09-24-1986 MinutesSeptember 24, 1986
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. B. Applegate
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayas
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley R. Balderson,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mrs. Doris DeHart,
Legislative Coord.
Chief Robert Hanes, Fire
Department
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Asst. Co. Administrator
Mr. Robert Hodder,
Building Official
Mr. William Howsll, Dir.,
General Servicss
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., Env. Eng.
Mr. Robert Masden, Asst.
Co. Adm. for Human
Services
Mr. Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir., News/Info.
Services
Mr. Tim Perry, Landfill
Engineer
Mr. William D. Peele, Act.
Dir., Planning
Mr. Lane Ramsay, Dir.,
Budget & Accounting
Mr. Richard F. Sale, Asst.
Co. Adm. for Development
Mr. M. D. stith, Jr.,
Exac. Asst., Co. Adm.
Chief Dennis C. Turlington,
Fire Marshal
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.,
Utilities Department
Mr. Frederick W. Willis,
Dir. of Human Resource
Management
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:10
a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Hedrick introduced Reverend Ray Turner, Pastor of the Fair
Havens Independent Methodist Church, who gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ~T-T.RG/-~NC]~ TO 'r~ FLAG OF '£~ UNITED STATES OF
Tha Plsdge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America wa~ re~ited.
86~726
3. APPROVAL OF MInUTeS
3.A. AMENDMENT TO MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1986
It was generally agreed to defer consideration of approval of
the amendment to the minutes of August 13, 1986, until 2:00 p.m.
3,B. SEPTEMBER 18, 1986
It was generally agreed to defer consideration of approval of
the September 10, 1986, minutes until 2:00 p.m.
4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S CO~NTS
Chief Eanes recognized Mr. Roy Patrick, Chief of Administrative
Services for the Fire Department, for the publication of his
article on the Central virginia EMS Mad-Flight Program in the
April 1986 issue of Fire Engineering. The Board commended Mr.
Patrick for his accomplisb_~ent and expressed appreciation for
his diligent efforts and dedication.
5. BOARD COI~IITTEE
Mr. Applegate stated he attended the annual Virginia ~unicipal
League Coniersncs in Norfolk, at which the Legislative Committee
endorsed the Governor's road plan and he encouraged the Board of
Supervisors to become more involved with the Virginia ~unicipal
League because similar problems of cities and towns could relate
to those of Chesterfield County. He stated he had also attended
the Capital Region Airport Commission meeting.
Mrs. Girone stated she agreed with Mr. Applegate's comments
regarding Chesterfield's participation in the Virginia Municipal
League and indicated there will be an upcoming VACO seat to be
filled by Chesterfield. She stated the rACe conferences are
invaluable to the County as they provide a mechanism whereby the
County's views can be expressed legislatively. She stated she
participated in the long-range planning committee meeting at
Maymont; attended a meeting held by Senator Lambert at the
General Assembly regarding the cocaine and crack epidemic and
she will have a speaker at her October "First Monday" meeting
regarding this topic; attended the Crater Planning District
Commission annual dinner; met with Mr. Dennis Morrison at
Settler's Landing to inspect the quality of the roadway recently
resurfaced in the area which has the residents disturbed;
attended the Henricus Dedication Ceremony; attended the Rainbow
of the Arts Festival at Rockwood Park; and attended the Ben Air
Historical Society meeting.
Mr. Mayes stated he had attended many of %he same affairs as
Mrs. Girone. He stated he also attended the ABIDCO ~xeoutiv~
Council meeting at which the council has been reduced from
thirty-six (36) to eighteen (18) members. He sta~ed the
Chesterfield Board of Supervisors is asked to nominate one
elected official and one business man to compose the twelve (12)
councilmen who will select the six (6] business people.
expressed concern regarding the manner in which this process is
being handled and how the outcome of it will evolve. He added
that he had attended the Wesley Chapel Methodist Church to
discuss the merits of the proposed County charter.
Mr. Daniel stated he attended the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPC} meeting, at which the group unanimously
endorsed a resolution addressing Meadowville Road, a copy of
which he presented to ~r. Dodd. He stated he represented the
86-727
County at the fourth of the summer concert series at the
Boulders, which was attended by Congressman Thomas Bliley, and
at which awards were presented to the three (3) members of the
business community who have worked so diligently to make the
concerts a success (Sigma Corporation, Prucare and Fidelity
Bankers Life Insurance Company); and he addressed the Business
Council regarding the proposed County Charter, which they
unanimously endorsed.
Mr. Dodd stated he addressed the Ruritan Club; attended the
Henricus Dedication Ceremony; is scheduled to meet with the
Mayor and the Chairmen of the Boards of Hanover and Henrico; and
is scheduled to attend a Ports meeting within the next two
weeks. He rsqussted, regarding the Board's membership with
MEDe, that consideration be given to expanding the Board
representative's term from one year to three years and amend the
by-laws accordingly. Mr. Daniel stated he felt it would be most
beneficial to the individual representing the County if the term
were expanded.
RI~0UESTS TO ~OSTIK)NE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITTONS OR(~ANGES
IN '£h~ ORDER OF PI~SENTATION
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deleted Item ll.D.5., Resolution of Youth Services Commission's
Compliance with Department o~ Corrections' Virginia Delinquency
Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant; added Item 7.~.,
Resolution Recognizing C. Porter Vaughan, Jr. on his 40th
Anniversary in the Real Estate Business; and adopted the agenda,
aS amended.
Vote: Unanimous
7. ~OLUTIONS OF SPECIAL ~COGNITION
7.A. HIGHLIGHTING NEED AND IMPORTANCE OF HAVING NUMERICAL
ADDRESSES DISPLAYED BY ALL HOMES AND BUBIN~SS~S
Chief Dennis Turlington stated throughout the County the
majority of buildings are not properly identified by their
assigned numerical addresses, consequently, when there is a
request os need for emergency services at a given location the
delivery of that service is significantly delayed when the
address given cannot be found because it is not posted. He
stated adoption of this resolution is requested in an effort to
inform citisens of this problem and to encourage them to
numerically identify their property.
Mr. Applegate stated ther~ is a serious problem in identifying
businesses located along Midlothian Turnpike and stated he felt
the height of the numerical addresses should be more than three
(3) inches. Chief Turlington stated staff (i.e., House
Numbering, Building Official and other departments) is working
with the business community in an effort to get the numerical
addresses posted. ~rs. Girone stated she felt the Planning
Department and enforcement staff should be included in this
effort. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the three (3) inches may be
suitable for identifying residential properties but he would
support a change to increase the three (3) inch height
requirement for identifying commercial properties. There was
discussion of the importance, in the ~ural areas of the County,
to be abl~ to identify locations where fi~e or emergency
services are needed or if the resolution should be remanded to
the Planning Commission and the County Attorney's office for
their recommendations reflecting the Board's concerns. Chief
Turlington stated there is a committee within the County
Administration, organized by Mr. MeBlfish, working on these
issues and concerns.
On motion of the Board, the iollowing resolution was adopted:
86-728
WHEREAS, Fire Prevention Week is a nationally recognized
week cf fire eafety and education; and
WBEREAS, in observance of Fire Prcvsntion Week, whleh is
October 5-11, 1986, this would be an opportune time for the
Beard o£ Supervisors to encourage County residents to identify
their homes or businesses by posting numerical addresses; and
WHEREAS, in the event of a need to summon fire, police or
rescue services, they would be able to respond in the most
expedient manner to quickly locate addresses; and
WHEREAS, the County Code states that numerical addresses
for each building are to be at least 3" in height, made of
durabl~ material and readily visible from the roadway; and
WHEREAS, the Board is interested in providing citizens the
best possible emergency services; and
WH~R~A~, the 911 emergency reporting system provides
addresses of all callers and to get full utilization of this
highly efficient system, it is imperative for fire, police and
rescue to be able to quickly locate the addreee in order to
reach the scene in a timely manner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors requests the assistance of each resident by
posting their numerical address as response time is critical in
any emergency situation.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone stated a letter from a citizen informed her that
some localities are using blue reflectors, implanted in the
streets, to indicate the location of fire hydrants and requested
that staf£ consult with VDH&T regarding this concept.
7.B. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING C. PORTER VAUGHAN, JR,'S 40TH
ANNIVERSARY IN TEE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS
Mr. Applegate stated this resolution is in recognition of Mr. C.
