared
or regraded. ~
83-661
J
Only one access shall be permitted to the parcel in
question. The entrance shall be secured with a fence to
prohibit indiscriminate dumping of materials. The applicant
shall be responsible for the removal of any materials dumped
along either the access road or that portion of the parcel
not approved for the landfill operation.
e
The existing berm, located along Bailey Bridge Road, shall
be maintained. The height of the berm shall be increased at
the northwest and northeast corner to preclude visibility
from the entrance of the church and from Bailey Bridge Road.
This shall be accomplished within thirty (30) days of the
final action of this request by the Board of Supervisors.
The berm shall be no steeper than 2:1 and shall be planted
and maintained with ground cover.
This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to
exceed three (3) years from date of approval and may be
renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and demonstration
that this operation has not proved a detriment to adjacent
and area properties.
Operations shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No Sunday
operation shall be permitted.
Ail junk material, other than dirt, stone, rock, stumps,
building material, and land-clearing material shall be
removed from the property.
Fill material shall be restricted to stone, soil, rocks,
stumps, building material or other natural inert material.
No household garbage or waste shall be dumped on the site.
e
At the end of each week all materials shall be leveled and
covered with a layer of earth not less than six (6) inches
in depth.
10.
Upon completion of this operation, a plat showing the
location of the fill area and the types of material buried
shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
11.
Ail conditions noted herein shall be affixed to a plat of
the subject property and, upon approval by the Planning
Department, shall be recorded in the Circuit Court Room with
the property reference.
12.
Construction of any facilities over the fill area shall not
be permitted unless soil engineering studies approve the
suitability of such construction.
13.
During the hours of operation, a supervisor shall be located
on the site for the purpose of monitoring and directing the
fill activity or the site shall be secured to preclude
indiscriminate dumping by the general public.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S163
In Bermuda Magisterial District, REDFORD BRICK COMPANY, INC.
requested a Conditional Use to permit material extraction (clay)
in an Agricultural (A) District on a 32.2 acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,588 feet on the north line of Allied Chemical
Road, also fronting approximately 134 feet on Bermuda Hundred
Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of these roads. Tax Map 136-3 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 43/44).
83-662
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain cond~tigns. Mr. Hayes was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Daniel stated Mr. Dodd had mentioned this case to him and was
concerned about bufferinq. Mr. Balderson stated it was based on
his plan of operation which indicates the buffer. Mr. Hayes read
a statement which addressed the buffering in their application.
Mr. Daniel stated that he would prefer to have a condition listed
in the zoning and inquired if that would be acceptable. Mr.
Hayes stated it would.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan titled:
"Reclamation Plan for Redford Brick," dated 9/6/83, prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, shall be considered the plan
for excavation.
Initial excavation shall be confined to an area 50 feet
north of Allied Chemical Road. Other than an access road,
there shall be no clearing or grading within the 50 foot
area until the final phases of excavation. In conjunction
with drainage and erosion control plan approval, a phasing
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted for
approval.
e
e
Prior to any further land disturbing activity, an erosion
control/drainage plan shall be submitted to Environmental
Engineering for approval.
As per §21-65 (h) of the Zoning Ordinance, a bond with
approved surety, in such amount as Environmental Engineering
and the Planning Department may determine, shall be
submitted prior to further excavation.
Prior to any further excavation, a reclamation plan, to
include the method of stabilization of denuded areas, shall
be submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval.
A 100 ft. buffer shall be maintained in its natural state
along all property lines. With the exception of the access
drive, there shall be no clearing or grading permitted
within the buffer area.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S165
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES
requested an amendment to a Conditional Use Planned Development
(Case 79S079) to permit retail use on a site previously
restricted for office use on a 0.65 acre parcel fronting
approximately 100 feet on the east line of Beach Road
approximately 230 feet south of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-12
(1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. John Henson was present representing
the applicant. There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel
inquired what was planned for the building as far as retail. Mr.
Henson stated initially there was a lease for a hair stylist and
a delicatessen/restaurant but because of the delay the have lost
the lease to the hair stylist and have leased it to a lawyer for
an office. He stated there would only be retail on the bottom
floor. Mr. Daniel asked for reassurance that there would be no
outside advertising above and beyond that permitted in the
existing zoning. Mr. Henson stated that was correct.
83-663
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
Ail previously imposed conditions for Conditional Use 9S079
shall be applicable.
The uses permitted shall be those of the Convenience
Business (B-l) District.
