03-28-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
March 28, 1984
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman
Mr. R. Garland Dodd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
~. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Supervisors Absent:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. N. E. Carmichael,
Comm. of Revenue
Chief Robert Eanes,
Fire Department
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir.
of Parks & Recreation
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. William Howell,
Dir., General Services
Mr. Robert Masden, Dir.
of Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Env. Engineer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey Mincks,
Asst. Co. Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir.
of Community Develop.
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir.
of Budget & Accounting
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exec. Asst. to Co.
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. B. R. Wilkinson,
License Inspector
Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
9:00 a.m. (EST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend Sam Crites of Temple Baptist
Church, who gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
the minutes of March 14, 1984, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board approved
the minutes of March 27, 1984, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd~ Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84-137
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS
Mr. Stith stated that the Board had adopted a resolution
designating May 2, 1984 as Model County Government Day. He
stated there have been a number of training exercises, there are
over 70 students present to observe the Board meeting and to
visit some of the County facilities. He introduced Mrs. Lee
Chase, Supervisor of Social Studies, who briefly outlined the
activities planned for the students and expressed appreciation
for the Board's support and enthusiasm for the program. She
recognized the students who were present and participating in the
program.
4. REQUESTS FOR ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the agenda as presented.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
5.A. CAPTAIN JOHN A. SIMMONS
Major Mason Chalkley introduced Captain John A. Simmons, who
recently retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department,
and gave a biographical sketch of his professional experience and
employment with the County.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Captain John A. Simmons retired from the
Chesterfield County Police Department effective December 31,
1983; and
WHEREAS, Captain Simmons provided twenty-eight (28) years
9f quality police service to the citizens of Chesterfield County;
~nd
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Captain Simmons' diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly
recognizes Captain Simmons and extends on behalf of its members
and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for
his many years of service to the County.
AND, FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Captain Simmons and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
kbsent: Mr. Daniel.
Ur. Applegate presented Captain Simmons with the resolution and
recognized members of his family who were present.
.B. LIEUTENANT ALLEN C. DAVIS
~ajor Chalkley introduced Lieutenant Allen C. Davis, who would be
~etiring from the Chesterfield County Police Department at the
~nd of the month, and gave a biographical sketch of his
)rofessional experience and employment with the County.
84-138
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Allen C. Davis will retire from the
Chesterfield County Police Department effective March 31, 1984;
and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Davis provided thirty (30) years of
quality police service to the citizens of Chesterfield County;
and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Lieutenant Davis' diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly
recognizes Lieutenant Davis and extends on behalf of its members
and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for
his many years of service to the County.
AND, FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Lieutenant Davis and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Applegate presented Lieutenant Davis with the resolution and
congratulated him upon his retirement.
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Mr. Eric Allen, recently
assigned to cover Chesterfield County for Channel 6, who would be
replacing Jerome Gray.
5.C. DECLARING APRIL, ].984 AS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
Ms. Suzanne Fleming, Department of Social Services, presented the
!Board with brochures outlining the Department's program for the
prevention of child abuse, detailed activities which were planned
for the month of April and recognized staff members who were
present and involved in solving this problem.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Child abuse and neglect is a reality that touches
all segments of the community of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
believes that children are best served in their own homes and
that the factors that create child mistreatment can be addressed
with support from community resources; and
WHEREAS, The community service agencies and private
citizens have joined hands to strengthen the family's ability to
continue functioning as a family; and
WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
recognizes and supports the efforts to resolve the issue of child
abuse and neglect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the month of April,
1984, be proclaimed Child Abuse Prevention Month and that this
Resolution be called to the attention of all citizens.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84-139
6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS AND CLAIMS
Mr. Hedrick indicated there were no citizens scheduled for this
portion of the agenda.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS - CAPITAL AREA HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL APPT.
Mr. Mayes nominated Mr. Melvin S. Branch for appointment to the
Capital Area Health Advisory Council. There were no other
nominations and it was indicated that Mr. Branch's name would be
formally considered at the April 11 1984 meeting for appointmen
to this Council. '
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.A. LEASE OF STABLES AT COUNTY STABLE COMPLEX
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for
a public hearing to consider the lease of twenty new stables at
the Chesterfield County Stable Complex to the Virginia
Quarterhorse Association, Inc. Mr. Hester explained the proposa
from the Virginia Quarterhorse Association which would allow thel
to build twenty new stables in exchange for free use of the
stalls for the next five years. There was no one present to
discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr.
Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator
to execute the necessary lease documents for the Virginia
Quarterhorse Association, Inc. at the County Stable Complex
allowing them free use of the stables for a period of five years
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
8.B. BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FOR ITINERANT MERCHANTS
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 12-138 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978,
as amended, relating to business license taxes for itinerant
merchants. He stated this ordinance had been adopted on an
emergency basis at the Board meeting on February 22, 1984 and it
was staff's recommendation that this ordinance be rescinded. Mr
Mincks stated that this ordinance would be overly cumbersome and
will be difficult to enforce and administer because of the numbe~
of itinerant merchants in the County. He stated the subsequent
item addressed another ordinance which would provide in the case
of flea markets and craft shows that only the promoter of the
show would be taxed on the gross receipts of all the merchants
who participate in said flea market and/or craft show. He state~
there would be very little difference in the tax collected but it
would save a lot of enforcement problems for County staff and
would also be less cumbersome for the individual, itinerant
merchant.
Mr. Hodge stated there has been a lot of study involving people
in the community, the offices of the County Attorney, the
Commissioner of Revenue and the County Administrator and it is
felt this is the best alternative.
Mr. Hedrick stated the Board is requested to rescind the action
taken at its meeting on February 22, 1984 and adopt on an
emergency basis the revised ordinance and set the date for its
public hearing for permanent adoption. Mr. Dodd explained the
proposed ordinance in de~ail and stated he felt the Board is in
general agreement on these actions. When asked, about 30 people
present in the audience indicated their support of the outlined
actions.
84-]40
Ms. Sheri Wybal, of Matoaca District, stated she represented a
large group of crafters in the County. She stated they
appreciated the reduction from $50 to $10; that the schools,
churches, music boosters, civic groups, etc. use the craft shows
for fund raisers for school activities, for day camps for mentally
retarded, for donations to fire departments and rescue squads,
and other worthwhile causes. She stated they were concerned that
if the law becomes to complicated, the people will take their
business to other areas where it is easier to do business and not
sell in the County. She stated they are looking for a fair
solution and they are not opposed to paying their share. She
stated that they are seeking a single permit for the operator of
a flea market and/or craft show which is the best route to take
as it saves the County time and expense of issuing and checking
individual permits. She stated they supported the proposed
9rdinance as outlined.
~r. Alvin Kline, operator of the Bellwood Flea Market, stated
this revised ordinance would affect him and he is in support of
it. He explained the process which he has followed for years. He
~ffered his assistance to staff with this matter. He presented
the Board with a petition signed by 1,300 people in favor of the
mew proposed ordinance.
~rs. Debra McVay, stated she lived in Richmond, but would be
noving into the County. She handed out documents from the
2hamber of Commerce and one from Cloverleaf Mall Merchants
%ssociation. She stated that merchants do not make as much as one
~ould think and presented the Board with an example which
indicated the selling hours, profits and expenses for a good show
~or an itinerant merchant. She stated she would read the letter
From the Cloverleaf Mall Merchants Association at the public
%earing.
one else present wished to address the Board.
9n motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board rescinded
the adoption of the ordinance amending and reenacting Section
12-138 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, relating to business license taxes for itinerant
~erchants which was adopted at the Board meeting on February 22,
1984.
~yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
~bsent: Mr. Daniel.
· NEW BUSINESS
.A. BUSINESS LICENSE TAXATION OF FLEA MARKETS AND CRAFT SHOWS
4r. Carmichael explained the ordinance in detail and stated he
~upported this ordinance. Mr. Mayes questioned the definition of
'non-profit" organizations with regard to this ordinance. Mr.
~armichael stated that a non-profit organization is not taxed,
~nd if they receive profits from sales at craft shows, flea
~arkets, etc. they would not be taxed but the proceeds to the
.ndividual business person who rents a table at the show would be
~axed on their gross receipts if more than $3,000 which is
~larified in the ordinance. Mr. Hodge stated that if all of the
~roceeds went to the non-profit organization it was not licensed
~ut if any proceeds went to the people and not the non-profit
~rganization, it had to be considered separately. Mr. Carmichael
~tated in an instance when people make goods all year and a
~hurch would hold a bazaar to sell those items with all profits
Ioing to the church, the tax or license would not be
~equired. Mr. Mayes stated this answered his question. Mr.
larmichael stated that the people involved with this matter have
~een very cooperative and indicated that Mr. Kline of the
iellwood Flea Market had paid a tax for years which was not
~equired for which he felt reimbursement was in order. The Board
ndicated that was Mr. Carmichael's decision. Mr. Dod~ inquired
f a person such as the operator of the Bellwood Flea Market who
~as a fixed location, can obtain an annual license rather than
84-141
daily license. Mr. Carmichael stated he could continue as he
as in the past if the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Applegate
that Clover Hill High School has their show on March 31,
4 and inquired if the ordinance could be adopted effective
1, 1984 because he had given them information on the
nce adopted previously. Mr. Carmichael stated that if it
not adopted as of today, then everyone at the flea market
at the school would have to be licensed and pay a $50 fee.
was generally agreed this would not be advantageous.
motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
following ordinance on an emergency basis and set the date of
9, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for the public hearing:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
BY ADDING SECTION 12-39.1 RELATING TO
BUSINESS LICENSE TAXATION OF
FLEA MARKET AND CRAFT SHOWS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
, is amended by adding the following section.
. 12-39.1. Flea market and craft shows.
(a) Every person engaged in the business of organizing,
g or managing a flea market or craft show shall obtain a
~ for the privilege of doing such business in the County
shall pay a license tax equal to thirty dollars or thirty-six
s of one percent of the total gross receipts from all
of goods or merchandise sold by individuals participating
such flea market or craft show, whichever is greater.
(b) "Flea Market or craft show" shall include any show
isting of a group of persons or merchants selling goods,
s or merchandise such as hobby crafts, antiques, art works or
and articles, or any combination of these.
(c) No individual participating in a flea market or craft
as a merchant shall be liable for any license taxation on
gross receipts generated at such show under this chapter if
promoter, manager or organizer of the show obtains a license
pays the license tax as provided in this section, and if the
reports to such promoter, manager or organizer the
's total gross receipts from such show.
(d) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to
e any promoter, manager or organizer of a flea market or
show of the obligation to pay any other license taxes that
be imposed by this chapter.
,es: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
: Mr. Daniel.
.B. CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR LITERARY LOANS
. Cain stated the School Board had requested that the Board
)prove three additional literary loans from the State Board of
)n as they had received information that the State Board
put a deadline of April 1, 1984 for literary loans at the
~ rate of 3%. He stated the date of July 1, 1984 was
'~inally set b~t because of pressure from the Legislature, they
it necessary to take this action now. He stated it was not
these applications will meet the deadline but they would
uest an exception° He stated between the existing 3% rate and
~he proposed 4% rate, would be about $200,000 over the course of
84-142
the loans for the three projects. He stated the projects are a
new elementary school for $2,000,00 on the Condrey Property; an
addition to Hopkins for $1,500,000 and an addition to Monacan for
$1,500,000.
Mrs. Girone inquired where the balance of the funds would come
from for the new school as it could not be built for $2,000,000.
Dr. Cain stated the School Board would be eligible for the loan
for five years and it would have to come from a bond issue or
other loan arrangements but this would protect the right to
borrow the money and is not saying it will be built now. Mrs.
Girone indicated she had a problem with the way the School System
does not plan with the Board. She stated a budget session was
held and this matter was not mentioned. She stated this would
have a major impact and once you apply for it, the School Board
can come to the Board any time and say it should be done. She
stated the bond indebtedness in the County is a serious matter.
Dr. Cain stated a capital improvements study is currently
underway and this was brought out of that because of the
deadlines given at the first of the month. Mrs. Girone stated
the only way she could vote for this would be some assurances
that the School Board would plan for the expenditures and let the
Board of Supervisors know a year in advance. Dr. Cain stated
that planning is in progress now but this is only protecting the
right to borrow the money at the lower rate. He stated if it is
not approved now, when it is approved it will be at the higher
rate when they do come back with the entire plan. He stated no
approval has been given to build the facility. He stated the
plan should be ready sometime this spring. Mrs. Girone stated
the Board has been waiting for it almost two years. She stated
that a bulletin had gone out to the parents indicating there may
be six or eight trailers at Gordon next year which caused a lot
of concern as it did not give an explanation. She stated she
would like for the School Administration to plan better in that
regard, and that the School Administration inform the public at a
meeting as to the circumstances and reasons. She stated the
principal indicated there were a lot of subdivisions being
constructed and they anticipated needing more space. Dr. Cain
stated he would look into this matter.