Porter Vaughan, Jr.'s 40th Anniversary in the real estate
profession and will be presented to him at a reception in hie
honor.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, C. Porter Vaughan, Jr., began his Real Estate
career in 1946 and in 1967 founded the firm of Slater and
Vaughan; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Vaughan is a Certified Property Manager, is
past President of the Richmond Board of Realtors, is and has
served for many years as a Director for the Richmond Board of
Realtors, is a past Prssldent O£ the Virginia Asseciation of
Realtore and hae eerved for many years ae a Director of the
National Association of Realtors, as well as being involved in
many other real estate syndications and directorships; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Vaughan was designated by the Virginia
Association of Realtor~ ae the 1970 "Realtor of the Year" and
was an organi=er of the Virginia Real Estate Investment Trust;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Vaughan is not only involved in his profession
but also d~mon~trates a strong community spirit by associating
himself with the Rickmond Red Cross, the South Richmond
Chesterfield YMCA, the Board of Trustees of the University Oi
Richmond, the Scottish Rite Masons, etc.; and
86-729
WHEREAS, Mr. Vaughan has distinguished himself in
Chesterfield County by d~veloping such successful cammercial and
residential properties as Belmont Hills, Briarwood II, Charter
Woods, Court House Commons, Edgehill, Fuqua Farms, Huguenot
Co~ons, Pittaway Farms, Roxshire, RuD_nymeade, Salisbury, Willow
Oaks and ethers; and
WHEP~A$, Mr. Vaughan has always been a quality developer
concerned with the views of individuals impacted by his
developments and strove to maintain a congenial and cooperative
attitude with opponents, proponents and County officials in
structuring his developments to meet established criteria; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Vaughan has proven to be an asset and valuable
citizen contributing to the quality of life of Chesterfield
County.
NOW, TEEREFORE BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby commends Mr. Vaughan on his
professional commitment and quality development on his 40th
Anniversary in the real estate business and hereby extends its
congratulations; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution is
permanently filed with the papers of this Board.
Vote: Unanimous
~EARINGS OF CITIZENS ON ONp:-K,~LED
SISTER NANCY WOOLDRIDGB, CLAIMING IMPROPER TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Micas stated Sister Nancy Wooldridge, a former part-time
nurse at the Nursing Home, filed a lawsuit in State court
against the Nursing Home and its Director for damages, claiming
She was improperly terminated. He stated, after an extensive
investigation into the allegations raised in the lawsuit, staff
is satisfied that the termination action was appropriate and
would reco~mend that the claim be denied.
There wes no one present to address the matter.
In response to a question by Mr. Mayes, Mr. Micas stated the
Board is protected from paying this claim by its sovereign
i~unity, however, more importantly staff's investigation o~ the
allegations found them to be without merit.
On motion of the Board, the claim of Sister Nancy Wooldridge~ in
the amount of $850,000 for alleged improper termination from the
Lucy Corr Nursing Home~ was denied.
Vote: Unanimous
9. D~U~ILRED IT]~iS
9.A. AUTHORIZATIO~ TO ISSUE UP TO $5,500,000 IN SUPPLEMENTAL
LEAS~ PURCHASE FINANCING TO FUND CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY
COURTS BUILDING
Mr. Lane Ramsey stated in 1985 the County cc~pleted a
lease/purchase financing transaction to finance the cost of
constructing the new Data Procezzlng, Human Services and Court
Buildings. He stated since the completion of the initial
financing transaction, it has become apparent that the funds
generated will need to be increased to cover the entire cost of
construction, the need for additional funds principally being
the result of final square footaqe size and planning the
Courthouse to m~et future space needs. He stated staf~
anticipates that the amount of additional lease/purchase
financing required will be no more than $5,500,000, although the
precise figure cannot be determined until construction bids are
received. ~e stated, under the Virginia Public Procurement Act,
the County is required to seek supplemental financing proposals
from interested financial institutions or underwriter~ and
select th~ financing proposal which best serves the financial
n~eds Of the County through a competitive selection process.
Mr. Applegate stated it is imperative that the funds be
appropriated at this time and would be in the best interest of
the long-range planning for the County to provide adequate space
until 2005.
Hrs. Girone commented, in addition to courtroom space, this
building will als0 include space for the Distriet Court Judges,
the Circuit Court Judges, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the
Sheriff, a "shell" room which will allow additional space for a
jail, and the Commonwealth's Attorney.
Mr. Dodd commented that the County was very conservative in it~
initial estimates for this project and additional funding is
necessary because the facility is a multispace building and
projected needs were underestimated.
Mr. Applegate stated the concept and facilities are equally and
highly endorsed by all those who have participated in the
planning process of this project who will be utilizing the
facility.
On motion c£ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to solicit
supplemental financing proposals from financial institutions and
underwriters; to accept the proposal determined to be the best
proposal according to criteria established in the solicitation;
and to issue up to $5,500,000 in supplemental financing to fund
construction of the Courts Building, subject to acceptance of
terms and conditions set forth in the closing documentation,
with the Board granting final approval cf the financing terms
and conditions contained in the closing documents by subsequent
resolution at the time of closing (anticipated to be in early
1987).
Vote: UnanimOus
Nfs. oirone stated the transaction to finance these buildings
wee accomplished through lease/purchase financing, which does
incur long-term debt for the County without a vote of the
public, which was addressed in the proposed charter but deleted.
She stated the concern of the Charter Committee was that there
is a loophole available to the Board and cautioned the Board to
utilize this method sparingly.
9.B. ORDINANCE RELATING TO LEAF BURNING AND COLLECTION
Mr. Hedrick stated a public hearing was held on September 10,
1986, to consider an ordinance to ban leaf burning in the more
populous areas of the County and provide County leaf collection
in these areas on a scheduled basis. He stated a major concern
arising from the meeting was the amount of funding available and
the level of collection service recommended to be p~0vided if
the ordinance were adopted. Me presented an additional etudy to
the Board concerning the various levels of collection service
and the cost~ a~sociated with those levels of service. Me
stated further that there has been thought and discussion by
Board members to reconsider banning and the areas that were
previously designated for leaf collection service.
Approximately nine (9) citizens were present regarding this
issue.
Mr. Daniel asked if the Board could vote on the ordinance first
and then discuss the management i~sue of how to implement the
ban as a separate and distinct item.
Mr. Applegate stated the Board first needed to know how the
project would be managed.
Mrs. Girone inquired if it is the Board's intent to ban leaf
burning in thn fail and the spring as it was her understanding
that both seasone wore being discussed, however, staff's report
recommends that pickup not be provided in the spring unless
there is an additional cost. She stated she wantnd thn Board to
make a decision on that issue because if leaf burning is going
to be banned in the County in the designated areas it has to be
done both spring and fall.
Mr. Micas stated the way the ordinance is currently written in
order to ban burning you must provlds collection of some fashion
and it dons not have to be the same fashion in both seasons.
Mrs. Gironn stated she would like to suggest that the fall and
the spring issue be treated equally, that there not be any
difference, and that whatever the ordinance says regarding the
fall it will also carry over and be true in the spring.
Mr. Applegato stated last year the leaves did not fall when
anticipated and they were still on the trees when the burning
season was over and it was a terrible problem. ~e stated people
have to have an opportunity to dispose of their leaves.
Mr. Mayns stated he felt this problem is continuous and the
Board ought to look at the total problem.
Mr. Howell stated Henrico County provides such services for both
fall and spring; Pairfax and one other jurisdiction provide such
services only in the fall.
Mrs. Girone stated the Board cannot, in her opinion, ban burning
of leaves in the spring and not provide any service. Mr.
Hedrick stated the problem with spring collection is that
generally the leaves that fall in the spring are oak, the leaf
fall is generally created by the now leaf growth occurring on
the tree and pushing the old leaf growth off the tree. He
stated that is an important issue because, unlike the fall of
the year when all of the leaves fall, the oak leaves fall over a
longer period of time during the spring season. He stated there
is not a clearly defined, designated period in which to provide
service. He stated because of the way the leaf fall occurs, it
will be costly and difficult to provide a reasonable level of
service.
Mr. Hedrick stated the most costly part of the program, other
than startup costs, is the operating costs, salaries, etc., and
it is a duplication of the level of service. He stated the
Board need~ to determine if the cost is worth the effort. ~e
stated he felt a level oi expectation concerning a quality of
service in the spring season is going to be created that staff
will net be able to meet at a reasonable cont.
Mr. Applegate stated if the Board approves tho ban for the
burning of leaves, then the Board will have to back up its
decision whether it be by bagging or vacuuming.
Mrs. Girone made a motion that any decision the Board makes on
leaf pickup service and leaf burning ban time be consistent in
the fall and spring - that the same collection services be
provided. Mr. Applegate seconded the motion.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt it was improper for thn motion to be
made at thi~ ti~e; however, he supported the concept that the
same level of service be provided for the spring and the fall
and in the defined areas whatever they may be.