There shall be no outside advertising except as permitted in
the original zoning.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Danie~ and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S166
In Dale Magisterial District, GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CORP. re-
quested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a
communications facility and 279 foot tower in an Agricultural (A)
District on a 2.63 acre parcel fronting approximately 400 feet on
the west line of Goodes Bridge Road, also fronting approximately
170 fee% on the east line of Turner Road approximately 650 feet
north of Walmsley Boulevard. Tax Map 40-2 (1) Parcel 91 (Sheet
15).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Oliver Rudy was present representing the applicant and stated the
conditions were acceptable. There was no oppos£tion present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by Melvin L. Corso, dated 9/28/83, shall be
considered the master plan.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, a 179 foot
exception to the 100 foot height restriction for towers
shall be approved. Prior to release of a building permit,
the applicants shall submit documentation of FAA approval
for the tower.
Forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of Turner Road, and thirty (30) feet of right of
way, measured from the centerline of Goodes Bridge Road,
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield,
free and unrestricted, prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Se
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed
along Goodes Bridge Road, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and
the Planning Department, at the time of site plan review.
This construction shall be completed and taken into the
State system prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
The existing drainage easement shall be dedicated through
the property and the concrete ditch extended, as deemed
necessary by VDH&T, prior to site plan approval. All
structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from
the edge of the drainage easement. (VDH&T)
Parking shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space per
employee.
7. Only one driveway shall be provided to Goodes Bridge Road.
83-664
The above conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements
of the Convenience Business (B-l) District shall be
applicable·
10.
In conjunction with the granting cf this request, the
Commission shall grant schematic plan approval.
A twenty-five (25) foot natural buffer shall be maintained
along the northern property line adjacent to Agricultural
(A) zoning. There shall be no clearing or grading within
this buffer.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S169
In Midlothian Magisterial District, STAN BRITT ASSOCIATES, INC.
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit
automotive repair and a tire business in a Community Business
(B-2) District on a 1.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 137
feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike approximately 800
feet west of Tuxford Road. Tax Map 18-13 (1) Part of Parcel 1
(Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. There
was no opposition present. Mr. Britt was present and stated the
conditions were acceptable.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstandinq, the plan submi
with the application shall be considered the Master Plan.
This Conditional Use shall be for the purpose of operating
an automotive repair business and tire sales and service
business. There shall be no automobile body repair, tire
recapping or vulcanizing permitted.
Additional pavement, 26 feet from the centerline of the
westbound lane of Route 60, and curb and gutter shall be
constructed along Route 60. This construction shall be in
accordance with VDH&T specifications and shall be completed
prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
m
Other than vehicles awaiting repair, there shall be no
outside storage nor shall any merchandise for sale be
displayed outside.
Ail exterior lighting shall be low level not to exceed a
height of 20 feet and shall be positioned so as not to
project light into adjacent properties or Route 60.
A single freestanding sign shall be permitted identifying
these uses. This sign shall not exceed an aggregate area o~
100 square feet. The sign may be illuminated, but may be
luminous only if the sign field is opaque with translucent
letters. The sign shall blend with the architectural style
and colors of the structures.
®
The proposed structures shall employ subdued colors.
Colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan
review.
83-665
Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Midlothian
Turnpike, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted.
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review.
A
Curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of
driveways and parking area. (EE)
10.
These uses shall be screened from the adjacent property to
the east which is occupied by a mobile home park. Scr~
shall consist of topographical conditions and/or solid board
fencing. In conjunction with schematic plan submission, a
screening plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commiss'
for approval.
1I.
12.
13.
In conjunction with schematic plan review, a lighting plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
There shall be no external public address system.
There shall be no temporary signs permitted on the site.
14.
The hours of operation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m.
and 9:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There shall be no
Sunday operations.
15.
Ail trash and trash containment facilities shall be properly
screened and maintained.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S170
In Midlothian Magisterial District, MORRIS INDUSTRIES, INC.
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a
structural steel business and exceptions to the bulk requirements
relative to paving and right of way widths in a General Business
(B-3) District on a 2.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 50
feet on the east line of Grove Road approximately 1,550 feet
south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny Dell
Acres, Part of Lots 19, 20, 21 and 22 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Robert Leipertz was present representing the applicant. He
stated that they are in agreement with all the conditions except
that relative to the roadway itself. He stated that Grove Road
is currently a dead end road that is running north/south from
Route 60. He stated they did not see any viable directions it
might take in extending, the road that they are proposing is als(
a dead end and abuts the Moody tract to the east which makes it
impractical for extension. He stated there is currently not
sewer at the site and if it did enter the site, it would have to
come through Stonehenge and that does not not look practical but
water is available if the residents can be brought .together in
unison. He stated that this might be a four or five user
development. He requested that a 50 ft. right of way, 10 ft.
wide utility easement, the location of which would be establishe~
by working with the Utility Department, and a 20 ft. wide
pavement along with the statement that the street would be built
with Virginia Department of Highways standards and taken into the
State System. There was no opposition present.