Mr. Mayes inquired if in the planning of the School Budget, there
is any communication between the School Board and the Board of
Supervisors. Dr. Cain stated there were communications between
the two Boards before it was made public. He stated questions
were answered at that time. Mr. Mayes inquired if consideration
was given to where the funds could come from for items in the
School Budget. Dr. Cain stated consideration was given to what
money was available and how that money might be raised but it is
not the School Board's prerogative to determine new sources but
they tried to present a realistic budget. Mr. Mayes stated he
felt the School Board goes about its planning without regard for
where the money comes from. Dr. Cain stated it did make a
difference and that is why they met with the Board.
Mr. Dodd stated he shared Mrs. Girone's concern regarding
planning but he would have also been concerned if the School
Administration did not bring this matter to the Board's attention
to save the funds. He stated the facilities are going in high
density areas and as long as we keep putting the people there,
there will be children and facilities will be necessary. He
stated this will give five years for planning before the dollars
are spent and suggested the two Boards meet. Mr. Mayes inquired
how this could be accomplished as there are no legal avenues to
require a meeting. Mr. Dodd stated he felt some good faith would
be shown and that after the budget, a meeting might be arranged.
84-143
Mr. Hedrick inquired about priorities of these projects in the
capital improvements program. Dr. Cain stated the School
Administration is not at a stage to present the entire list of
priorities but these are high on the list as they are in high
density areas. He stated they wanted to protect the money but
they are included in the total plan and will not be separated.
Mr. Dodd inquired if these projects will fall in line under the
projects already approved for which funds are frozen. Dr.' Cain
stated that was correct and hopefully, the previously approved
project funds will be released in July. He reviewed the 13
projects for which funds had already been approved. Mrs. Girone
assured Dr. Cain that the Board will take care of the facility
needs in the County for the School System but that planning has
to be done. Mr. Mayes reiterated his concern for lack of
planning as well as the relationship between the School Board and
the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, second by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution provided there is ample, sufficient
planning time before these issues are funded in the County:
WHEREAS, The School Board for the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, on the 28th day of March, 1984, presented to this
Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education
of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$2,000,000 for the new school building at West Providence Road,
to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at
3 per cent paid annually.
RESOLVED, That the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $2,000,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution provided there is ample, sufficient
planning time before these issues are funded in the County:
WHEREAS, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, on the 28th day of March, 1984, presented to this
Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education
of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$1,500,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Smoketree Drive, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the
interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
RESOLVED, That the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $1,500,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
84-]44
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution provided there is ample, sufficient
planning time before these issues are funded in the County:
WHEREAS, The School Board for the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, on the 28th day of March, 1984, presented to this
Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education
of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund
$1,500,000 for adding to or improving the present school building
at Hopkins Road, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the
interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually.
RESOLVED, That the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $1,500,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Applegate excused himself from the meeting to attend a
funeral and requested Mrs. Girone chair the meeting.
9.C. FIRE DEPARTMENT ITEMS
9.C.1. MANCHESTER RESCUE SQUAD - HEIGHT REQUIREMENT EXEMPTION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board of
Supervisors respectfully requests the Virginia Board of Health to
exempt the sixty inch (60") floor to ceiling requirement for the
Manchester Volunteer Rescue Squad for Ambulance Unit #304, in
accordance with Section 32.1-154 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended, which is a one inch (1") deficiency in advanced ~ife
Support Standards.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
9.C.2. REPLACEMENT FIRE ENGINE FOR UNIT #54
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
authorized the purchase of a Mack fire engine to replacement Unit
#54 through the normal bid process, authorized $115,000 from the
General Fund balance from the 1983-84 fiscal year for this
purchase and eliminated this cost and item from the 1984-85
budget for which it was originally planned for purchase.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
84-145
9.H. PRESENTATION OF MED-EVAC OPERATIONS
Chief Eanes stated the State Police was interested in deferring
the Med-Evac presentation for another date because of the adverse
weather conditions. It was generally agreed that this would be
deferred until another date and time.
9.D. CONSENT ITEMS
9.D.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Shadymist Drive, Mountain Pine Boulevard, Mountain
Pine Terrace, Pinchot Street and White Cedar Court in Three
Pines, Section 2, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Shadymist Drive,
Mountain Pine Boulevard, Mountain Pine Terrace, Pinchot Street
and White Cedar Court in Three Pines, Section 2, 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, Shadymist Drive, beginning where
State maintenance ends on existing Shadymist Drive, State Route
3081, extending southeast .03 mile to the intersection of
Mountain Pine Boulevard and Mountain Pine Terrace; Mountain Pine
Boulevard, beginning at its intersection with Mountain Pine
Terrace and Shadymist Drive, extending southerly .12 mile to tie
into existing Mountain Pine Boulevard, State Route 3194; Mountain
Pine Terrace, beginning at its intersection with Shadymist Drive
and Mountain Pine Boulevard extending south .11 mile to a
cul-de-sac and extending northeast .14 mile to the intersection
of Pinchot Street; Pinchot Street, beginning at its intersection
with Mountain Pine Terrace extending northwest .03 mile to a dead
end and extend southerly .10 mile to a cul-de-sac; White Cedar
Court, beginning at its intersection with White Cedar Lane, State
Route 3196, extending northwest .05 mile to a cul-de-sac. These
roads serve 65 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads except White Cedar Court and
Mountain Pine Terrace, south of Shadymist Drive, which have a 40'
right-of-way. This section of Three Pines is recorded as
follows:
Section 2, Plat Book 42, Pages 10 and 11, December 6, 1982.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
9.D.2. AGREEMENT WITH STONEMILL ASSOCIATES, INC.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County AdminJ. strator to execute the
maintenance agreement concerning the maintenance of the storm
water management system with Stonemill Associates, Inc., the
developer of Grove Court, as approved by the County Attorney.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
84-146
9.D.3. BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
the request from the J. B. Watkins P.T.A. for a bingo and/or
raffle permit for calendar year 1984.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
9.E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
9.E.1. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR CHARTER COLONY PARKWAY
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a
construction contract with T & L Construction, the low bidder, in
the amount of $170,473.75 for the construction of Charter Colony
Parkway (access new Midlothian High School); authorized the
substitution of General Fund monies for Revenue Sharing funds for
this project, all of which is contingent upon the dedication of
the right-of-way and drainage easements on the Reynolds tract and
the dedication or right of entry on the three (3) off-site
easements.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mrs. Girone expressed appreciation to staff for their work on
this project.
9.E.2. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - ETTRICK DRAINAGE PROJECT, PHASE 4
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract
with Castle Heights Construction who submitted the low bid in the
amount of $74,943 for construction of the Ettrick Drainage
Project, Phase 4. It is noted sufficient funds remain in the
Community Development Block Grant to cover this cost.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes..
~sent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
9.E.3. STREET LIGHT COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
the street light upgrading from a 3,300 mercury vapor to a 14,000
high pressure sodium vapor at a cost of $134 for Chesterfield
Avenue near Simms Hall with funds to be expended from the Matoaca
District Street Light Funds.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Dodd requested staff to investigate the possibility of
relocating the street light approved for West Strathmore Road,
between 2943 and 2949, to the next nearest possible, feasible
location (a block one way or the other) because of the high
installation cost of $2,300 for the approved location.
9.E.4. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR COURTHOUSE ROAD EXTENDED
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the transfer of $30,000 from the Rattlesnake Road
Drainage Project (330-1-92619-4393) to the Courthouse Road
Construction Project and approved and authorized the County
Administrator to enter into a contract with Shoosmith Brothers,
84-147
Inc. in an amount not exceeding $269,341.41. It was noted
$250,000 had been previously earmarked by the Board for the
project and the road will be constructed to State standards.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
9.E.5. ZONING CASE 84S001
Mr. Dodd stated there was a communication problem between he and
the developer as he had requested the developer to apply for
Residential (R-15) zoning rather that Residential (R-9) for Case
#84S001. He stated he was out of town the day of the Board
meeting and the Board approved Residential (R-9). He stated that
there would be a large outlay of funds by the County in the
future for public sewer if this is zoned R-9. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board directed staff to schedule
a public hearing before the Planning Commission for Case #84S001,
Don C. Vance.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Balderson indicated staff would notify the developer of this
action.
9.E.6. REVENUE BONDS FOR THOMAS L. HAYNES AND SWELDJECT, INC.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Chesterfield, Virginia (the Authority), has considered the
application of Thomas L. Haynes (the Applicant) for the issuance
of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an
amount not to exceed $750,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the
financing of the Applicant's acquisition, construction and
equipping of a manufacturing, warehouse and wholesale
distribution facility to be leased to and operated by Sweldject,
Inc. (the Project) to be located at Route 10 and Old Bermuda
Hundred Road in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has
held a public hearing thereon on February 22, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the
County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended;
and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial
Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia,
for the benefit of Thomas L. Haynes, to the extent required by
Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to assist in the
financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the
Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Applicant, but, as required
by Section 15.1-1380 of 'the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
84-148
the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority
shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or
other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys
pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing
power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
9.F. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
9.F.1. REPORTS
9.F.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer
financial reports.
9.F.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
9.F.2. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS
9.F.2.a. REQUEST TO AID INVESTORS-WOODLAKE IN ACQUIRING EASEMENT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the Right of Way manager to aid in the acquisition of
easements for a sewer force main and water line to serve Woodlake
Development along Route 360 at the Swift Creek Reservoir from
Joseph E. Vaden and Roy T. Fuqua provided Investors-Woodlake
Development Corporation enters into a contract with the County
~greeing to pay for any and all costs involved.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
~bsent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
.F.2.b. CONDEMNATION ALONG CONIFER ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amounts
as set opposite their names are not a~cepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
9wners by certified mail of the intention of the County to enter
~pon and take the property which is to be the subject of said
~ondemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution
shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage.
~illis S. and Edna M.
Lancaster W84-1B/1 $123.00
2harles E. and Jean B.
Bell
W84-1B/2 $313.00
%yes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
~sent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
).F.2.c. VACATION OF SEWER CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT - BRANDERMILL
)n motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the
late of April 25, 1.984 at 9:00 a.m. for a public hearing to
84-149
consider a request from Brandermill to vacate a portion of the
sewer construction easement across lots 3 through 8, Harbour Hill
Subdivision.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
9.F.3. CONSENT ITEMS
9.F.3.a. LEASE AGREEMENT FOR BRIGHT OAKS ESTATES
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
the lease agreement with Pandora Company, Incorporated for a well
lot to serve Bright Oaks Estates and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the lease documents.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Welchons stated there is no need to proceed with condemnation
as the lease agreement has been agreed to and it is a good
solution for all concerned.
9.F.3.b. LOAN FOR CENTRAL STORES FUND
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized a loan of $150,000 to the Central Stores Fund
(568) from the Water Meter and Construction Fund (566).
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Hr. Welchons stated the loan was necessary as there is a long
~elivery time on some of the water line materials and it is
necessary to purchase materials in advance of construction and
the loan would be repaid as materials are used. He indicated
~ecords would be kept and that a procedure is being investigated
~o eliminate this action in the future.
.F.3.c. WATER CONTRACT FOR FAIR PINES, SECTION 3
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following water contract:
~84-51CD/6(8)4512, Fair Pines, Section 3
Developer: Commonwealth Development Corporation
~ontractor: Coastline Contractors, Inc.
Potal Estimated Cost: $46,092.00
Estimated County Cost: $14,800.20 (cash refund)
3,300.00 (refund through connections)
Estimated Developer Cost: $27,991.80
~ode: 559-1-00556-0000
%nd further the Board appropriated $19,910.00 from 563 Surplus to
380-1-64512-7212.
~yes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
~sent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
.F.3.d. WATER CONTRACT FOR CABIN CREEK, SECTION C-2
)n motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
lnd authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
~ocuments for the following water contract:
84-150
C
E
r
M~
R,
M~
Z(
B(
4-50CD/6(8)4502, Cabin Creek, Section C-2
.per: Newby's Bridge Limited Partnership
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Estimated Cost: $47,127.50
bed County Cost for Oversize Water Lines:
$ 5,550.00 (refund through connections - Section C-2)
5,958.00 (estimated cash refund Section C-2)
1,500.00 {additional cash reimbursement for
oversize water lines in Cabin Creek, Sec
C-l) .