Mr. Mayes stated he supported it also but felt that it should be
as a minimum spring and fall because the problem would not be
86-732
solved by just performing the service twice a year.
Mr. Applegate stated he would take Colonel Mayes' suggestion if
he would like to offer it as an amendment that a limited service
be spring and fall. Mrs. Girone agreed.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegatp, the Board
resolved that leaf pickup service and the timeframes for the
banning of leaf burning be consistent in the fall and spring and
that these two periods be the minimal period for such services.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Ahstention= Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Daniel stated he Supported the motion, however, he would
abstain from voting as he felt the Board has veered away from
the parlimentary procedure of business and has not gone through
the entire situation in an objective manner.
Mr. Howell presented a brief seminary ef the alternatives to the
proposed leaf burning ban and zone collection plan, which
included more frequent collection of bagged leaves, reducing the
size of the area to be serviced, reducing the periods in which
leaf pickup would be provided and an option to provide vacuum
service to those citizens who do ncr wish to bag their leaves
for a fee of $25.00 per call for service, capital costs and
operating costs for both bagged service and vacuum service; and
presented maps outlining the proposed boundaries of the no
burning zones.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt it would be inappropriate, where
Falling Creek divides the area bordered by the City where
burning would not be permitted on one side of the creek and
would be permitted on the other side, particularly in the
Meadowbrook area, and that it is important for that portion of
the County that borders that district to be included. Ke stated
he could not justify the inclusion o~ the area, particularly
along Belmont Road to Five Forks, the Airport which is an open
area, in the Master Plan for proposed heavy industrial use in
the Route 288 Corridor and that that area be taken off of the
initial proposal. Me stated the balance of th~ shaded area in
the Dale District is still in the high density area to and
including the Salem Church, Salem Woods area and the area from
the City limits to Cogbill Road and the Dower lines. He
inquired if Kings Forest is included in the no burning zone. Mr.
Howell stated all of Kings Forest is included in the no burning
zone and he did not think subdivisions were split.
Mr. Mayes inquired if the pickup service is available to the
burning area. Mr. Howell commented the leaf collection would be
the same as has previously been provided - some trucks would be
devoted every Friday to pick up bagged leaves in the "burning
permitted" area.
Mr. Howell stated that in the "no burning area" in the fall
season two (2) trips would be made for bagged leaves; if the
Board elects to go with the spring season, there will be two (2)
additional pickups. ~e stated trips on vacuum services in the
"no burn" area will be unlimited, as long as the customer pays
for it.
Mr. Ramsey outlined a summary of capital costs and operating
costs and stated staff is recommending that the capital portion
of the cost ($309,000) be five (5) year lease/purchase. He
stated $116,500 in additional funds would need to be
appropriated, which ~taff is reeommending from the Fund Balance,
to finance the fall/spring program, should the Board approve the
lease/purchase financing. Mr. Medrick stated that if the Board
should decide not to approve the lease/purchase financing, the
option would he to appropriate approximately $400,000 in order
to carry out the overall project.
86-733
Mr. Applegate stated he wished to include the entire Clover Mill
District in the no burning area. Be stated people across
streets from each other would be allowed to burn and others
would not and the situation would be very confusing. Mr. Daniel
stated people are going to become upset if there is not a
boundary and he felt the street should be the boundary. Be
stated he would liks to be assured that there are olean, concise
definitions.
Mr. Appleqate inquired, if the Board passed the ban on leaf
burning, how would it affect the elderly and the handicapped.
Mr. rammer stated this issue was discussed and it was determined
that it would be best to provide people with an on-call list of
contractors that can be called if citizens need their leaves
raked. He stated staff discussed various alternatives in terms
of getting volunteers and other types of individuals to aid the
elderly. Me stated staff will try to determine the demand by
the number of calls received for qualified contractors and will
attempt to be very responsive in terms of the vacuum% leaf
Service. Mr. Applegate stated he would recommend that if vacuum
service is ~o be provided that the elderly not be charged
it. Mr. ~mmer stated that when staff checked with other
surrounding jurisdictions that provide leaf collection services
and leaf vacuum services none of them provide any subsidy for
their elderly people, as the elderly people for years have been
making their own arrangements to ~ake care of leaves and they
have not experienced problems.
Mr. Applegate questioned how service would be provided to an
elderly couple that live on a large piece of acreag~ surrounded
by a fence. Mr. Mowell commented that service would be curb
side or roadside as proposed as he did not believe it feasible
to move this type of equipment onto lots or property. Mr.
Applegate stated he did not feel the $25.00 fee should be
imposed on the elderly who are supported by fixed incomes. Me
also inquired about the enforcement of the ban. Mr. Hammer
stated that in discussions with Chief Pittman, staff decided the
best policy, at least initially, would be to integrate this
process into the regular police enforcement program.
Mr. Daniel stated enforcement will cost additional money for
this program and he would like to know what those figures would
be upfront. Mrs. Girone stated if this program causes a
financial problem the Board can go to the County Administrator
and respond to the problem during the year.
Mr. Micas stated if the Board should desire to increase the
boundaries of the no burning area the Board would have to come
back and accomplish such action through a public hearing. Mr.
Mayas stated suppose there is a problem and inquired what his
options would be to solve the local problem. Mr. Micas stated
his option would be to expand the no burning area, if there are
certain areas within his district where burning i~ not
desirable.
Mr. Micas stated the ordinance requires that if the Board should
change the boundaries of the no burning area it must be done
publicly - the area must be designated by the Board, advertised
and publicly posted as no burning areas. Mr. Daniel stated the
Board can publicly post and publicly advertise but questioned if
the Board must have a public hearing and an ordinance defining
what the no burning area is. Mr. Micas stated it says
designated by the Board - it has to be done by the Board. Mr.
Daniel questioned if the ordinance and public hearing were
necessary. Mr. Micas stated yon do not have to have an
ordinance but it has to be done by the Board publicly.
Mr. Mayas inquired what his options would be if there is a
family having a medical problem with a £amily next door er
across the street who is burning. Mr. Micas stated a public
hearing is not necessary but it is not realistic to think that a
County wide ordinance can effectively handle that. Be
86-734
stated the better approach is to hope that the neighborhood,
themselves, can handle that problem.
Mr. Daniel stated Of all the civic groups that he has talked
with and polled, approximately 35-40% state they are opposed to
leaf burning and the remaining 60% state they feel the ordinance
should be left as it is. He stated others indicated if you
assure the public that the County is going to piok up their
leaves then they become more supportive - not 100% of the
remaining 60% but a majority of them, therefore, the message is
that if services are provided for disposing of the leaves the
people will support the concept of no burning. He stated
another i~sue needing to be addressed is the difference between
leaves and twigs.
Mr. Hedrick stated it will be a matter of degree and size as the
equipment is not readily adaptable to pick up bulk items and
will break down easily.
Mr. Dodd inquired when the vacu%lm trucks will bs available. Mr.
Howell stated the equipment should be available within 30-45
days. He stated it will be a tight schedule to obtain it for
this year and he has requested authorization for emerqenoy
purchas~ if necessary to get that equipment on time to initiate
the program.
Mr. Applegate stated he wished to offer an amendment to the
recommendation of staff under item %2 to approve the Vacuum
Servic~ charge of $25.00 per pickup, excepting citizens 65 years
or older.
Mrs. Girona stated she would like to see the County go through
the first year without that amendment, as to what is needed to
get started and find out what the program entails.
Mrs. Girone made a motion for approval of the following
administrative procedures dealing with leaf burning:
t. Approved the "no burning" zones and collection plan as
proposed by staff;
2. Approved the vacuum service charge of $25.00 per pick-up;
3. Appropriated revenue of $65,000 from Fall and Spring vacuum
collection fees;
Additional funding from General Fund fund balance of
$116,500 for Fall and Spring program; and
4. Authorized emergency procurement of Vacuum collection
equipment if necessary to achieve delivery by November 1,
1986.
And further be it resolved that the following ordinance
adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMeNDeD,
BY A~iENDING SECTION i0-24~ ARTICLE IV~
RELATING TO BURNING OF LEAVES
Da
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
Sec. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 of the Code of the
County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and
reenacted as follows:
Article IV. B~rnin~ of Leaves
Sec. 10-22. When prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person t~ burn leaves in the
86~735
open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31
of any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and
ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84).
Sec. 10-23. When permitted.
(a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on
property where they reside during the period beginning March 16
and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this
period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 noon On
Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. It im further provided that
during this period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs
within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland, unless
it takes place between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight
(1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84).
Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-up service available.
(a) Within the bounds of any area designated by the board
of supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an urea in
which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the
board during the periods when leaf burning under section 10-23
above would be otherwise permitted, it shall be unlawful to burn
leaves at any time.