Mrs. Girone stated that this is in a category of 231 to 400
vehicles per day which does not require curb and gutter and
minimum pavement width of 20 ft., 10 ft. utility easement and a
50 ft. right of way.
83-666
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated July
20, 1983, shall be considered the plan of development.
The proposed gravel storage area shall be surfaced with a
minimum of 8 inches of No. 21 or 2lA stone placed over a
compacted subgrade.
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed along the
perimeter of paved driveways and parking areas. (EE)
Stormwater retention shall be required for Grove Court and
the request site. (EE)
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Plan-
ning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval.
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northern property line. This buffer shall consist of
existing vegetation with no clearing or grading permitted.
The existing earth berm, which is located to the south of
the twenty-five (25) foot buffer, shall be maintained. This
berm shall have a height of six (6) feet and a minimum width
of twenty-five (25) feet at the base. The berm shall be
reshaped to a maximum slope of 2:1. This berm shall be
seeded with ground cover to prevent erosion. White pines,
having an initial height of eight (8) feet and placed six
(6) feet on center, shall be planted at the top of the berm.
A plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site
plan review.
A chain link fence shall be installed parallel to the
northern property line either within the twenty-five (25)
foot buffer or to the south of the berm.
e
Grove Court shall be constructed with twenty (20) feet of
pavement within a fifty (50) foot right of way. A ten (10)
foot utility easement shall be dedicated to and for
Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, adjacent to the
road right of way. Grove Court shall be constructed to
State Standards.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S172
In Matoaca Magisterial District, RALPH FRIER requested a
Conditional Use to permit an indoor recreational facility (game
room) in a Community Business (B-2) District on a parcel which
lies approximately 550 feet off the south line of Hull Street
Road, measured from a point approximately 1,100 feet west of its
intersection with Courthouse Road, and better known as Building 1
of Rockwood Square Shopping Center. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Part of
Parcel 18 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. There
was no opposition present. Mr. Frier was present representing the
application.
On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Ralph Frier
and his immediate family only and shall not be transferable
nor run with the land.
83-667
This use shall be limited to a total of 2,000 square feet.
The facility shall be supervised by an adult during all
hours of operation.
The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk
requirements of the Community Business (B-2) District shall
be applicable.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S173
In Midlothian Magisterial District, CLARENCE W. COOK requested a
Conditional Use Planned Dev~].opment to permit an office and bulk
exceptions in a Residential (R-15) District on a 1.0 acre parcel
fronting approximately 259 feet on Coalfield Road, also fronting
approximately 114 feet on N. Carriage Lane, and located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map
15-16 (2) Carriage Hill, Block C, Lot 1 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Cook was present and stated that he
had lived in this location for 20 years, a shopping center was
built and it became noisy so they put the house up for sale. He
stated it did not sell and they have not been able to rent it
either. He stated that they would like to rent it as an office
building for an insurance man. He stated it would be a quiet
business and would not change the outside appearance. Mrs.
Girone stated that if the gentleman wanted to live in the house
and use a room for the insurance business, he could do that under
the zoning ordinance. She stated that when the shopping center
was zoned, there was a substantial buffer and a public statement
was made that the County would not allow further business use
down Coalfield Road. She stated that this faces an R-15
subdivision and it is a part of a residential area. She stated
that the Planning staff and Planning Commission recommended
against it and it does not meet the standards that we have set
for this neighborhood. She stated the Board had a commitment to
the residential character of the neighborhood and the zoning.
Mr. Daniel stated that there was a similar situation in
Meadowdale which was denied, because once you take the fi'rst step
it will set a precedent and you would be attacking the basic
principal of land use and recording of a single family
subdivision. Mr. Greer was present to outline his operation.
Mrs. Girone stated that she was certain he had a fine operation
but it would be changing the zoning.
It was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the
Board deny this request.
AYes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. R. W. Buckner who lives in North Carriage Lane thanked the
Board for their wisdom in this case.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
recessed at 5:30 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. on December 7, 1983 in Room
502 for a Work Session.
Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
II ~/~nar~d ~L .' Hedrick
11cOunty AdministratOr
83-668
~'~Ji~ R6ya~l Rober~on ~ ~
~hairm~n /