$13,008.00 Total County Cost
Led Developer Cost for Section 2 $35,619.50
: 559-1-00556-0000 Refund through connections
further the Board appropriated $8,054.00 from 563 Surplus to
64502-7212 for oversize refunds which includes a 10%
gency.
: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes. : Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
.F.3.e. CONTRACT FOR WATER IMPROVEMENTS ON CONIFER ROAD
)n motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
.nd awarded contract W84-1B/6{8)4017, water improvements for
Road, to B & D of Virginia, Inc. in the amount of
33,690.00 and further the Board transferred $37,100.00 from
67-1-36000-9462 (capital projects unallocated) to
I80-1-64017-4393 which includes a 10% contingency.
~es: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
.G. REPORTS
r. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of the
y account and a report on the Henricopolis project.
. Dodd stated Henricopolis was the site of a college in the new
, predating Harvard and William and Mary. He stated it is
historical site which is overgrown with weeds and is
sible to the public. He stated the County is attempting
restore the site without taxpayers' money as Lone Star is
ring participating. He stated it was good for historical
ires to be preserved privately and through donation and
ly, these attempts will be successful.
Hedrick presented the Board with a statement prepared for the
Dndary Preallocation Hearing for fiscal year 1984-85 Six
Plan. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt reference should be
~de to the military's and university,s traveling this area at
he CSX grade crossing as part of the justification. Mr. Mayes
~ated he felt the word "separation', should be changed to
"~eparation/underpass,, in the statement. It was generally agreed
~ese changes would be made.
motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into
ecutive Session to discuss the c ' .'
ondltlon, acquisition, or use
real property for public purposes and for consultation with
gal counsel pertaining to Fralin & Waldron, Inc. vs. Board of
~ervisors as permitted by ~ctions 2.1-344 (~ (2) and (6), -
spectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
es: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
sent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Applegate returned to the meeting during Executive Session.
ing:
Applegate stated that Mrs. Girone would be chairing the
session as established with the new procedures of the
of Supervisors.
84-151
9.I. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOME PERMITS
3S209
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Walter and Emma Singleton
requested a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property
~hich belongs to William Rowlett, cousin of the applicant. Tax
~ap 115-11 (2) Chester, Block K, Lot 135A, and better known as
922 Curtis Street (Sheet 32).
ir. Singleton was present. Mr. Dodd explained this case was
~eing reconsidered because there was a lack of
~dvertising/notification, etc. He stated Mr. Singleton was
Iranted the permit for a period of two years and there are
~itizens in the area who are opposed. Mr. SingletOn stated he
~ost his job, has been out of work since 1982, is unable to
ontinue his mortgage payments and it is a hardship situation.
Mr~ . Bill Goodwyn stated he had talked with Mr. Sl'ng±eton~ ' and he
Sympathized with his situation but Mr. and Mrs. Singleton are now
~mployed and there are other agencies or alternatives to which he
~an seek assistance. He stated they regretted that notification
~as not sent to the adjacent residents and they were not allowed
to voice their concerns before the decision was made for
~pproval. He presented a petition signed by members of the
~ommunity in opposition to this request. He stated he did not
feel this should be considered on a hardship basis but on the
issue of placing a mobile home in a residential community and one
~hich will change the character of the neighborhood. He stated
~he neighborhood is stable, the residents have lived there for
nany years, they have a substantial investment in their
~roperties which would be jeopardized if an additional mobile
%ome is placed in this particular neighborhood, it would have a
%egative impact on the value of their homes, it would set a
)recedent for other mobile homes in the area, etc. He presented
)ictures and a map depicting the homes and the area and their
iocation in relation to the mobile home site. He indicated there
could be another home under construction in the near future. He
~tated the neighbors are concerned about the impact and requested
~enial of this request.
{r. Singleton indicated he planned to move into the mobile home
~n April as he is under contract to sell his home.
~r. Dodd stated he tries to be very careful about placing mobile
~omes in Chester and was concerned about this area and that was
~hy he had agreed to only a two year permit. He apologized for
~he failure of communication by the County and stated that he
]nderstood Mr. Goodwyn's concerns but he felt it would be unfair
~nd unjust treatment to make Mr. Singleton move at this time as
~t would create a real hardship. He stated he did not intend to
~enew the permit after the two year period and that he would be
~ery careful in placing mobile homes in the area in the future.
)n motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
~his request for a period of two years, with the understanding
]e will have to move the mobile home at that time, subject to the
~ollowing 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.
84-152
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
7es:
Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Mr. Daniel.
34SR051
£n Midlothian Magisterial District, Mounty K. May requested
of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property
belongs to John A. Hughes. Tax Map 18-15 (1) Parcel 5 and
)etter known as 210 Twin Ridge Lane (Sheet 8).
Virginia Kelly was present representing Ms. May, who was
lnable to attend the meeting. There was no opposition present.
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
~pproved this request for a period of five years subject to the
~ollowing standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
'es: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. ~irone and Mr. Mayes.
: Mr. Daniel.
84-153
84SR052
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Albert F. and Sharon R. Baker
requested renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 98-1 (2) Central Park, Block
16, Lots 12-15 and better known as 10225 Brightwood Avenue (Sheet
32).
Ms. Baker was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, 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.
e
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84SR053
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Shoosmith Brothers, Inc.
requested renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 113 (1) Parcel 21 and better
known as 11800 Lewis Road (Sheet 31).
Mr. Cobbs was present representing the applicant. There was no
one present in opposition. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by
Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request for a period of five
years subject to the following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
e
No ].ot 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.
84-154
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84SR054
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Shoosmith Brothers, Inc.
requested renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 114-9 (1) Parcel 1 and
better known as 11800 A Lewis Road (Sheet 31).
Mr. Cobbs was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd
the Board approved this request for a period of five years
subject to the following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
So
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. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S055
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Dalby Barnett requested a mobile
home permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax
Map 98-6 (3) Belmeade, Block 10, Lot 17-20 and better known as
23111 Maywood Street (Sheet 32).
84-155
Mr. Barnett was present· There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
6. 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.
7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit·
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S056
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Ronald S. Spain requested a
mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to David L. Spain, father of the applicant. Tax Map 82-1
(3) Kingsland Heights, Block i4, Lots ll and 12 and better known
as 2420 Norcliff Road (Sheet 23).
Mrs. Spain was present and stated this request is for an existing
mobile home that has been there since 1974 but it has changed
ownership as they bought it from their brother-in-law. Mr. Dodd
inquired if notice had been sent to adjacent property owners·
Mr. Balderson stated to the best of his knowledge notices were
sent. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request for a
period of five years subject to the following standards
conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
2. 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
re sidence.
84-~156
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
9.J. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
84S024
In Dale Magisterial District, VED P. AND CHHAYA JAIN requested an
amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 60-]8) to
permit conversion of a duplex into a multiple family dwelling (4
units) on a 5.19 acre parcel fronting approximately 750 feet on
the west line of South Beulah Road, approximately 50 feet south
of Dalebrook Drive. Tax Map 53-13 (1) Parcel 49 (Sheets 16 and
23).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of
this request. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd,
the Board accepted the applicant's request for withdrawal.
Ayes: Mr. App].egate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes
Absent: Mr. Daniel. '
83S201
In Midlothian Magisterial District, RICHMOND HONDA COMPANY
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit motor
vehicle sales, service, and repair in a Community Business (B-2)
District on a 9.09 acre parcel fronting approximately 610 feet on
the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,200 feet
west of Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day
deferral of this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by
Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration of this matter until
April 25, 1984..
Ayes: Mro Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes
Absent: Mr. Daniel. '
84S021 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES
requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use
Planned Development (Case 79S079) to permit: (1) amendments to
Iconditions relative to signs, and architectural treatment of the
rear of buildings; (2) revise the approved Master Plan; (3)
permit schemati6 plan approval by staff; (4) permit a drive-in
restaurant; and (~) permit a 25 foot exception to the 50 foot
arking setback on a 19.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 190
eet on the south line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 215
feet east of Beach Road; also fronting approximately 340 feet on
84-157
the south line of Iron Bridge Road across from Krause Road; and
approximately 530 feet on the east line of Beach Road,
approximately 290 feet south of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-12
(1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day
deferral of this request. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr
Dodd, the Board deferred this request until April 25, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S129
In Matoaca Magisterial District, LEONARD COX requested a Condi-
tional Use to permit a boarding house (9 tenants) in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.188 acre parcel fronting
approximately 50 feet on Light Street and approximately 160 feet
on Bremo Avenue, and located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads and better known as 3310 Light
Street. Tax Map 182-14 (1) Parcel 64 (Sheet 53/54).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the request and the Board had deferred it for 60 days
for further study. Mr. Cox was present and requested an
additional 60 day deferral. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by
Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this request until May 23, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S136
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ARCHITECTONICS, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of
a 7.08 acre parcel fronting approximately 310 feet on the west
line of Turner Road approximately 1,100 feet north of Elkhardt
Road. Tax Map 29-5 (1) Parcels 4 and 5 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning CommissiOn had recommended
approval of Residential (R-12) rather than Residential (R-9).
Mr. Carl Stargett, President of Architectonics, Inc., stated they
would accept the recommendation for R-12.
Mr. Owen Craddock, representing his father who lives on Turner
Road, stated they are disturbed because the applicant has asked
for individual septic tanks and they would like public sewer to
be installed. He stated the staff report addresses the need for
possibly obtaining drainage easements on other properties. He
stated he hoped this would be followed very carefully by the
Planning Commission when putting in roads, sewer and gutters. He
stated Turner Road is supposed to be widened to four lanes and
they would like the County to coordinate construction of the
sewer and roads so that the fire and rescue protection will not
be hindered for the residents in the area.
Mr. Elmer Condrey stated he did not oppose R-12 zoning but the
report does not address the problems that exist now. He stated
the drainage problem will. probably be worse on his property. He
stated the road situation still exists and to allow the
subdivision to go in now without widening Turner Road will add to
the existing problem. He stated he was not opposed to the zoning
but would like the Board to limit the use of the property until
the improvements are made whereby they would have proper
drainage, traffic flow and public sewer.
84-158
Mr. Applegate stated staff recommends that the developer would
have to take into consideration the widening of Turner Road which
is in the Six Year Plan and the Utilities Department recommends
public sewer in the area which should take care of that problem.
He inquired if Mr. Stargett would connect to public sewer. Mr.
Stargett stated he would if it were available. There was some
discussion of the distance from the subdivision of the sewer
trunk line at Pocosham Creek. Mr. Applegate stated it would be
up to the applicant to extend sewer to the development. Mr.
Craddock inquired if this was a requirement. Mr. Balderson
stated the Planning Commission could make it a requirement but it
is not a consideration of the zoning request. He stated the
drainage would also be addressed at that time as it is a
continuing process through subdivision development and
engineering plans will have to be accomplished so as not to
adversely affect the area. When asked if adjacent property
owners would be notified of the Planning Commission hearing, Mr.
Balderson advised if they would contact his office, he would
inform them of the appropriate meeting. Mr. Dodd stated he was
in favor of this request as it is almost a large lot subdivision
and that was part of the reason for recommending R-12 zoning to
address some of the problems outlined. Mr. Applegate stated he
felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to look
into the extension of public sewer if this request is approved.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
denied the request for Residential (R-9) and approved rezoning to
Residential (R-12).
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S164
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BELMONT HILLS RECREATION
CENTER, INC. requested an amendment to a Conditional Use (Case
75A026) to permit: (1) deletion of the 35 foot buffer along the
southern boundary of Parcel 2, Tax Map 40-10 (1); (2) extend the
hours of operation from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on weekends; and
a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit: (1) expansion
of the recreational facility on Part of Parcel 37A, Tax Map 40-14
(1); (2) an exception to the requirement that parking areas be
paved; and (3) a 15 foot exception to the 30 foot front yard
setback for buildings in a Residential (R-7) District on a 3.0
acre parcel which lies between the eastern and western terminuses
of Silliman Road. Tax Map 40-10 (1) Parcel 2 and Tax Map 40-14
(]) Part of Parcel 37A (Sheet 15).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the extension of operating hours but approval of the
other requests subject to certain conditions. Mr. Yogi Berger,
President of the Belmont Hills Recreation Center, stated
according to staff review the plan is not in accordance with
County guidelines. He explained the grade, the topography of the
parcel, the elevation, the drainage, etc. He stated the parking
spaces are to be 10 ft. and they will adjust the spaces to comply
with that requirement. Mr. Balderson explained staff's report
regarding the buffering, the parking and berming. Mro Berger
stated initially there was consideration given to condemning for
a sewer line but a meeting was held and a plan was agreed upon
with representatives from the County, the developer and the
community association. Mr. Balderson stated condition #4
addresses the buffer conditions that staff feels are necessary.