(b) In the event the board of supervisors shall choose to
make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above
available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing
such area by reference to commonly recognized roads,
subdivisions and landmarks in a notice published once a week for
two (2) successiv~ weeks in a newspaper having general
circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least
five (5) public places within the area so designated.
Sec. 10-25. Penalties.
Any person violating any provisio~ of this article shall,
upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable
to a fine e£ net more than five hundred dollars for each
violation.
Mr. Applegate stated the Clover Hill District boundaries of the
no burning area should extend from Courthouse Road west on Route
360 to 01d Hundred Road, north on Old Hundred Road to Genito
Read and east on Genito Road to Coalfield Road, with the
remainder of the no burning area as identified. He added this
motion did not provide relief for the elderly.
Mrs. Girone stated not all of the elderly in Chesterfield County
are low income Or needy. She stated the County provides tax
reliei for the elderly which is based on income and inquired if
that criteria would be acceptable. She stated there are a lot
of people 65 and over who are very well to do in this County and
she did not feel such a service should be provided to them as
there are probably young families on lower incomes than some of
the elderly.
There was further discussion regarding the cost of bagging,
qualifications £or the elderly relief, fixed income, etc.
Mrs. Girone stated she could agree to include that the elderly
who are receiving tax relief for the elderly will be eligible
for free vacuum pickup.
Mr. Hedrick stated that whatever amendments are offered, staff
has to have a way to enforce it. He stated some variations will
be easier to enforce than others but when these various
categories have to be substantiated, substantial administrative
costs are not taken into consideration.
Mr. Applegate stated the Board is willing to pay the cost to
protect the health and the welfare of the citizens of this
County by having the leaves bagged or picked up and should be
86-736
willing to help out the elderly who are not able to do it. Mr.
Mayas also indicated the elderly need consideration.
Mr. Mammer stated staff plans to adv~rtlse in the local papers
concerning the zone program and how collection and vacuum
services will be provided and will announce the times when the
program is ready to be initiated.
~ir. Daniel requested that item ~5 be added that states within
the defined area, it is currently four (4) zones with two (2)
bag pickups in sash zone per pickup season.
Mr. Mayas stated that those pickups were not limited to the no
burn areas.
Mrs. Girone amended her original motion and moved approval of
the following administrative procedures dealing with leaf
burning:
1. Approved the "no burning" zones and collection plan as
proposed by staff;
2. Approved the vacuum service charge of $25.00 per pick-up,
excepting citizens who currently qualify for tax relief for
the elderly;
3. Appropriated revenue of $65,000 from Fall and Spring vacuum
collection ~ees;
Additional funding from General Fund fund balance of
$116,500 for Fall and Spring program;
4. Authorized emergency procurement of Vacuum collection
equipment if necessary to achieve delivery by Nove~ber 1,
1986; and
5. Authorised collection of bagged leaves in the "no burning"
area with two (2) collections in November-December and two
(2) collections in March-April.
And further be it resolved that the following ordinance be
adopted:
AN O~DINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE
OF TF=E COUNTy OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~MENDED,
BY AMENDING SECTION 10-24, ARTICLE IV,
RELATING TO BURNING OF LEAVES
B~ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors cf Chesterfield
County:
Sec. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and
r~nacted as follows:
Article IV. Burning of Leaves
Sec. 10-22. When prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the
open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31
of any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and
ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84)..
Sac. 10-23. When permitted.
(a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on
property where they reside during the period beginning March 16
and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this
period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 noon on
Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. It is further provided that
during this period, it shall be Unlawful if burning occurs
within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland, unless
it takes place between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight
(1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84).
Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-up servioe available.
(a) Within the bounds of any area designated by the board
of supervisors and duly proolaimed by the board as an area in
which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the
board during the periods when leaf burning under ssction 10-23
above would be otherwise permitted, it ~hatl be unlawful to burn
leaves at any time.
(b) In the event the board of supervisors shall choose to
make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above
available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing
such area by reference to commonly recognized roads,
subdivision~ and landmarks in a notice published once a week for
two (2) su¢cesslv~ weeks in a newspaper having general
circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least
five (5) public place~ within the area so designated.
Sec. 10-25. Penalties.
Any person violating any provision of this article shall,
upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable
to a fine of not more than five hundred dellar~ for each
violation.
Mr. Applegate moved a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Nayes,
for approval of the following administrative procedures dealing
with leaf burning:
1. Approved the "no burning" zones and collection plan ax
proposed by staff;
2. Approved the vacuum service charge of $25.00 per pick-up,
excepting senior citizens 65 years or older;
3. Appropriated revenue of $65,000 from Fall and Spring vacuum
collection fees;
Additional funding from General Fund fund balance of
$116,500 for Fall and Spring program;
4. Authorized emergency procurement of Vacuum collection
equipment if necessary to achieve delivery by November 1,
1986; and
5. Authorized collection of bagged leaves in the "no burning"
area with two (21 collection~ in November-December and two
(2) collections in March-April.
And further be it resolved that the following ordinance be
adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO Ai~END THE CODE
OP T~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS AFf~NDED,
BY AMENDING SECTION 10-24, ARTICL~ IV,
RELATING TO BURNING OF LEAVES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
Sec. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and
reenacted as fellows:
Article IV. B~rnin~ of Leaves
Sec. 10-22. When prohibited.
It ~hall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the
open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31
of any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and
ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84).
86-738
Sec. 10-23. When permitted.
(a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on
property where they reside during the period beginning March 16
and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this
period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 noon on
Friday until 8:00 a.m. On Monday. It is further provided that
during this period, it shall be unlawful if berning occurs
within three hundred feet of any woodland or bruehland, unless
it takes place be%ween the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight
(1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84).
See. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-up service available.
(a) Within the bounds of any area designated by the board
of supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an area in
which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the
board during the periods when leaf burning under section 10-23
above would be otherwise permitted~ it shall be unlawful to burn
leaves at any time.
(b) In the event the board of supervisors shell choose to
make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above
available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing
such area by reference to Commonly recognized roads,
subdivisions and landmarks in a notice published once a week for
two (2) successive weeks in a newspaper having general
circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least
five (5) public places within the area so designated.
Sec. 10-25. Penalties.
Any person violating any provision of this article shall,
upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable
to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each
violation.
Mr. Nedrick advised the Board that if the amendment is adopted
it will increase the level of demands as well as increase the
funding which may not be sufficient to cover or provide that
level of service. He stated staff may come back to the Board to
ask for additional funds.
Mrs. Girone reminded the Board that item #2 in her motion does
state that those homeowners in thi~ County who are senior
citizens and who are receiving tax relief for the elderly, can
receive free vacuum ~ervice and ehe felt that this is a good
place to start for the first year to see what the demand is;
however, if the County is going to vacuum leaves for everyone in
this County that is 65 and over, there will be a substantial
increase in the program.
The Board being polled~ on Mr. Applegate's substitute motion, the
vote was as follows;
Mr. Dodd: Yes, although he felt Mrs. Girone provided a
good compromise.
Mr. Daniel: Yes
Mr. Applegate: Yes
Mrs. Girone: No
Mr. Mayesz Yes
Mrs. Girone stated this motion was not clear to her and she had
thought the Board was voting solely on Mr. Applegate's
statements.
Mr. Applegate mtated his motion was identical to Mrs. Girone's
original motion with the exception cf item #2 which approved
curbside or streetside vacuum service charge of $25.00 per
pickup except those 65 years old and over.
MrS. Qirone stated she felt the entire motion should be
reconsidered since she misundarmtood the Board's intent.
86-739
Mr. Micas stated the Chair has to rule eventually on what the
Board wants to do but he was satisfied with it as a
parliamentary matter.
Mr. Dodd stated there was confusion as to the motion and stated
be would call for a revere.
There was discussion regarding boundaries, streets, etc., and
the fact that the no burning zone should be delineated by roads,
subdivisions and len~arks without regard to houses and
sttbdivisions which may have an entrance on the roads but would
be outside the no burning area.
Mr. Hedrick stated he felt the use of streets as clear,
definitive boundaries would be the better approach for defining
the no burning boundaries, as suggested by Mr. Daniel.
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the motion was reinstated.
Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
following administrative procedures dealing with
On motion of
approved the
leaf burning:
1. Approved
proposed
the "no burning" zones and collection plan as
by staff;
2. Approved the vacuum service charge of $25.00 per pick-up,
excepting senior citizens 65 years or old,r;
3. Appropriated revenue of $65,000 from Fall and Spring vacuum
collection fees;
Additional funding from General Fund fund balance of
$116,500 for Fall and Spring p~ogra~;
4. Authorized emergency procurement of Vacuum collection
equipment if necessary to achieve delivery by NOvember 1,
1986; and
5. Authorized collection of bagged leaves in the "no burning"
area with two (2) collections in November-December and two
(2) collections in March-April.