He stated the meeting that was held dealt with a utility problem
not as to conformance with the conditions.
Mr. Applegate inquired if 30 spaces would be adequate. Mr.
Balderson stated he felt the plan could handle 48 spaces which
should handle the parking but the residents question this for
other functions beside the activities of the pool. He stated it
would be a matter of p~udence on the part of the operators to see
84-159
that this did not present a problem to the neighbors. Mr. Berger
stated the extended hours of operation would be for the proposed
community center and he presented a summary of hours of operation
for other subdivisions with community centers. He stated if
there were a problem, the Board could withdraw the privilege.
Mr. Michael Transinger stated opposition to the request because
of the variance to the setback as it is a residential area, he
knows nothing of the architectural design of the center and it
would not be harmonious with the residential neighborhood. He
stated opposition to the extended hours as well and indicated
parking problems which have existed on this narrow road, poor
access, etc. He stated it was a small area and did not lend
itself to expansion.
Mr. Wayne Weeks stated his opposition to the longer hours, the
club house being built on this site which is on a dangerous
curve, etc. He stated it is not fair to the 12 new residents who
will be moving into the area who should be a part of this·
discussion.
Mr. Ed Spain stated he objected to this request for the reasons
as stated by the previous speakers. He stated everyone on his
street is opposed to this request.
Mr. Ed Winn stated he did not feel there was 35 feet left in the
buffer as it is almost a borrow pit and that four or five feet of
trees in a borrow pit will not give much screening. He stated he
was opposed to the hours being extended as 11:00 p.m. means
nothing now since they are still at the site until 1 or 2 a.m.
and the police have been called to the site. He stated he would
prefer an earlier closing time than 11:00 p.m. He also discussed
the disturbance regarding the loud speakers. He stated the 15
ft. setback would be detrimental to the neighborhood, that the
driveway to the parking lot is a narrow, rutted, one lane road
with a steep incline and cars have to gun their motors to get out
on the road, it is an area for hot-rodding at night, etc. He
stated he felt if they fix the parking lot, they should also pave
the road so it would be safer than having to gun the cars to get
out in the street. He also mentioned concern regarding the
litter problem. He stated he was opposed to the requests.
Mr. Berger stated the driveway would be paved, they are locking
the fence to prevent litter by unauthorized people, parking on
Silliman Drive would be eliminated with the parking area being
approved, the setback is because of a topographical situation,
the noise situation was addressed by the Board of the Civic
Association and measures are being taken, the police have only
been there three times since 1976, etc. He stated he was not
aware of parking after hours at the center. He indicated the YMCA
would be managing the pool for the coming year. He indicated the
building would not be constructed for several years.
There were three people present in favor and five in opposition to
this request.
Mr. Balderson outlined the plans for the area and its buffer. Mr.
Berger explained the plan further indicating the dimensions were
not accurate. Mrs. Girone inquired if an engineer had looked at
this site. Mr. Berger stated no because they are not ready to
build at this time. Mr. Balderson stated the site plan will have
to be certified by an engineer before final approval. Mr.
Applegate stated he felt recreation was healthy and necessary but
a site plan was also needed in order that all understand what is
being planned, that an engineer might be able to locate the
building on the parcel without an exception, etc. as this is a
difficult parcel. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this was also for
the civic association's benefit because if the Board grants the
request, it may not be what is necessary.
84--I~0
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board defer this request
until April 25, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Applegate stated he would be available to meet to discuss and
review the plans for the area.
83S168
In Midlothian Magisterial District, CHARLES L. CHANDLER requested
a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a motel in a
Community Business (B-2) District on a 3.2 acre parcel fronting
approximately 50 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike
approximately 600 feet southeast of Robious Road. Tax Map 17-12
(1) Parcels 26 and 33 and Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Eugene McCall, representing the applicant, explained the request,
the development in the area, the existing B-2 request for a motel,
etc. He stated a similar request has been approved recently,
that the proposed use conforms to the General Plan 2000 and that,
through conditions, the Board can insure compatibility. He
stated they are concerned with the condition for a proposed
roadway or easement from the existing crossover on Route 60 to
the northern line of the property and the nature of the proposed
buffer. He described the property surrounding the parcel which
involves a mobile home park and sewer lagoon, etc. He stated
the conditions require the applicant to provide a 50 ft.
ingress/egress easement to provide access to the undeveloped land
to the rear and to build, within the easement, a 24 ft. paved
roadway with curb and gutter. He stated another purpose of the
easement was to provide access to emergency vehicles to which
they have no problem. He reviewed the preliminary site plan and
explained the use the property. Mr. Balderson stated the
requirement was not just to give access to the property but to
provide for a collector street pattern in the area.
Mr. McCall referred to the owners of the adjacent property during
his presentation. Mr. Hedrick requested Mr. McCall
to refrain from using the property owners' names for the adjacent
parcels. Mrs. Girone indicated that Mr. Bookman has never
requested or spoke to her regarding this and the idea of
Ilaccessing the back property comes strictly from staff. She
Ilstated it has nothing to do with the individual property owners
~lbut with the great amounts of land which have no safe access
points to Route 60.
Mr. McCall stated that if they are required to build the road, it
will destroy the integrity of their plan as it isolates the
principal parking areas from the motel itself. He stated he did
~not find anything in the staff report stating this is for the
purpose of providing a collector street or he has failed to note
it. He stated he felt this was a private easement. He noted the
movement would not be limited to automotive traffic but also by
large mobile homes, where the patrons would be stopping to enter
the motel and would have to cross the street to get to and from
their cars. He stated this was an unacceptable way to design the
facility. He stated the lender has expressed reservations about
the proposal with reqard to the roadway. He stated the applicant
84-161
has sought advice of experienced motel people who have indicated
he should not undertake the project if such a roadway is involved
and his regular financing institution has told him they are not
interested in the project with such a road as part of the
package. He stated although they do not agree with the buffering
requirements on most of the property, they will accept them. He
stated that they would rather have a decorative fence with a
locked gate with a key for all emergency agencies in the rear
rather than landscaping. He stated further the applicant cannot
go forward with the project if the road is required and if that
· happens, he could develop consistent with current zoning.
Mrs. Girone stated that if the applicant did not go with this
project and continues on with his B-2 zoning and enlarges the
shopping center, that it is entirely possible that the Planning
Commission could require the easement and/or road. She stated
that the crossover on Route 60 is in front of this easement and
that is why it is vital.
Mr. Dodd inquired how much f~ontage the parcel had on Route 60.
Mr. Chandler stated 50 ft. Mr. Dodd stated that, in effect, this
would have to be a state road. Mr. McCall stated they would
build it to state standards but only to serve their land and if
the County takes it over in the future, that is acceptable.
Mr. Michel Zajur, partial owner of La Siesta Restaurant, stated
they are favor of the project and it would be of great benefit to
them. He stated the restaurant is extremely nice and they do not
want a lot of trailer court traffic through the area as proposed.
Mr. Dodd stated he had a problem with the condition because if
a state road is required to the back of the property it will go
north to a creek ravine or straight back to a road that is not up
to State standards. He stated this would kill the project. He
stated everyone in the mobile home park will use this road all
the time right by this door. He stated if there were some room
to provide an easement, he would not have a problem, but in
effect you are making a requirement that is too strong on 3.2
acres of land.
Mrs. Girone stated the reason the easement is needed is because
it is at the crossover on Route 60. She stated that the easement
might be dedicated from the point where his driveway ends to the
back of the property and not constructed all the way through.
Mr. Balderson stated this recommends an easement not a state
road. Mr. Dodd stated there is no other room there so it is in
effect a state road. Mr. Balderson stated that what staff is
hoping that in the future once the property develops toward that
end, that the development will necessitate that it be constructed
to state standards. Mr. Hedrick stated that it should be
dedicated as a road right of way rather than an private easement.
Mr. Balderson stated a road right of way might kill the
development. Mr. Applegate inquired about stubbing the road.
Mr. Balderson explained that the problem is not knowing how the
property to the rear is going to develop and that it did not
matter which way it is dedicated as it will be the choice of the
developer of the adjacent property to meet with this applicant'
and provide access accordingly. There was some discussion
regarding the development, use and access to property in the area
as well as collector streets. Mr. Balderson stated an ideal
situation would be to have a collector street plan rather than
trying to design one through zoning. Mrs. Girone stated she felt
this was an appropriate site for his proposal and inquired if the
applicant would like to consider thLs further and take a
deferral. The applicant indicated he would.
84--1.62
It was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved
that this request be deferred until April 25, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his company was
involved in the sale of property for the next zoning case and
excused himself from the meeting because of a possible conflict
of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of
Interest Act.
83S180
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 40 acre parcel
fronting approximately 1,400 feet on the north line of Centralia
Road approximately 300 feet east of Chester Road. Tax Map 97-2
(1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the Residential (R-9) and approval of Residential
(R-12). Mr. Hal Hayes was present and stated that the Board
deferred this matter so the applicant could to address
neighborhood concerns and they have had a meeting to that effect.
He stated the concerns were to the square footage, the condition
of foundations on the homes, the quality of construction and the
prospects of an architectural committee which would have control.
He stated the meeting was held with four or five residents, Mr.
Poole and Mr. Rowe. He stated they have enlarged the square
footage for the four types of houses, that all houses would be on
foundation with the homes that front on Centralia Road with brick
on all four sides, the homes throughout the rest would be brick
on the front and both sides and on the houses which back up to
the shopping center would be brick on the front. He stated in
the covenants they have proposed an architectural review
committee and outlined the membership. He presented the proposed
restrictive covenants. Mr. Balderson stated proffers #2, #3 and
#4 are unenforceable and would be better included in 'the
restrictive covenants.
Mr. Paul Barr stated the President of the North Chester
Homeowners Association could not make the meeting today and
requested that he represent them. He stated that they are not
against the subdivision but are against the subdivision as
proposed for straight R-9 zoning. He stated they propose that
only the lots that back up to the business areas be zoned R-9
with everything else to be rezoned R-12 as the property across
the street is R-12 and the Mineola property is R-9 and R-12. He
stated they are against all R-9 lots in the area and there is
approximately 800-1,000 acres which are undeveloped and they do
not want that zoned R-9 either. He stated they are opposed to
the house sizes proposed and they want to make sure all homes are
finished as other homes in the area are more expensive and
larger. He discussed the homes proposed and the wishes of the
adjacent homeowners--that all homes be brick foundation on all
sides, that the homes be constructed as those homes in Clarendon
and not like in Brandywine, that the homes be built with heat
pumps or a heating source with central air, that the exterior
finish be a beaded hardboard siding, woodman siding, wood siding
or brick veneer and not aluminum siding. He stated Mr. Rowe does
not vote in their district, he does not have to drive the roads
and he does not have children in the area schools. He stated
this proposal will generate approximately 4,000 vehicles per day
and this will make the area more hazardous and congested. He
stated they would prefer additional proffers be made or that the
project be denied.
Mrs. Margie Burton stated the residents of Kendale Acres are
extremely concerned about the lot and house sizes and they do not
want the remaining area to become R-9. She stated that within one
84-163
square mile of Kendale Acres there is a potential of 738 home
sites if they are zoned less than R-12 with an average of two
cars per family which will be using Chester Road which is heavily
traveled now and referred to the existing schools in the area.
Mr. Dodd stated he understood the traffic problem which will also
be traveling by his home and he would prefer that it be left
undeveloped as well. He stated they tried to get R-9 in Mineola
and there are rinky-dink homes there so he was trying to go with,
mot only a land size, but also to put a decent home there and
even though the square footage is not exactly what the people
want, the square footage is comparable to those in the area and
are larger than some in the other areas.
Mr. Dodd stated he would recommend approval of this request based
on the proffers of the applicant, the restrictive covenants and
the staff report but he would accept Mr. Barr's suggestion that
proffer II.A.3. be changed to 15 homes rather than 20. Mr. Micas
stated that this is strictly rezoning and not a conditional use
and that the Board cannot make amendments to the proffers. Mr.
Dodd stated if he could not reduce the average to 15 he would
have to stay with the 20 because that is what he is forced to do.
He stated, however, that this does not set a trend of R-9
development in the area because this is a peculiar piece of land
that lays adjacent to B-3 and lays somewhat in a creek bed area
that is not that easy to develop and that the area to the east of
it would probably be in the R-12 or R-15 range. Mr. Balderson
stated that proffers #2~ #3 and #4 should be rejected since they
are not enforceable and could be placed in the restrictive
covenants. Mr. }{ayes stated there was a problem with this
because of the title insurance, etc. He stated they modeled
these proffers after other proposals. He stated they have
iproifered them in good faith and are on public record and even
though they are not enforceable by the staff they could be
enforced by the architectural committee. Mr. Micas stated they
could be accepted but they are not enforceable. Mr. Dodd stated
he would like to accept them as they would be a part of the
record.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
the request for Residential (R-9) subject to acceptance of the
following proffers by the applicant:
I. AS TO LOT SIZE OF EACH LOT ABUTTING OLD CENTRALIA ROAD:
ae
Ail lots with frontage on Old Centralia Road shall have
a minimum of ninety (90) feet of road frontage (R-12
Road Frontage Requirement) on Old Centralia, except the
corner lots which shall have over one hundred (100)
feet of frontage on the interior road frontage.
Ail lots with frontage on Old Centralia Road shall have
a minimum lot area of 12,000 Square Feet.
II. AS TO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES CONSTRUCTED ON THE SUBJECT PARC~
A. Two-story homes
Minimum of 1,414 square feet gross floor area
with 100% of the gross floor area finished.
Or when any portion left unfinished, minimum
of 1,570 square feet gross floor area, with a
minimum o£ 900 square feet finished.
e
There shall be an overall average of 1,440
gross square feet of finished floor for all
two-story homes, however, such averages will not
be computed until at least twenty two-story homes
are completed and occupied.
Cape cod houses - first floor area shall be a
minimum of 912 square feet finished.
84-164
Ce
Ranchers - all shall contain a minimum of 1,281
square feet gross floor area.
Tri-levels - all shall have a minimum of 1,450
square feet gross floor area with a minimum of 912
square feet finished.
III. AS TO THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE HOUSES CONSTRUCTED ON THE
SUBJECT PARCEL:
Ail homes shall be built on foundation with brick
facing as follows:
All homes with frontage on Old Centralia Road
shall have brick on all four sides of the
foundation.
Lots that abut the B-3 proposed shopping
center on the north property line of the subject
parcel shall have brick facing on the front of the
foundation only.
t
Ail other homes in the subdivision shall have
brick facing on the front and both sides of the
foundation.
IV. The quality and craftsmanship of all homes constructed in
the subdivision shall be equal to or exceed those homes already
constructed in the Brandywine Subdivision in Chesterfield County.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation to those involved in helping to
work out a solution to this request.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
84S008
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ARCHWAy/60 ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Convenience Business (B-l) and
Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O), plus a Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit exceptions to use and bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a 9.31 acre parcel front-
ing approximately 380 feet on the south line of Midlothian
Turnpike, located approximately 250 feet west of North Arch Road,
and also fronting approximately 700 feet on the north line of
Knightsbridge Road and approximately 100 feet on North Arch Road
in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 18-13 (1) Parcels 13 and 19 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Doug Woolfolk stated an adverse decision today by the Board could
force the partnership to accept a bid on this property for a
retail use as it is currently zoned. He stated they have done
the best job possible to provide a nice office park, tried to
protect the neighbors' interest by buffering, they have not come
to an agreement with regard to ingress/egress which they feel
they must have, etc.
Mr. Dick Roop, President of the Shenandoah Civic Association,
stated they were in opposition to only one point, that being the
rear exit onto Knightsbridge Road through their subdivision which
will pose a safety problem to the colmnunity. He stated he felt
the remainder of the project is good. He expressed appreciation
to Mr. Applegate for meeting with the residents. He stated the
84-]65
traffic should exit onto Route 60. There were about 30 people
present from Shenandoah who were opposed to the exit onto
Knightsbridge. He requested that this be approved with the
exception of the exit onto Knightsbridge Road. Mrs. Girone
stated a lady had called regarding her opposition to a through
road from Route 60 to Knightsbridge and inquired if the residents
understood what was proposed. Mr. Roop stated they understood it
was not a through road that was being proposed.
Mr. Bob Conner, a member of the Shenandoah Area Development
Association, stated they are opposed to the plan because they were
told there would be a row of houses on the north side of
Knightsbridge Road to protect them from the property under
question now, there are a lot of children using the street riding
bicycles, catching the school buses, and going to the pool, etc.
He stated this proposal would add 975 cars to the street per day
and it would be unsafe and endanger the lives of the children.
He stated the 10 year plan of the Highway Department shows that
the crossover at Route 60 in front of this property will be
closed, then the 975 cars using Knightsbridge could be doubled.
He stated the traffic on Route 60 is awesome and they do not want
it routed into their subdivision.
Mr. Joe Locke stated he was not opposed to the complex but to the
access to Knightsbridge as there has been a tremendous increase
in traffic in the area recently. He explained the traffic
patterns and congestion in the area which he felt would be made
worse. He stated if the exit could not be eliminated, he would
prefer that it remain zoned as is.
Ms. Estes inquired about the height and width of buffering and
lighting planned for the area. Mr. Woolfolk stated the proposal
is to leave the large pine trees there and fill them in with
smaller native and white pines. He stated there is a condition
which would limit the lighting to no higher than 15 ft. but they
are considering ballard lighting which would only be three to
four feet high. He stated, as currently zoned, it could have
tower lighting. Ms. Estes expressed opposition to the exit onto
Knightsbridge which would be routed through their residential
area.
Mr. Applegate stated he had met with the people and the developer
and the concern is the traffic problem with the exit onto
Knightsbridge. He stated he felt the integrity and safety of the
people in the subdivision was very important. He stated the plan
was well devised and designed. He stated he had tried to devise
a way by which traffic could be routed to North Arch without
going onto Knightsbridge but that could not be accomplished
without allowing traffic to still use Knightsbridge. He stated
he could not support a plan which would allow the traffic to use
Knightsbridge and travel in the direction of the subdivision.
Mr. Balderson indicated through conditions regarding signage and
curb cuts this could be accomplished. Mr. Applegate stated his
main concern was for the safety of area residents. There was
discussion regarding the actual design to be accomplished to
prohibit movement to the west from the development onto
Knightsbridge.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that this request be approved
subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by Clower Associates, Inc., revised 12/21/83, shall
be considered the Master Plan.
Thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of North Arch Road, shall be dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. This
dedication shall be accomplished prior to the release of a
building permit on Parcel C.
84-166
10.
13.
12.
13.
Thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of Knightsbridge Road from its intersection with
North Arch Road to the entrance to this project, shall be
dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted. This dedication shall be accomplished prior
to the release of a building permit for Parcel B or C. In
conjunction with the granting of this request, an exception
to the requirement that the remaining length of Knights-
bridge Road have a minimum right of way of 60 feet shall be
granted.
An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shalI be
constructed along Midlothian Turnpike for the entire length
of the property. These improvements shall be accomplished
and taken into the State System, prior to the release of an
occupancy permit for any structure which accesses Midlothian
Turnpike.
The entrance/exit to Midlothian Turnpike shall align with
the existing crossover. The existing crossover shall be
reconstructed to VDH&T specifications to accommodate left
turning movements into the development.
The entrance/exit to Midlothian Turnpike shall be designed
and constructed with a minimum of two (2) twenty-four (24)
foot lanes, face of curb to face of curb and divided median
for a minimum distance of 150 feet, south of its
intersection with Midlothian Turnpike. Except for the
access and median break which serves the existing de-
velopment to the west, there shall be no access to this
driveway within 150 feet of its intersection with Midlothian
Turnpike.
There shall be no individual lot access to North Arch Road.
Parcel C shall have access via the entrance/exit from
Knightsbridge Road.
The entrance/exit to Knightsbrid9e Road shall be located a
minimum of 270 feet and a maximum of 325 feet from the
centerline of North Arch Road. This entrance shall be
designed and/or signed to minimize the use of residential
streets (except Knightsbridge Road between the entrance and
North Arch Road) for through traffic to and/or from the
development.
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed
along Knightsbridge Road from the terminus of existing curb
and gutter to the entrance/exit into this project. These
improvements shall be taken into the State System prior to
the release of an occupancy permit for any parcel which
accesses Knightsbridge Road.
Ail utility lines shall be located underground.
Ail exterior lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a
height of fifteen (15) feet and positioned so as not to
project light into adjacent properties.
Building F shall have a residential appearance and shall not
exceed a height of two stories. Architectural renderings
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site
plan review.
Buildings A, B and C shall not exceed a height of two (2)
stories. Building E shall not exceed a height of three (3)
stories. Building D shall not exceed a height of two
stories. The facades of these buildings shall be of subdued
colors. Colored renderings shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site
plan review.
84-167
14.
15.
16.
17.
SIGNS
One freestanding sign, visible from Route 60, not to
exceed 100 square feet in area, shall be permitted
identifying this development and the tenants therein.
be
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
shall be positioned and located so that they are not
visible from Midlothian Turnpike or Knightsbridge Road.
These signs shall be similar to each other in size,
shape, and material.
Building mounted signs, which shall be positioned so
that they are not visible to the adjacent residential
property to the south and west, shall be permitted
provided they do not project above the roof line and
the aggregate area of the building sign, plus the
individual building freestanding sign does not exceed
0.5 square feet for each one foot of building frontage.
A site directory sign may be permitted provided it does
not exceed a height of eight (8) square feet, an
aggregate area of sixty (60) square feet, is not
visible from Route 60 and does not create a traffic
obstruction.
Signs may be illuminated, but may be luminous only if
the sign field is opaque with translucent letters.
Directional signs (entrance/exit, etc.) shall be
governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Prior to erection of any signs, a comprehensive sign
package to include colors, materials and typical
designs shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval.
The existing billboard sign may be used as an on-site
real estate sign to identify the 'future use, business
of the contractors or architects, or both, employed in
connection with the development. The billboard shall
be removed from the premises within eighteen (18)
months of the issuance of the first building permit.
Ail structures located 350 feet or more from Midlothian
Turnpike shall be confined to Office Business (O) uses.
Those structures located within 350 feet of Midlothian
Turnpike shall be permitted Convenience Business (B-l) uses.
Total gross square footage of structures shall not exceed
85,000.
BUFFERS
ae
A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
western boundary of Parcel A adjacent to Shenandoah
Subdivision and along the southern boundary of Parcel A
adjacent to Lot 1, Knightsbridge Subdivision. A
thirty-five (35) foot buffer shall be maintained along
the southern boundary of Parcel A adjacent to
Knightsbridge Subdivision. There shall be no berming
or landscaping within the sixteen (16) foot sewer ease-
ment in this area. A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be
maintained along the western boundary of Parcel B. A
fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
southern boundary of Parcel B. These buffers shall be
planted in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for
Landscaped Buffers." Berming shall be permitted in
this buffer area.
84-168
On Parcel C, within the thirty (30) foot building
setback areas adjacent to Knightsbridge Road,
ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. The area
lying between the parking area and Knightsbridge Road
shall be bermed and landscaped so as to minimize the
visibility of the parking-area from Knightsbridge Road.
Ce
In conjunction with the first site plan submission,
landscaping plans depicting these requirements shall b~
submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
de
Buffers required on Parcel A or B shall be installed in
conjunction with any development on these parcels.
Landscaping required for Parcel C shall be installed
prior to occupancy of Building F.
18.
Prior to the release of a building permit on Parcels A or B,
a fifteen (15) foot utility easement shall be granted to and
for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, for
the entire length of the property abutting Midlothian
Turnpike.
19.
Prior to the release of a building permit on Parcels A or B
the existing utility easement north of Knightsbridge
Subdivision shall be dedicated east as far as the existing
manhole on Parcel B.
20.
21.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot
parking setback requirement along Midlothian Turnpike shall
be granted as shown on the Master Plan. Between the water
line easement and the parking area, a two (2) to four (4)
foot high undulating berm shall be constructed. This berm
shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. This
berming and landscaping shall be accomplished prior to the
release of an occupancy permit for Buildings A or B. A
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with site plan submission for Building A or B.