And further be it resolved that the following ordinance be
adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMEnDeD,
BY AF~NDING SECTION 10-24, ARTICLE IV,
RELATING TO BURNING OF LEAVES
B~ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
Sec. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 of the Code oi the
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and
reenacted as follows:
Article IV. Burnin~ of Leaves
Sec. 10-22. When prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the
open during the period ~eginning April 16 and ending 0cto~er 31
of any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and
ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84).
Sec. 10-23. When permitted.
(a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leave~ on
property where they reside during the period beginning March 16
and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this
period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves ~rom 12:00 noon on
Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. It is further provided that
86-740
during this period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs
within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland, unless
it takes place between the hours of 4=00 p.m. and 12:00 midniqht
(1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84).
Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-up service available.
(a) Within the bounds of any area designated by the board
of supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an area in
which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the
board during the periods when leaf burning under section 10-23
above would be otherwise permitted, it shall be unlawful to burn
leaves at any time.
(b) In the event the hoard of supervisors shall choose to
make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above
available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing
such asea by reference to commonly recoqnized roads,
subdivisions and landmarks in a notice published once a week for
two (2) successive weeks in a newspaper having general
circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least
five (5) public places within the area so designated.
Sec. 10-25. Penalties.
Any person violating any provision of this article shall,
upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable
to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each
violation.
The Board being polled, the vote was as follows:
Mr. Dodd: Yes
Mr. Daniel: Yes
Mr. Applegate: Yes
Mrs. Girone: Yes
Mr. Mayas: Yes
Mr. Hedrick stated he wished to advise the Board that staff will
develop what it perceives to be the administrative and
management mechanisms for i~plementing these programs and will
disseminate that information to the Board before it is
implemented so that staff is sure that it reflects the action
approved by the Board.
The Board expressed appreciation for the citizens attendance.
9.C. STR~T LIGBT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved street light installations at:
1. the intersection of Edgemere Boulevard and Falstone Road,
in the amount of $1,997.00, with funds to be expended from
the Dale District 3 Cent Road Fund;
2. at the intersection of Vauxhall Road and Vauxhall Court, in
the amount of $829.00, with funds to be expended from the
Dale District Street Light Fund; and
3. at the inter~ection of Cadillac Trail and Claybar Trail, in
the amount of $1,484.00, with funds to be expended from the
Clover aill District Street Light Fund.
When asked, Mr. McElfish stated the Powhite Parkway will not
illuminate the area of Cadillac Trail and Claybar Trail.
Vote: Unanimous
86-741
9.D. APPOINTMENTS
9.D.1. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND APPOMATTOX RIVER
WATER AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
appointed Mr. John McCracken and Mr. Richard Sale to serve as
alternates to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which
terms are effective immediately; the Board also appointed Mr.
Richard Sale to serve as an alternate to the Appomattox River
Water Authority, which term is effective immediately.
Vote: Unanimous
9.D.2. CA~4P BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD
Mr. Applegate stated he would forego the nomination of e
representative for the Clover Hill District for the Camp Baker
Management Board at this time.
9.D.3. NOMINATIONS FOR YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Hoard
nominated Mr. Joe Cesario, representing the Dale District, to
the Camp Baker Management Board, whose formal appointment will
be made October 8, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
10. PUBLIC ]~EAR--/NGS
o ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COUNTY CODE EXEMPTING CERTAIN
DIRECT SELLERS WITH SALES OF NO MORE THAN $4,000 PER
YEAR FROM LICENSE TAXATION AND LIMITING RATE OF TAX
ON DIRECT SELLERS WITH SALES EXCEEDING $4,000 PER
YEAR
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to exempting
certain direct sellers from license taxation and limiting the
rate of tax on direct sellers.
Mr. Micas presented a brief summary.
NO one came forward to address the issue.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO A~END THE CODE OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978,
AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 12-1.2 EXEMPTING CERTAIN DIRECT
SELLERS WITH SALES OF NO MORE THAN $4,000 PER YEAR FROM LICENSE
TAXATION AND LIMITING RATE OF TAX ON DIRECT SELLERS WITH
SALES EXCEEDING $4~000 PER YEAR
BE IT ORDAINED by thc Hoard of Supervisors of the
Chesterfield, Virginia:
(1) That Chapter 12 of the Code of the County
Chesterfield, Virginia is amended and reenacted by adding
Article I O£ Chapter 12 the following section:
County of
of
to
12.1.2 Limitations with respect to license tax on
direct sellers.
(a) Notwithstanding any other prevision of this chapter, no
license tax shall be imposed upon a direct seller, as defined
herein, unless the total sales of such seller exceed $4,000 per
year. The rate of tax levied on a direct seller whose total
sales exceed $4,000 per year shall not be greater than 20 cents
per $100 of retail sales or 5 cents per $100 of wholesale ~ale~,
whichever is applicable. No license tax shall be imposed upon
86-742
such direct seller unless such person maintains his place of
abode in the County.
(b) As used in this section the term "direct seller" means
any person who:
(1) Engages in the trade or business of selling or
soliciting the sale of consumer products primarily in private
residences and maintains no public location for the conduct of
such business; and
(2) Receives remuneration for s~ch activities, with
substantially all of such remuneration being directly related to
sales or other salee-oriented services, rather than to the
number of hours worked; and
(3) Performs such activities pursuant to a written contract
between such person and the person for whom the activities are
performed and such contract provides that such person will not
be treated as an employee with respect to such activities for
federal tax purposes.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.A. REQUEST FROM CHRISTMAS MQT~ER COMMITTEE FOR THE 1986
CHRISTMAS MOTHER PROGRAM
Mrs. Rachel Holmes, the 1986 Christmas Mother, expressed
appreciation for the Board's past and present support of the
Chrietmae Mother progra~ and for its contribution of $3,000 for
the 1986 season, as well as the excellent employee support
throughout all the County departments. She introduced Ms.
Barbara Giegerich, Christmas Coordinator, and Ms. Dona Link,
Christmas Committee Chairman, presented a statistical report of
the various aspects of the program, and invited the Board to
visit the Christmas Center, from December 5 - December 23, to
view the Christmas Committee in operation.
Mr. Dodd expressed the Board's appreciation for the services
provided by the Chrlstmae Mother Committee.
ll.B. CONSIDER ESTABLISMMENT OF BRUG ABUSE TASK FORCE
Mr. Applegate stated, as a follow-up to the Board's recent
request to the schools to tighten their programs as they relate
to drug abuse, he felt perhaps the Board should consider the
establishment of a Drug Abuse Task Force to identify the
problems and recommend actions. He stated there in an exieting
group of approximately fifteen (15) individuals who represent
the members of the Chesterfield Action Council, which is a task
force certified by the CoK~unity Intervention, !nc. of
Minnesota, who, along with conoerned parents, may be interested
in assisting with the Drug Abuse Task Force.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt this problem is a long-term problem
which will not be easily resolved, however, an effort must be
exerted toward that goal. Be stated he felt Mr. Applegate
should be the key Board member on the task force.
Mr. Mayes stated war has been declared on drug abuse, however,
it appears the war is being lost because all the efforts and
resources used nationally to prevent the flow of d~ugs do not
seem to have dented the problem as the drugs are still on the
streets. Be stated it appears this situation will continue to
exist unless the profit is taken out of it.
Mr. Daniel stated drugs are an adult invention and it is the
adult attitude toward drugs that needs to be altered. He stated
86-743
he felt the task force could be successful in its efforts to
resolve this problem.
On motion of the Board, the Board adopted the following
resolution and appointed Mr. G. ~. Applegate to chair said Drug
Abuse Task Force:
WHEREAS, drug abuse is a growing concern throughout the
state and nation, as well as to citizens in Chesterfield County;
and
WHEREAS, citizens, particularly the youth of Chesterfield
County, are being exposed to increasing risks from peers who use
drugs and those who seek to gain from the sale and distribution
of illicit drugs; and
WHEREAS, the President, as a result of growing citizens'
concern, has declared war on drug abuse and has recently taken
major initiatives to stem the ilow of drugs into the country as
well as other significant domestic initiatives at the federal
level; and
WBEREAS, Congress has recently paseed several measures
which would authorize more than on~ billion dollars in fiscal
years 1987 through 1989 ier drug education and is currently
considering other major initiatives in the offensive on drug
abuse; and
WHEREAS, in concert with such initiatives, it is imperative
that Chesterfield County be prepared to respond in a
comprehensive, positive and effective manner to this threat to
our citizens, particularly our youth; and
WHEREAS, any long-term resolution to this problem will
require a concerted effort of the entire community; and
WHEREAS, inasmuch as many well-intended programs of the
past have not worked successfully, we must now combine drug
education with efforts by the family, community and our Human
Service agencies.
NOW, THEP~EP01~E BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors h~reby establishes a Drug Abuse Task Force to assess
the extent and nature of the problems in Chesterfield and to
recommend the most effective and comprehensive approach possible
in dealing with drug abuse in Chesterfield County; and
B~ IT FURTM~R PJ~SOLVED that th~ Chairman of this Board
appoint a Task Force consisting of representatives from
community groups and organizations dedicated to drug abuse
prevention, parents and teachers' organizations, education
associations, School Board Administration, Police, Raman Service
Agencies and other appropriate organizations dedicated to Drug
Abuse Abatement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Task Force report to this
Board on a quarterly basis concerning its progress and
reco~endations.
ll.C. APPOINTMENTS
ll.C.1. ABIDCO
On motion o£ Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
nominated Mr. Jesse J. Mayes~ representing the Board of
Supervisors, and Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., representing the
business ce~u~unity, to serve on the Appomattox Easin Industrial
86-744
Development Corporation (ABIDCO), whose formal appoinfments will
be made October 8, 1986.
Mr. Daniel strongly expressed concern that tho appclnt_ment
process for this Commission permits the core to be appointed and
then the core itself appoints its own ranks which he felt
inappropriate. He stated if the Commission is to be appointed
by the public then the public should make all the appointments.
~e misted whenever you have the creative creating itself it
takes away from what representation is all about. He stated
perhaps it should be expanded to eighteen (18) and let each
jurisdiction have one more appointment.
11.C.2. BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board
appointed the following persons to serve on the Building Code
Appeals Board, whose terms
expire as indicated:
Mr. Robert J. Leipertz
Mr. Robert O. Irving
Mr. Charles Lewis
Mr. Wayne Peterson
Vote: Unanimous
are effective immediately and will
~une 30, 1990
June 30, 1990
June 30, 1989
June 30, 1989
ll.D. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.D.1. REQUFSTS ?OR RAFFL~ PERMITS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the requests for raffle permits from the ~ening
Athletic Association and the Resident Council of the Lucy Corr
Nursing Home for the calendar year 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D.2. REQUEST FOR RAFFLE PE~IT AND WAIVER OF APPLICATION
FEE BY CHESTERFIELD SENIOR COUNCIL
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request for a raffle permit for the Chesterfield
Senior Council ~or the calendar year 1986 and waived submission
of a $25.00 application fee, as the proceeds of the raffle are
to be donated to the building fund for the proposed County
Senior Center at Ironbridge Park.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D.3. CANCEL DEBT DUE FROM BENSLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Eoard
approved the waiver of the 1985 accounts receivable of $17,817
from the accounting records due from the Bensley Volunteer Fire
Department, as the Volunteer Fire Department provided $25,000 of
its Own improvements and construction time to build a bunkroom,
a complete shower and bathroom facilities in preparation for
accepting career fire£1ghter~.
86-745
ll.D.4. ADDITION TO CLOVER HILL FIRE STATION
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a
oentract with Ben R. Johns, Jr., Architect (AIA), for the design
of the addition of a bunkroom on the Clover Hill Fire Station
for a fee of $10,000 plus reimbursables, the construction of
which is anticipated to start in April, 1987, and which funds
are to be expended from the 1986-87 Capital Improvements Budget.
vote: Unanimous
ll.D.6. STATE ROAD ACCSPTANCE
This day th~ County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Stable Gate Road in Branch's Trace Phase I, Dale
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Stable Gate Road in
Branch's Trace Phase I, Dale District, be and it hereby is
established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Depart~cnt of
Highways & Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take
into the Seoondary System, Stable Gate Road, beginning at the
intersection with Lori Road, State Route 655, and going 0.05
mile northerly to a dead end.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Bighways drainage
This road serves 48 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervlsor~
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a variable 60'
to 110' right-of-way for this road.
This section of Branch's Trace is recorded as follows:
Phase I. Plat Book 47, Pages 72 & 73, October 26, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board~ made report in writing upon his
examination of Sara Kay Drive and Creasman Drive in Alton,
Section 7, Dale District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
~econded by Mr. Daniel, it i~ re~olved that Sara Kay Drive and
Creasman Drive in Alton, Section 7, Dale District~ be and they
hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Hiqhway~ & Transportation, he and it hereby is requested to take
into the Secondary System, Sara Kay Drive, beginning at the end
of State maintained Sara Kay Drive, State Route 2750, and going
0.04 mile northwesterly to the interSeetion with Crea~man Drive,
then continuing in a circular direction 0.22 mile to
re-intersect with Creasman Drive, then continuin9 0.03 mile
easterly to tie into existing Sara ~ay Drive, State Route 2750;
and Creasman Drive, beginning at the southern intersection with
Sara Kay Drive and going 0.14 mile northerly to the northern
intersection with Sara Kay Drive.
This request is incl~sfve of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
~6-74~
These roads serve 52 lots.
And be if further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Alton is recorded as follows:
Section 7. Plat Book 49, Page 67, June 17, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Windy Oaks Lane and S~nbeam Road in Edgewood,
Sections 2 and 3, and a portion of Beeohwood, Section A, Dale
District.
Upon sonside~ation whereof, and on motion of Mr. Air, legate,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Windy Oaks Lane and
Sunbeam Road in Edgewood, Sections 2 and 3, and a portion of
Beechwood, Section A, Dale District, be and they hereby are
established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Eighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Windy Oaks Lane, beginning at
the intersection with Hopkins Road, State Route 637, and running
westerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Sunbeam Road, then
centlnuing westerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and
Sunbeam Road, beginning at the southern end of existing Sunbeam
Road, State Route 3440, and running southerly 0.02 mile to the
intersection with Windy Oaks Lane, then continuing southwesterly
0.18 mile to tie into existing South Prestonwood Avenue, State
Route 2339.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
These roads serve 23 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for Sunbeam Road and a variable 50' to 75'
right-of-way for Windy Oaks Lane.
These sections of Edgewood are recorded as follows:
Section 2. Plat Book 38, Page 69, May 12, 1981.
Section 3. Plat Book 48, Pages 17 & 1S, December 14, 1984.
This Section of Heechwood is recorded as follows:
Section A. Plat Book 12, Pages 58 & 59, September 13, 1961.
ll.C. APPOINTMENTS
ll.C.2. BUILDING CODE ~PEALS BOARD
Mr. Micas stated that members oi the Duilding Code Appeals Doard
were not nominated at a previous meeting and requested that the
Board consider the item as adopted through a suspension of the
rules.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
suspended its rules and nominated and appointed at the same
meeting the following Members to the Building Code Appeals
Board, whose terms are effective immediately and will expire as
indicated:
86-747
Mr. Robert J. 5eipertz
Mr. R~bert O. Irving
Mr. Charles Lewis
Mr. Wayne Peterson
Vote: Unanimous
June 30, 1990
June 30, 1990
June 30, 1989
June 30, 1989
ll.B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
Pd~SOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUA~CB OF UP TO $2~000,000 IN
INDUSTRIAL D~V~50P~NT BONDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
WELLNESS C~N~ER AW JOHNSTON-WILLIS HOSPITAL
Mr. Hedrick stated that, at its September I0, 1986, meeting, the
Board tentatively set a public hearing to consider approval
$2,000,000 in Industrial Development Bonds from the Henrieo
County Industrial Development Authority for Johnston-Willis
Hospital to construct a wellness center. He stated, however,
sta££ has determined that the Board's action in approving the
bonds for Johnston-Willis Hospital does not require a public
hearing, therefore, the October 8, 1986, pu~olic hearing will be
cancelled. He stated the resolution to be approved by the Beard
has been prepared by bond counsel and is submitted for the
Board's consideration at this time.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEP~EAS, Industrial Development Authority of the County of
Henrico, Virginia (the Authority), in April 1985 i~sued its
Medical Facility Revenue Bonds (the Bonds) in the aggregate
principal a~ount Of $45,000,000 for the benefit of Virginia
~ospital Association, a non-profit association (the
Association), principally for the acquisition of real and
personal property ior non-profit hospitals in Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 1985,
between the Authority and Bank of Virginia Trust Company
provides that up to 5% of the proceeds of the bonds may be used
to finance facilities for Association members not qualifying as
non-profit hospitals; and
W~EREA8, the Association has indicated to Johnston-Willis
Hospital that its application for approximately $2,000,000 to
assist in the eonstructlon of a wellness center can be approved
as part of the program; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-1378 of the Code of Virginia of 1950,
as a~ended, states that an industrial development authority may
not finance facilities in another jurisdiction that has an
industrial development authority "unless the governing body of
such county, city or town in which the facilities are located or
are proposed to be located, concurs with the inducement
resolution adopted by the authority, and shows such concurrence
in a duly adopted resolution"; and
WHEREAS, Johnston-Willis Hospital has expressed its desire
to participate in the financing program in the approximate
amount of $2,000,000, and has asked the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County) to express
concurrence with the inducement resolution adopted by the
Industrial Development Authority of the County of Henrico, a
copy of which is attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Soard has been advised that neither the ~onde
nor this resolution shell count against any quota or ceiling for
the issuance of indenture development bonds applicable in
Chesterfield County.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, Virginia:
86-748
(1) The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Resolution
adopted by the Authority for the benefit of Virginia Hospital
Association to the extent required by Section 15.1-1378 to allow
of the Bonds to be issued in Chestsr£ield County for the benefit
of Johnston-Willis Hospital.