In conjunction with each phase of development, a site
landscaping plan sh~ll be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval.
22.
23.
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE)
Prior to any clearing, grading or construction of any site
which drains between Lots 3 and 4, Block A of Knightsbridge
Subdivision, the developer shall perform an analysis to
determine the capacity of the existing storm sewer system.
If the analysis proves that the existing system cannot
handle a ten (10) year storm or that the 100 year flood
plain is closer than one foot from the finished floor of the
existing dwellings on Lots 3 and 4, Block A of KnightsbridgE
Subdivision, on-site retention shall be performed or the
existing storm sewer system be improved to accommodate the
worse flood situation (i.e., 10 year or 100 year flood).
{EE)
24.
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Applegate assured the residents that he would work with them
to make sure this is accomplished and enforced to save the
integrity of the subdivision. Mr. Woolfolk stated he is willing
to work with staff and the people to minimize traffic to make it
palatable.
84-169
83S109 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, GLEN TARA COMPANY requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit Residential
Townhouses for Sale in a Residential (R-9) District on a 28.62
acre parcel which lies approximately 300 feet west of the
southern terminus of Twelveoaks Road. Tax Map 62-11 (1) Parcel 2
(Sheet 20).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the amended application excluding the request for
R-TH zoning. Mr. Bill Johns of J. K. Timmons was present
representing the applicant. He stated there are several parcels
zoned R-TH adjacent to this property. He also noted that the
owner of a parcel to the southeast has requested an access to
his property. He stated they have agreed to provide this access
to the Cheatham property. Mr. Balderson stated the amended
request is for a conditional use for town-house. There was no
one present in opposition to this request. Mr. Applegate
reconfirmed that there would be a road built to the Cheatham
property which is landlocked. Mr. Balderson stated the Mancosco
property to the north would also provide access for Mr. Cheatham.
He stated that the applicant for this parcel would provide access
as well as utility easements to Mr. Cheatham and suggested that
this be noted. He stated the Mancosco Development has agreed
also. Mr. Balderson stated this could be made a condition.
On motion of Mr. Mayes~ seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this amended request for a conditional use for town
houses subject to the following conditions:
e
e
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated January 10, 1984,
shall be considered the Master Plan.
The proposed public road shall be designed to pass a 100
year storm. (EE)
The dam shall be analyzed to insure structural integrity and
safety. This analysis shall be submitted to Environmental
Engineering for approval prior to release of any building
permits. The dam shall be certified as structurally sound
prior to dedication to a community association. (EE)
The lake shall have a minimum depth of three (3) feet at the
edge.
Ail public roads, private drives and parking areas shall be
constructed with concrete curb and gutter. (EE)
Prior to approval of construction plans, a subsurface
investigation shall be performed to determine the depth of
rock. Results of this investigation shall be submitted to
Environmental Engineering.
Prior to any land disturbing activity, the developer shall
obtain a letter of approval for revision to the HUD
Designated Flood Plain Maps from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Water Control Board.
This letter shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering
in conjunction with any plans requesting approval for land
disturbing. All costs for any necessary document revisions
associated with the change in the 100 year flood plain ele-
vation shall be borne by the developer. All required
document revisions shall be completed prior to issuance of
any building permits. (EE)
Townhouse units shall have a minimum of 1,200 square feet of
gross floor area and brick foundations. If fireplaces are
constructed, they shall have brick exteriors.
84-170
11.
Units shall not back up to public roads.
Glen Tara Drive shall be redesigned, dedicated and
constructed as a permanent cul-de-sac.
The five (5) units located between Proposed Route 1-288 and
the Vepco Easement shall be eliminated. This area shall be
maintained as common open space or recreation space.
12. The following bulk requirements shall be applicable:
(a) Lot area. Each dwelling, together with its accessory
buildings, hereafter erected shall be located on a lot
having an area of not less than one thousand five hundred
twenty square feet and a front width of not less than
nineteen feet, except end units which shall have a lot area
of not less than two thousand three hundred twenty square
feet and a width of not less than twenty-nine feet.
(b) Percentage of lot coverage. All buildings, including
accessory buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than
forty percent of the area of such lot. No accessory
building except for a private garage on any lot shall cover
more than one hundred square feet.
(c) Front yard. Each lot shall have a front yard having
a depth of not less than twenty-five feet.
(d) Side yard. A side yard of not less than ten feet in
width shall be provided for each end residence in the
building; except that corner side yards shall be not less
than twenty-five feet.
(e) Rear yard. Each lot shall have a rear yard of not
less than twenty-five feet in depth measured from the rear
main building line.
(f) Common areas. A minimum common area of ten feet
in width shall be provided for each exposed side, front, and
rear of all lots of a block, except the side, front and rear
of any lot or lots fronting or abutting a public street.
(g) Limitation on number of units. The total number of
units in a group of attached townhouses shall not exceed
ten.
(h) Common areas and ownership of property. In the event
common areas are provided which are not contained in lots or
streets conveyed to individual owners, said common areas
shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility of the
developer-owner of the townhouse development until such time
as the developer-owner conveys such common area to a
non-profit corporate owner whose members shall be all of the
individual owners of townhouses in the townhouse development
or to a non-profit council of co-owners as provided under
Title 55-79.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
Said land shall be conveyed to and be held by such
non-profit corporate owner or such non-profit council of
co-owners solely for recreational and parking purposes of
the owners of the individual townhouse lots in such
townhouse development. In the event of such conveyance by
the developer-owner to a non-profit corporate owner, deed
restrictions and covenants, in form and substance
satisfactory to the county attorney, shall provide, among
other things, that any assessments, charges and costs of the
maintenance of such common areas shall constitute a pro-rata
lien against the individual townhouse lots, inferior in lien
and dignity only to taxes and bona fide duly recorded deeds
of trust on each townhouse lot. An applicant, seeking to
subject property to townhouse development under this article
84-171
whose ownership or interest in the property is held by a
valid lease, shall provide for an initial term of not less
than five hundred years in such lease.
(i) Density.
102.
The total number of units shall not exceed
(j) Frontage on public street. Whenever the plan for
townhouse project provides for other than one individual
ownership, all lots shall have frontage on a public street
or access thereto by common right-of-way within five hundred
feet.
(k) Recreational area required. An area conveniently
accessible to and included within the townhouse development
of not less than ten percent of the gross acreage shall be
provided for suitable recreational use by the occupants of
the townhouse development, and in no event shall less than
1.5 acres be so provided. A site plan of the recreational
facilities shall be submitted to the Director of Planning
for approval and incorporated in the master deed as approved
before recording. Occupancy permits for townhouses shall be
issued only when the recreational facilities have been
completed according to approved plan, or when the whole
project, including recreational facilities, has been fifty
percent completed, or when the developer-owner furnishes
bond with approved surety to the county satisfactory to the
Director of Planning and County Attorney.
(1) Ail private driveways and parking areas shall be at
least 15 feet from the right-of-way line of any existing or
proposed public road, subject, however, to the provisions of
sections 21-44 and 21-56(a) of the Chesterfield County Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant will provide public access and utility
easements to the Cheatham property.
Ayes: Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
83S182 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CARROLL FOSTER, INC.
~equested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business
(B-3) of 7.2 acres; Residential (R-9) of 34.3 acres, plus a
~onditional Use Planned Development to permit use exceptions
~ncompassing the entire 41.5 acre tract. This property fronts
~pproximately 800 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road,
approximately 200 feet west of Spring Run Road. Tax Map 75-2 (1)
Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of rezoning to Residential (R-9) and Convenience
Business (B-l) with a conditional use planned development subject
~o certain conditions. Mr. Jim Hayes, with J. K. Timmons, was
~resent representing the applicant and stated the conditions were
~cceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr.
%pplegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved rezoning to
Residential (R-9) and Convenience Business (B-l) with a
~onditional Use Planned Development subject to the following
~onditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated December 1983, shall
be considered the Master Plan.
Uses permitted in Convenience Business (B-i) tract shall be
limited to the following:
84-.172
a. Uses permitted in the B-1 District
b. Philanthropic and other charitable institutions
c. Veterinary hospitals, boarding kennels or clinics
(except outdoor runs)
d. Quick service and carry-out food establishment, but not
drive-ins
e. Cocktail lounges, dining halls and night clubs, not ex-
ceeding 7,000 gross square feet
f. Health clubs
g. Hotels, motels or inns
h. Rescue squad and fire stations
i. Automobile service station, exclusive of auto repair
j. Schools - commercial, trade, music, dance, business,
vocational and training
Development of the commercial tract shall be oriented toward
the interior of the property, away from Route 360. The rear
and/or side facades of buildings, which are visible from
public roads, shall have an appearance similar to the front
facades. Architectural renderings shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. Loading facilities shall be screened
from view of adjacent properties and public roads. A
screening plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review.
Parking areas in the commercial tract shall be located north
of the structures. Parking areas shall have at least ten
(10) square feet of interior landscaping for every two (2)
parking spaces. Each landscaped area shall contain a
minimum of fifty (50) square feet, a minimum dimension of
five (5) feet and shall contain at least one (1) tree having
a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet with the remaining
area adequately landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or
other authorized landscaping material, not to exceed three
(3) feet in height. The total number of trees shall not be
less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction
thereof, of the required interior landscaped area.
Landscaped areas shall be located to divide and break up the
expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks
shall not be calculated as required landscaped areas. A
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a
sign package for the entire development shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission for approval. This package shall
include materials, colors and lighting methods for all signs
located within the development.
Compatibility between the different land uses shall be
insured by providing an area to be le--~i~l a natural wooded
state, not less than fifty (50) feet in width. Where the
area is not wooded and/or does not contain sufficient vege-
tation to properly screen adjacent uses, additional
landscaping and/or other treatment may be required. A plan
for these areas shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission in conjunction with schematic plan review.
Any use whatsoever of the water in Swift Creek Reservoir,
adjacent to it or within 200 feet of it, shall be approved
by all appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., Swift Creek
Watershed Committee, Environmental Engineering and Utilities
Departments). The following horizontal setbacks shall be
established from the horizontal location of elevation 178
(U.S.G.S.) adjacent to the reservoir:
(a) 100 feet to closest structure
(b) 150 feet to closest parking area for more than two (2)
cars
84-173
9e
10.
A stub road shall be recorded to the adjacent property to
the east to allow future connection with Harbour Pointe Road
in Brandermill.
There shall be a single access point to Route 360.
access shall conform to one of the following design
criteria:
This
Se
Access to this property shall align with either the
existing crossover to the east or west. The crossover
selected shall be reconstructed providing for left turn
lanes. This construction shall be completed prior to
the issuance of any occupancy
or
be
A new crossover shall be constructed a minimum of 600
feet west of the North Spring Run Road crossover, and
the existing crossover west of the new crossover shall
be closed prior to the issuance of any building permits
for the attached housing units and B-1 uses. Single
family building and occupancy permits may be issued for
detached houses without construction of the new
crossover provided the existing crossover is closed.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan
submission, detailed road and drainage plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Department, Environmental
Engineering and VDH&T for approval. These plans shall
reflect the required improvements and phasing of
construction.
The north/south access from Route 360 shall have a minimum
right of way of seventy (70) feet with two (2) twenty-four
(24) foot lanes of pavement, face of curb to face of curb.
These lanes shall be divided by a median. There shall be no
access to this road within 200 feet of the intersection with
Route 360. Location of crossovers along this typical
section shall be approved in conjunction with road and
drainage plans. This typical section shall extend from
Route 360 north to the first access of the townhouse for
sale parking area which provides the ability for emergency
vehicles to maneuver continuously through parking areas
(i.e., as shown on Master Plan). Turning radii in parking
and driveway areas shall be a minimum of 45 feet. The re-
maining length of the north/south public road shall be
constructed as a two (2) lane road in accordance with VDH&T
standards.
or
The north/south collector road shall have a minimum right of
way of sixty (60) feet from Route 360 through the commercial
tract. The first 200 foot of this road, north of Route 360
shall be constructed with three (3) lanes (two exiting lanes
having a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet, face of
curb to face of curb, and one entering lane, having a
minimum width of sixteen (16) feet, face of curb to face to
curb). The entering and exiting lanes shall be separated by
a median. The pavement for the remaining length of this
road in the commercial tract may taper to a width of forty
(40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. The right of way
for this road in the residential tracts may be reduced to
fifty (50) feet and this portion of the road shall be
constructed as a two (2) lane road in accordance with VDH&T
standards. No more than fifty (50) residential building
permits shall be released until such time as the stub road,
described in Condition 8 is extended and constructed to the
VDH&T standards to Harbour Pointe Road.