(2) Approval of the resolution and issuance of the Bonds
as required by Section 15.1-1378 of the Code, does not
constitute an endorsement of the bonds or the creditworthiness
of Johnston-Willis Hospital and, nothing in this resolution
shall indicate that the County shall be obligated to pay the
~ends or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto
and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the
Commonwealth, or the County are pledged thereto.
(31 This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
ll.E.2. SIGHT DISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS ON NEW-BYS BRIDGE ROAD
Mr. Applegate pointed out that the sight distance improvements
on Newbys Rrldge Road is indicative of the problems associated
with road stripping issues, as builders, who construct homes On
the road stripping lot frontages, often do not obtain permits
from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportaflcn to
ensure adequate sight distance at the driveway entrances of
these lots and consequently, the homeowner is left with an
unsafe problem, which most likely will have no resolution.
On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has received a request to
improve the sight distance at a driveway on Newbys Bridge Road
in the area of Cabin Creek St~bdivisien; and
WHEREAS, the sight distance at this driveway is
substandard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation to improve the sight distance on Newbys Bridge
Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, tha~ the Board appropriates $2,000
from the Clover Hill District 3 Cent Road Funds for the
improvement of the sight distance.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.3. R~QURST TO PROCEED WITS THROUGH TRUC~ TRAFFIC
RESTRICTION ON POCOSHOCK BOULEVARD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1986, the Board of Supervisors ef
Chesterfield County requested the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) to restrict through truck
traffic on Pocosheck Boulevard; and
W~EREAS, VDH&T has completed a traffic study for this
request.
NOW, THEREFOR]~, ~E IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests
VDH&T to proceed with the restriction of through truck traffic
on Pocoshock Boulevard.
86-749
There was concern expressed about the new material being
used to surface treat ~oeds which is much more coarse than
previous material and the problems it is causing.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.4. REQUEST TO PROCEBD WITH ~HRQUGH TRUCK T~3~FFIC
RESTRICTION ON SALISBURY ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, eecended by Mr. Applegate~ the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, on October 9, 1985, the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County requested the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) to ~estrict through truck
traffic on Salisbury Road; end
WHEREAS, VD~&T has completed a traffic study for this
NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests
VDH&T to proceed with the restriction of through truck traffic
on Salisbury Road.
Vote: Unanimoue
STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST
On motion of Mre, Girene, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the street light installation cost for the intersection
of Southlake Boulevard and Branchway Road in the amount of
$182,00, which funds are to be expended from the Midlothian
District Street Light Fund.
ll.E.6. STP~ET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the requests for street lights at the end of ~azewell
Avenue, with funds to he expended from the Bermuda District
Street Light Funds and at th~ intersection of Hchoway Road and
Dalebrook Drive, with funds to be expended from the Dale
District Street Light Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.7. AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM FOR GOVERNOR'S SQUARE, ROUTE 60
On motion of ~rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for Charles L. Chandler, Inc. for
maintenance of a storm water management system for Governor's
Square, Route 60, contingent upon approval by the County
Attorney.
86-750
ll.F. UTILITIES ITEMS
ll.F.1. CONSENT ITEMS
WATER CONTRACT FOR RAYON PARK
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized the County Ad~inistrator to execute any necessary
documents awarding Contract No. W86-70C for construction of
water lines in Rayon Park to the low bidder, Gerald E. Moody,
Inc., T/A Southern Construction Company, in the amount of
$175,275.00 in accordance witi% the Engineers' reco~u~endations,
which project was previously approved by the Board of
Supervisors and is being funded w~%h CoEunity Development Block
Grant Funds.
ll.F.l.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR ~OLL¥ T~ACE SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following sewer contract:
Sewer Contract Nur~ber S86-137CD/7(8)6DTM, Holly Trace-Offsite
Sewer Extension.
Developer: A. M. Associates
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Total Contract Cost:
Total Estimated County Cost:
(Refund through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 0
(Refund from future sections)
Code: 5N-2511-997
$67,069.95
$64,540,16
$ 2,529.79
ll.F.l.c. SEWER CONTRACT FOR GENITO ESTATES TRUNK SEWER
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Eoard approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following sewer contract:
Sewer Contract Number S86-139CD/7(8)6DgM,
Developer: E.J. Bell & L.L. Caudle
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Total Contract Cost:
Total Estimated County Cost:
(Refund through Connection Fees(
~stimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 0
(Refund from future sections)
Code: 5N-2511-997
Vote: Unanimous
G~nito Estates Trunk
$199,970.15
$195,163.10
1,807.05
ll.F.l.d. REQUEST FROM MR. RICEARD TEMPLE TO CONSTRUCT PRIVAT~
DRIVEWAY ON COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY
On motion Of Mr. Mayem, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized Mr, Richard Temple to clear a path approximately
20 feet wide from Rcbinwood Drive to his property within the 50
foot right of way for Crossbow Lane in Robinwood Subdivision,
Section 2 and construct a 12 foot wide gravel drive.
86-751
DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG OLD B~RMUDA ~UNDR~D ROAD
PROM GREENHILL
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting the conveyance of a variable width strip of
land along Old Bermuda ~undred Road from Greenhill, A Virginia
General Partnership.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.2. REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
II.G. R~P0RTS
Mr. Hedriek presented the Board with status reports on the
Public Attitude Survey, the General Fund Contingency Account,
General Fund Balance, Road Reserve Funds and District Road and
Street Light Funds.
The Board recessed to the Conference Room (Room 502) of the
Administration Building for a p~esentation on the Management
Audit for the Planning Department.
Reconvening:
Mr. Dodd called the ~eeting to order at 11:30 a.m. in the
Conference Room (Room 502) of the Administration Building.
ll.H. REPORT ON MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR PLANNING D~PARTM~NT
Mr. Hedrick stated that in March 1986 the firm of Peat, Marwick,
Mitchell and Company was contracted to perform a Management
Audit of the County Planning Department. Be stated the purpose
of the meeting was to allow the consultants an opportunity to
present their report and answer any questions the Board may
have. He then introduced the consultants, Mr. John F. DiEenzo,
Mr. Dan Dornan and Mr. Steve Lohr.
Mr. DiRenzo explained that the study, through a series of
structured interviews and a review of available documentation,
assessed the Department in terms of its management practices,
organization structure, staffing levels, operations and
interrelationghips with other County agencies and various client
groups. He stated, while recognizing the motivation and
contmitment of the Planning Department staff and its willingness
to devote ~iqnificant additional staff time to achieve the
missions of the Department, the study focuses on opportunitie~
for improving the pro,ductivity and effectiveness o~ the
Department. Be stated a wide variety of study issues and
findings are described in the report, in terms of: adequacy of
policy direction, implications of workload, organization
structure, management practices and operating procedures,
staffing and training and internal and external communication
and are followed with a series of recommendations for improving
Department management, organization, staffing end operations,
He stated the report concludes with a discussion of
implementation c0nziderations.
86~752
Mr. Dornan presented a brief overview of the Planning
Department's background, purpose and objectives, orqanization
and management structure, staffing levels, workload, resource
and performance trends, adequacy of policy direction, management
criteria, practices and operating procedures, staff productivity
and morale, as well as internal and external communications. Ne
stated the study's recommended actions, which he briefly
outlined, provide a management blueprint for improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the department. Ee advised that
many of the recommendations are interrelated and their greatest
potential benefits will result if jointly implemented. He
stated implementation of the recommendations will Lake time,
effort, full support and commitment of the Board of Supervisors,
County Administration, Planning Department management and
Planning Department staff; however, these efforts will pay the
County back in terms of better and more timely performance of
the department's planning responsibilities, better trained and
more effectively applied staff, and closer relationships between
the expectations of the development community and the ability of
the department to meet these expectations.