Note: Condition 10 gives the developer the flexibility of
providing his second public road access for more than fifty
(50) residential units in one of two ways, either of which
is acceptable.
84-174
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed
to VDH&T standards along Route 360 at the intersection with
the north/south road. Improvements may be phased, provided
plans are approved by the Planning Department Environmental
Engineering and VDH&T. '
The east/west cul-de-sac in the R-9 tract shall be designed,
dedicated and constructed to allow future development of
property to the south (i.e., St. Clair Property).
Prior to any schematic plan review, a detailed hydraulic
analysis and sewer layout shall be submitted to the
Utilities Department for approval. The analysis shall
verify the capacity of the sewer lines to serve the proposed
development. (U)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all public roads, private drives and parking
areas. This condition may be modified by Environmental
Engineering for the single family tract. (EE)
The following bulk requirements shall be applicable to the
townhouse-for-sale tract:
(a) Lot area. Each dwelling, together with its accessory
build'~ngs, hereafter erected shall be located on a lot
having an area of not less than one thousand five hundred
twenty square feet and a front width of not less than
nineteen feet, except end units which shall have a lot area
of not less than two thousand three hundred twenty square
feet and a width of not less than twenty-nine feet.
(b) Percentage of lot coverage. Ail buildings, including
accessory buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than
forty percent of the area of such lot. No accessory
building except for a private garage on any lot shall cover
more than one hundred square feet.
(c) Front yard. Each lot shall have a front yard having
a depth of not less than twenty-five feet.
(d) Side yard. A side yard of not less than ten feet in
width shall be provided for each end residence in the
building; except that corner side yards shall be not less
than twenty-five feet.
(e) Rear yard. Each lot shall have a rear yard of not
less than twenty-five feet in depth measured from the rear
main building line.
(f) Common areas. A minimum common area of ten feet in
width shall be provided for each exposed side, front, and
rear of all lots of a block, except the side, front and rear
of any lot or lots fronting or abutting a public street.
(g) Limitation on number of units. The total number of
units in a group of attached townhouses shall not exceed
ten.
(h) Common areas and ownership of property. In the event
common areas are provided which are not contained in lots or
streets conveyed to individual owners, said common areas
shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility of the
developer-owner of the townhouse development until such time
as the developer-owner conveys such common area to a
non-profit corporate owner whose members shall be all of the
individual owners of townhouses iD the townhouse development
or to a non-profit council of co-owners as provided under
Title 55-79.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
Said land shall be conveyed to and be held by such
non-profit corporate owner or such non-profit council of
co-owners solely for recreational and parking purposes of
84-175
the owners of the individual townhouse lots in such
townhouse development. In the event of such conveyance by
the developer-owner to a non-profit corporate owner, deed
restrictions and covenants, in form and substance
satisfactory to the county attorney, shall provide, among
other things, that any assessments, charges and costs of the
maintenance of such common areas shall constitute a pro-rata
lien against the individual townhouse lots, inferior in lien
and dignity only to taxes and bona fide duly recorded deeds
of trust on each townhouse lot. An applicant, seeking to
subject property to townhouse development under this article
whose ownership or interest in the property is held by a
valid lease, shall provide for an initial term of not less
than five hundred years in such lease.
(i) Density.
142.
The total number of units shall not exceed
(j) Frontage on public street. Whenever the plan for
townhouse project provides for other than one individual
ownership, all lots shall have frontage on a public street
or access thereto by common right-of-way within five hundred
feet.
(k) Recreational area required. An area conveniently
accessible '50 and'±ncluded Within the townhouse development
of not less than ten percent of the gross acreage shall be
provided for suitable recreational use by the occupants of
the townhouse development, and in no event shall less than
1.5 acres be so provided. A site plan of the recreational
facilities shall be submitted to the Director of Planning
for approval and incorporated in the master deed as approved
before recording. Occupancy permits for townhouses shall be
issued only when the recreational facilities have been
completed according to approved plan, or when the whole
project, including recreational facilities, has been fifty
percent completed, or when the developer-owner furnishes
bond with approved surety to the county satisfactory to the
Director of Planning and County Attorney.
(1) Ail private driveways and parking-areas shall be at
least 15 feet from the right-of-way line of any existing or
proposed public road, subject, however, to the provisions of
sections 21-44 and 21-56(a) of the Chesterfield County Zoning
Ordinance.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayeso
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Hedrick announced that there was a tornado warning until
10:00 p.m. tonight as well as minor flooding on County roads.
84S013
In Matoaca Magisterial District, WILLIAM B. DUVAL requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 50.3
acre parcel fronting approximately 290 feet on the east line of
North Bailey Bridge Road, approximately 600 feet south of Hull
Street Road; also fronting approximately 340 feet on the west
line of Stigall Drive, approximately 850 feet south of Genito
Road; and fronting approximately 450 feet on the west line of
Stigall Drive, approximately 220 feet north of Moravia Road. Tax
Map 49-13 (1) Part of Parcel 9 (Sheets 14 and 21).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Comnlission had recommended
approval of this request subject to acceptance of the proffered
conditions. Mr. Delmonte Lewis was present representing the
applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was
no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr.
Dodd, the Board approved the request subject to acceptance of the
following proffered condition:
84-176
Ail lots within a 500 foot radius of Clifton Farms
Subdivision will have a minimum of 12,000 square feet of
area and a minimum of 90 feet of frontage.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel. '
84S014
In Bermuda Magisterial Dis~rict, HUBCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) on
a 1.667 acre parcel lying approximately 280 feet off the southern
terminus of Firethorne Lane. Tax Map 81-6 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet
23).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Julian was present representing the
applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes
Absent: Mr. Daniel. '
84S015
In Midlothian Magisterial District, GEORGE B. SOWERS, JR. AND
ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to
Residential (R-9) on a 16 acre parcel fronting approximately 700
feet on the east line of Cranbeck Road, approximately 200 feet
north of Crooker Drive. Tax Map 9-13 (1) Parcel 24 (Sheet 3).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the request but that the applicant had amended his
request to rezoning for Residential (R-12) and proffered seven
conditions, one of which addresses a stub road which is not
acceptable as it would be properly addressed by the Planning
Commission at time of subdivision approval and staff recommends
that that proffer not be accepted. Mr. Sowers was present. He
stated these proffers deal with the concerns of Ballard Oaks. He
stated he would like to make a change regarding the proffers with
regard to mini-bikes in the buffer zone and would like to add to
condition ~4 at the end "and fencing". Mr. Micas stated the
Board cannot negotiate proffers at this stage and must accept or
reject the proffers as made. Mr. Balderson stated this could be
entered into the record of this meeting and addressed at the time
of subdivision approval. Mr. Sowers stated this would allow the
people who own and maintain the buffers to put up fencing if they
so choose as the residents are concerned that it might be used
for a mini-bike trail.
Mr. Tom Oaker stated they have negotiated with the developer and
are satisfied but would like assurances they will be enforced.
Mr. Micas stated they are enforceable by County staff. Mr. Oaker
stated he was concerned with the fencing and the wording of
"natural" buffer. Mr. Micas stated that the fencing will be
expressed as part of the developer's intention in the minutes and
the Planning Commission will consider this during subdivision
approval. Mr. Balderson stated the natural buffer would be to
leave what is there, intact, and would not be less than existing
now. He stated this could be addressed further by the Planning
Commission.
Mrs. Girone stated for clarification, it is the intent of the
Boaxd and the developer to allow fences to be constructed by the
individual property owners in this buffer. Mr. Oaker stated the
residents are in favor of the fence.
84-]77
Ms. Donna Katos was present and stated she felt the issues the
residents were concerned with were addressed in the proffers, the
maintaining language was cleared up, etc. She stated they were
concerned that the plat that Mr. Sowers submitted to the
residents be referenced in this letter and become part of the
proffers which show the six lots adjacent to the Ballard Oaks
property, etc. which has been changed and referenced in his
letter. She stated she had received a call from one of the
residents that Mr. Sowers was going to stand by his initial
representations to them of who the developer would be, and what
time of home will be constructed but now they understand the
proffers are binding, if accepted, and has been addressed by Mr.
Sowers. She stated it was her understanding that the homes would
not be prefab but comparable to the homes represented to them in
the original session for two story colonial homes suitable to the
surrounding area.
Mrs. Girone stated there were 34 homes on the representation and
the ordinance requires just the one entrance so it is a
possibility it will be approved as submitted. Mr. Balderson
stated he felt Ermavedo Road can be dealt with as everyone
desires and does not see any problem but he did not want to
preclude the Planning Commission's final authority on the road
configuration. Ms. Katos inquired if the residents would be
notified for the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Balderson
indicated staff would notify them of the meeting.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the request for Residential (R-12) subject to acceptance
of the following proffers as outlined in Mr. Sowers' letter of
March 26, 1984, and rejection of proffer #7:
There shall be no more than 35 lots in the subdivision of
the property.
There shall be no more than six (6) lots adjacent to Ballard
Oaks Subdivision.
Lots adjacent to Ballard Oaks shall be designed to have a
minimum area of 20,000 square feet.
There shall be a recorded 50 ft. natural buffer strip
maintained along the property line common to Ballard Oaks
and subject property. The buffer strip will be undisturbed
except for underground utilities as required.
Any homes constructed on lots adjacent to Ballard Oaks shall
have a minimum gross square footage of 2,000 feet of
livable space and other homes on subject property shall have
a minimum gross square footage of 1,600 feet of livable
space. These gross square footages shall be exclusive of
carports, porches and sheds.
All homes adjacent to Ballard Oaks shall be constructed
within 5 feet of the minimum front setback.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S017
In Bermuda Magisterial District, DELLA P. WALKER requested
rezoning from Residential (R-7) to General Business (B-3) on a
2.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 220 feet on the south line
of Merriewood Road, approximately 480 feet east of Jefferson
Davis Highway. Tax Map 67-3 (3) Patterson Park, Block B, Lots 24
and 25 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Les
Saunders, representing the applicant, stated that the
84-178
Planning Commission recommended approval of buffers along all of
the western property line because this property abuts Falling
Creek Recreational Vehicle Sales to the west. He stated the
property on the east is owned by Mrs. Walker's daughter who does
not desire any buffer. He stated the only area needing buffering
is on the south and the homes that set behind the southern
boundary line are far enough away that a 30 ft. buffer would be
adequate. He stated there are pine trees existing about three
rows deep and 25 ft. high which presently screen the property.
He stated there were some people at the Planning Commission
meeting and he thought the buffers as proposed by the Planning
Commission would be satisfactory but they were not and he has
written two letters regarding this matter which stated they were
going to request the 30 foot buffer on the southern line and
installation of a six foot chain length fence with slatting
around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Balderson stated the
staff agreed with the amendment. Mr. Dodd inquired about the
setback on Merriewood Road. Mr. Balderson stated the fence
should set back at least 15 feet from the right of way. Mr. Dodd
stated he did not want parking between the fence and the street.
Mr. Balderson stated the fence could be set fifteen feet off the
right of way line and the parking would be behind the fence. Mr.
Dodd inquired if there could be a condition whereby there would
be no parking between the fence and Merriewood Road. Mr.
Saunders stated he felt "no parking" signs could be installed.
Mr. Micas stated this could not be addressed on a straight.
rezoning request.
Mr. John North, read from the minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting regarding the conditions which exist at the previous
zoning for Mr. Beck and inquired if Mr. Beck has acted in good
faith. Mr. Dodd stated there were a few things existing at the
site which the County does not have control over such as curb and
gutter, which was supposed to be authorized by the State but you
cannot use all of that against this property. He stated the
County will look into this and see what can be done. Mr.
Balderson indicated staff has met with Mr. Beck and discussed
options and Mr. Beck has agreed to submit a contract for paving
which would be accomplished in May or June but there are some
questions regarding his setbacks. Mr. North stated trailers are
located on the site without approval. Mr. Balderson stated it is
staff's position that when an application is being heard, unless
there is a problem with the health and welfare of people, it is
pending the outcome of the case. Mr. North stated he felt
commercial requests should be confined to Route 1/301 where
current zoning exists and adjoining the Beck's property. He
read from the minutes of the Planning Commission which he felt
the request today is not the same request as at the Planning
Commission. He passed out a picture of the area. He stated he
was interested in white pine trees being planted along the fence
line, a 50 ft. buffer and an eight foot slatted fence.
Mr. Burnett stated he agreed with Mr. North's request. He stated
he felt the changes were entirely different from what was
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
When asked, Mr. Saunders stated he was proposing a 30 ft. buffer
with a six foot slatted fence and the buffer will be left in its
natural state which is within the fence. Mr. Dodd reviewed the
area and the topography which he felt would not set a precedent
for future commercial zoning.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request subject to the following condition:
A slatted chain link fence having a minimum height of six
(6) feet, shall be installed along the south property line
and 15 ft. off the north (Merriewood Road) property line. A
buffer area 30 ft. in width shall be provided along the
south property line. This shall be left in its natural
state. No access shall be permitted through this buffer,
84-179
except that access may be permitted at such time as adjacent
properties are zoned for commercial or industrial use.
These improvements shall be constructed within ninety (90)
days of final approval of this request and shall be
maintained in good condition.
(Note: This condition amends a buffer condition imposed along
the General Business (B-3) property to the west, Zoning Case
78S082.)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes
Absent: Mr. Daniel. '
Mr. Dodd requested that the County Attorney and staff work on the
zoning problem on Merriewood Road to have the area improved.
84S018
In Bermuda Magisterial District, J.F. BUYALOS requested rezoning
from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7) to Convenience
Business (B-l) on a 4.23 acre parcel fronting approximately 220
feet on the north line of West Hundred Road, approximately 210
feet west of Centre Street. Tax Map 115-7 (1) Parcels 2 and 3
(Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Plann]~ng Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Jeff Collins was present
representing the applicant and stated the question regarding the
access has not been resolved and they do not object to denial.
There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board denied this request not
due to the land use question, but because the access question
is unresolved.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
84S020:
In Midlothian and Clover Hill Magisterial Districts, MIDLOTHIAN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requested amendment of a previously
granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 79S142) to:
Rezone 12 acres from Office Business (O) to Residential (R-7);
relocate recreational tracts; develop within proposed Route
1-288, north of Lucks Lane; permit a day care center on a tract
previously designated for multifamiiy development; permit
exceptions to parking requirements; delete the requirement for
open space between tracts of similar uses; defer dedication of a
fire station site and right of way along Coalfield Road; and
allow certain conditions to be modified at schematic plan review.
This property lies in two separate tracts. The first tract
fronts approximately 4,200 feet on the west line of Coalfield
Road, approximately 2,500 feet on the north line of Old Hundred
Road and approximately 4,000 feet on the east line of Little
Tomahawk Creek. The second tract fronts approximately 2,600 feet
on the north line of Genito Road, approximately 3,000 feet at two
locations along the east line of Coalfield Road and is located in
the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads on a
1,426.6 acre parcel. Tax Ma~ 26-9 (1) Part of Parcel 1; Tax Map
26-13 (1) Part of Parcel ]; ~ax Map 36 (]) Parcels 7, 8 and 14;
Tax Map 37 (1) Parcels 2, 3, 12 and 20; Tax Map 37-7 (1) Parcel
1; Tax Map 37-13 (1) Parcel 7; Tax Map 48 (1) Parcel 48 (Sheets 7
and 13).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Bryce Powell was present representing the application. Mr. Joe
Matyiko stated there was encroachment upon his family grave by
Lucks Lane which was to have been no less than 12 feet from the
grave by the Midlothian Company.
84-180
Mr. Balderson stated that this is on property not under
discussion today. Mr. Matyiko stated this was a fact that he
just felt should be mentioned as it has been ignored by the
County, State, or someone. Mr. Balderson stated this was an
agreement between the Midlothian Company and Mr. Matyiko. Mr.
Applegate stated he felt this was a civil matter which could be
handled by the Courts.
Mr. John Smith stated his concern that the plats were too small
to give indications of the property under discussion, that the
property involving the cemetery was included in the original
zoning with Lucks Lane being moved south, he expressed concern
about the request to defer dedication of right of way along
Coalfield Road because of the need for obtaining right of way
prior to being filled with utility easements and if there is a
need for relocation the County will have to pay for it, that a
lot of time has been spent on this zoning, etc. He stated items
#9 and #56 allow conditions to be modified regarding an
additional 12 ft. of pavement will be provided along existing
Coalfield Road along the entire length of Tract 1002. He stated
that when St. Leger Square was zoned they had to donate right of
way and construct extra lanes of pavement and he did not
understand why the County would require something at one tract,
and then give it back to someone who is in between. He reviewe~
the matter regarding the Matyiko cemetery encroachment and also
referred to condition #47. He stated he felt it was important
for the County to press for the widening and safety factors on
Coalfield Road, especially with the soccer field, that the curve
should be cleared and the ditches cleaned. He stated St. Leger
has paid up to $30,000 in right of way along Coalfield Road and
there are a lot of red stakes which could not be explained by the
Highway Department.
Mr. Powell stated he had spent a lot of time on the cemetery
situation and has talked with the Matyiko family regarding this
matter but this is not the forum where it should be discussed.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved Case 84S020, as noted below:
I. Rezoning from Office Business (0) to Residential (R-7) of
Tract 103, consisting of twelve (12) acres, and
redesignating this tract as Tract 404A (single family
residential).
II.
Approval of the relocation of recreational tracts in
Evergreen East.
III. Approval of development within the proposed Route 1-288
right of way, north of Lucks Lane.
VI.
Approval of a day care center on a tract previously
designated for multifamily development (Tract 804), subject
to schematic plan review~
Approval of exceptions to parking requirements for the day
care center use, subj~ct to the following condition:
Parking shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space for
each twenty (20) children enrolled, up to a maximum of six
(6) spaces, plus one (1) for each employee. The parking
area and driveways shall be designed to provide an area for
dropping off and picking up children, which is connected to
the main building by a sidewalk ~nd designed to preclude
children crossing driveway or parking areas. The driveways,
entrances and exits shall be designed to provide a traffic
flow which precludes backing into a right of way and/or
vehicles backing and/or overflowing into a right of way.
84-181
Approval of deletion of the requirement to provide open
space between tracts of similar uses, subject to the
following condition:
Open space shall not be required where uses of the same use
category abut each other provided, however, that open space
required to satisfy density or reduced area requirements
shall be maintained. Specifically, open space requirements
as noted in the Required Conditions section for each land
use category in the original Textual Statement (Exhibit B)
shall be adhered to.
(Note: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, Exhibit
B, page 2, relative to adjustment of tract boundaries.)
VII. Approval of the request to defer dedication of a fire
station site, subject to the following condition:
Prior to any schematic plan approval in Evergreen West or at
such time as the Fire Department requests, a minimum of
three (3) acres shall be approved and dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, for the
purpose of constructing a fire station.
(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 41 of
Conditional Use Planned Development 79S142.)
~III. Approval of the request to defer the dedication of right of
way along Coalfield Road, subject to the following
condition:
Thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of Coalfield Road, or width deemed appropriate
according to VDH&T design and location plans for
improvements to Coalfield Road, shall be dedicated to and
for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. This
dedication shall be accomplished prior to the release of any
building permits on Tracts 3, 202, 301, 603, 706 and 1002,
or at such time as the County or VDH&T should request
dedication. This condition may be modified at the time of
schematic plan review and approval.
Il(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 47 of Conditional Use
IPlanned Development 79S142.)
IiX. Approval of the applicant's request to allow conditions 12,
24, 26, 28 and 56 to be modified by the Planning Commission
through schematic plan review.
~yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Applegate stated he had requested an opinion from the County
Attorney as to a possible conflict in the next case. He
disclosed to the Board that he did not own land adjacent to the
property nor directly across the street but it is in the general
area and Mr. Micas suggested that he abstain. He excused himself
from the meeting because of a possible conflict of interest as
mentioned above pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict
Df Interest Act.
84-]82
84S022
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BARRY F. WILMOTH requested a
Conditional Use to permit motor vehicle repair in an Agricultural
(A) District on a 1.37 acre parcel fronting approximately 200
feet on the north line of Hull Street Road, approximately 410
feet east of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 74 (1) Part of Parcel 40
(Sheet 19).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Wilmoth presented the Board with a
petition signed by residents in the County who were in favor of
this request and stated all adjacent residents had signed except
for one. He presented the Board with pictures similar to what he
proposed and a revised plat of the area. He outlined the
crossover and its relationship to the property. He stated he
would also grant the Highway Department an easement for a
deacceleration lane in front of the property.
Mrs. Joan Cosby stated she did not sign the petition and is
opposed. She stated that she did not want to see Hull Street
Road, west of Courthouse Road, look like it does east of
Courthouse Road. She stated high calibre homes would be
affected.
Mr. Garrett stated his opposition to this request which is
directly across the road from his home. He stated he was
concerned with the decrease in property values, with the unsitely
conditions if the property is not maintained, etc. He inquired
about the hours of operation, why he chose this particular piece
of property when secondary road property would be cheaper, why
there was a need for a deacceleration lane if he were just to
repair automobiles, that the buildings and garages are unsitely
on Hull Street now, etc. He stated the people who signed the
petition live 4-6 miles away. He stated this would give no
benefit to the property owners in the area and that he prefers
this property remain residential.
Mr. Wesley Stigall, real estate broker for Hall and Buckingham,
presented a map and reviewed the property in the area zoned
business or commercial. He stated this involves 1.37 acres of an
estate for which he represents. He stated the petition was
signed by 300 people who are in Clover Hill District requesting
approval. He stated Mrs. Cosby did not sign the petition but her
husband did and neither did Mr. Garrett. Mr. Stigall stated a
lot of the zoning for M-l, B-3, B-1 has recently been zoned and
they are requesting a conditional use permit. He stated the
unsightly areas should be controlled by ordinance. He stated Mr.
Wilmoth and his wife are trying to start a business in the
County. Mr. Dodd inquired if there were anything in the
conditions to address the outside storage of automobiles. Mr.
Stigall stated that this is a wooded piece of property which
would allow for natural buffer. Mr. Wilmoth stated under a
conditional use permit the Board could set conditions for
everyone's protection. He stated he had no objection to
installing a fence, etc. He stated there would be no outside
storage as the cars are expensive and cannot be kept outside for
insurance purposes. Mr. Balderson stated that if the Board is
inclined to approve this request, perhaps it would be best for
staff to review the request and recommend conditions which would
be similar to other like situations and it would protect other
property owners as well. Mr. Wilmoth stated that would be
acceptable. Mrs. Girone indicated this would also serve his
purpose as to where the buffers would be, if he could park in
front of the building, if he could have outside storage, etc.
which would be helpful.
84-183
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred
this until April 25, 1984 in order that staff may draw up
conditions for consideration.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mrs. Girone stated once something is in writing, that the
opposition may change their position as it might ensure them that
it would not be harmful to the area.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
84S023
In Dale Magisterial District, BOB AND JANE DAVENPORT requested a
Conditional Use to permit motor vehicle repair in a Light
Industrial (M-l) District on a 1.65 acre parcel fronting
approximately 100 feet on the south line of Virginia Pine Court,
approximately 500 feet southwest of Whitepine Road. Tax Map 79-6
(3) Industrial Park, Lot 35 (Sheet 22).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the request. He stated that since that time, the
applicant has prepared a lease agreement and staff has reviewed
it and recommended certain conditions. There was no opposition
present. Mr. Dodd stated he would suggest a one year period for
approval at which time it would be reconsidered and if no
problems existed, it could be renewed. Mr. Davenport was present
and stated this was acceptable. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the
following conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Bob and
Jane Davenport and shall not be transferable, nor run with
the land.
This Conditional Use shall be for the purpose of operating
an automobile body and paint shop. There shall be no motor
repair permitted.
Ail wrecked automobiles shall be stored inside the existing
building. Wrecked automobiles shall nOt be stored in the
parking lot.
No more than two (2) automobiles which have been completed
shall be parked in the parking lot at any one time.
Completed automobiles shall be removed from the site within
twenty-four (24) hours of being parked outside.
There shall be no outside storage of any parts, equipment,
materials, etc.
This Conditional Use shall be granted for a one (1) year
period and may be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication
and demonstration that this use has not been detrimental or
adversely affected the Airport Industrial Park.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adjourned at 5:50 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on April 4, 1984 for
public hearings regarding the budget, tax rate and revenue
sharing.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
County Ad. ministra tor
84-184
H a ~r~/. Daniel
Chairman