Discussion ensued regarding the establishment of a
transportation planner and its duties and responsibilities; the
tong-term transportation needs of the COunty; automation; the
use of the County's Comprehensive Planning Process to define th~
County's economic development and growth management policies;
the eatablishment of a 20-year County comprehensive land use
plan with the involvement of local development/building/business
communities and private citizens; updating the County
comprehensive plan and area plans on a 5-year basis; revising
and updating the County zoning and subdivision ordinances by
adopting uniform development standards to make the ordinance
more understandable and predictable; adjusting performance
indicators to reflect workload; revising organization structure
and augmenting staff; channeling preliminary and final plan
applications/submissions through the Planning Department;
improving management of planning consultants to ensure technical
quality and public involvement; encouraging department managers
to delegate functional responsibilities to lower level staff; and
monitoring implementation and results of recommendations and
reassess staff requirements.
It was generally agreed to assign the implementation of the
management study to Mr. Hedrick, Mr. Sale and appropriate staff,
with instruction for a proposed action plan to be presented to
the Board in the very near future. Mr. Dodd commended Mr.
DiRenzo and his staff for a well-prepared, very concise report.
LUNCH
The Board recessed to the Airport Crosswinds Restaurant at
p.m. for lunch.
Reconvening:
Mr. Dodd called th~ meeting to order at the Courthouse at 2:00
p.m. (EDST).
Mr. Dodd stated per the established rules and procedures of the
Board, Mr. Applegate would preside over the =oning session.
ll.J. REQUEST FOR MOBILE HOME PERMIT
86SR142
In Bermuda Magisterial District, FRANK AND KATHLEEN BLAND
86-753
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property fronting the west line of Beaumont Avenue at its
southern terminus and better known as 10156 Beaumont Avenue.
Tax Map 97-4 (2) Central Park, Block 11, Lots 28-33.
Mr. Pools stated staff recommended approval of this request.
Mrs. Bland came forward to present the reguest.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request for a period of five (5) 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 rsnted 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 hemes 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.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote:
ll.K. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
86S10~
In Bermuda Magisterial District, PIONEER FINANCIAL CORPORATION
requested amendments to a previously granted Conditional Use
Planned Development (Case 80S129) to modify Conditions 11 and 12
relative to road improvements. This request lies in Residential
(R-15) and Office Business (O) Districts on a parcel fronting
approximately 1,000 feet on the sou%_h line of Osborne Road
across from Oak Road. Tax Map 98-13 (1) Parcels 8 and 31 (Sheet
32).
Mr. Pools stated the Planning Com~ission recommended denial of
this request. He stated the applicants have requested a thirty
(30) day deferral.
There was no opposition present to the deferral.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred
consideration of this request until October 22, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
86-754
86Sl14
In Midlothien Magisterial Diatrict, R. LOUI8 SALAMONSKY AND
W~ITTEN REALTY, A VIRGINIA GPNRRAL PARTNPRSH~P requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential-Multifamily (R~MF)
of 15.0 acres, and to Community Business (B-2) of 15.0 acres,
plus Conditional Use Planned Development on a total of 30.0
acres fronting approximately 1,065 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,000 feet east of Farnham
Drive. Tax Map 16-6 (1) Parcel 7 and Tax Map 16-11 {1) Part of
Parcel 9 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the applicants have requested a thirty (30) day
deferral of this request in order to prepare a conceptual land
use and transportation plan for the area bounded by Falling
Creek, Buckingham Road, 01de Coach Village and Route 60. He
stated the applicants have indicated that it is not their intent
to include additional property in the current request, rather
the purpose of the plan is to reflect how the area could be
developed if the current proposal were adopted.
There was no opposition present to the deferral.
Mr. Peele stated that staff is of the opinion that a thirty (30)
day deferral may not be sufficient to allow preparation of the
plan and the evaluation of the plan upon receipt.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until Ontober 22, 1986.
86S116
In Bermuda Magisterial District, HOFFMAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
requested a Conditional Use Blanned Development to permit use
(radio towers and broadcasting studio) and bulk exceptions
(tower height) in an Agricultural (A) District on a 20.0 acre
parcel lying at the southern termini of Brandywine and
Brightwood Avenues. Tax Map 98-5 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (sheet
32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request; however, the applicants have requested a thirty
(30) day deferral because a technical problem has arisen that
will necessitate readvertisement.
There was no opposition present to the deferral.
on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board deferred
consideration of this request until October 22, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
85S157
In Clover Hill Maqisterial District, TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7)
to Community Business (B-2) with Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 23.93 acre
parcel fronting in two (2) places on the southeast line of Eull
Street Road for a total of approximately 1,395 feet, also front-
ing approximately 1,420 feet on the north line of Walmsley
Boulevard, and loeated in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of these road~. Tax Map 39-12 (1) Parcels 1, 19,
and 23 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of
this request, however, subsequent to the Planning Com]~ission's
hearing of the case, the applicant met with staff and the
District Eupervisor to discuss changes in the mixture of
86-755
proposed uses for the project. He stated while the applicant's
revisions, relative to the mix of uses, are preferable, staff
continues to have reservations COncerning the style of the plan
and feels it needs more work to be more acceptable and
compatible.
Mr. Ed Willey, Jr., representing the applicants, Dresented a
brief summary cf the request and stated the request with respect
to land use compatibility and transition, is in compliance with
the Northern Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, as
adopted by the Board on August 13, 1986. Ne stated the
applicants' proffered conditions address site design criteria,
landscaping, development standards, transportation plan,
signalization, signage, setback recfuirements, etc., which will
ensure quality development. Be stated the applicants do not
feel relocating the retail portion of the project to the
northeast, further away from the residential development along
Walmsley Boulevard, is feasible.
Mr. Peele stated major co~mmercial development has been limited
primarily to the area surrounding the intersections of
Courthouse/Hull Street Roads and Turner/Null Street Roads. ~e
stated property south of the request parcel has recently been
developed as single family residential, Wyntrebrooke
Subdivision; therefore, development of the request parcel will
establish the tone and character of future area development. Ke
stated staff feels the impact of this project on the residential
neighborhood has not been adequately addressed. ~e stated land
use compatibility problems have arisen with respect to the Route
60 commercial development and its proximity tc adjacent single
family residential neiqhborhoods, the development of which,
north and south oi Route 60, predated the commercial development
which has occurred and staff is attempting to ensure that Route
360 corridor development does not occur in the same manner as
the Route 60 corridor development. Ne stated residents have
indicated that insufficient and improper buffering has resulted
in undue noise and intrusion of light into their properties.
Mr. Applegate submitted several letters from citizens in favor
of the request.
Mr. Jim Mahone, President cf the Surrywood Civic Association,
voiced concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development
on adjacent residential neighborhoods. He stated the civic
association supports staff's recommendation for a deferral of
this request so that residents may become more informed
regarding the case.
Mr. Bob Mooney, President of the Bexley Civic Association,
voiced opposition to the deferral of this request. Ne stated
the plan needs to be readdressed as there are major fundamental
issues (land use, topography, etc.] which are of concern to
residents. ~e stated residents do not feel that this proposal
meets the spirit and intent of the Northern Planning Area Land
Use and Transportation Plan as it would most likely set a
precedent for other future developers.
Mr. Bill Mohr crated Bexley residents feel that a shopping
center in this particular area, even one of a high caliber, is
not needed and will detract from the existing quality of the
neighborhood. ~e stated he feels it would be in the best
interest of Chesterfield County to deny thi~ requeet, a~
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Approximately eleven (11) persons arose to indicate their
support of the project and approximately six (6) persons stood
to indicate their opposition.
Mr. Applegate stated he felt it should be clarified that Bexley
Subdivision is approximately 4/10 mile from this project and as
such is not directly affected by this development. Ne expressed
concern regarding the possibility of relocating the retail
86-756
portion of the project as well as the transportation situation
along Route 360, etc.
Mr. MoCraeken stated the applicants have proffered significant
road improvements on Walmsley Boulevard and Enll Street. He
stated staff has not reviewed the traffic impact study submitted
with the application, but the Eull Street/Walmsley Boulevard
intersection was operating at an "F" level of service. Re
stated that the proffered improvements should improve this
situation but an "F" level of service may still occur.
Mr. Peele stated that the applicants' proffered conditions,
particularly condition 11, provide for quality development
(i.e., architectural style, enhanced landscaping, maintenance,
signage controls, etc.). With respect to the size of the
request parcel and the mixture of uses, he stated the proposal
meets the criteria of the adopted Northern Planning Area Land
Use and Transportation Plan.
Mr. Dodd expressed concern regarding the topographical features
of the request parcel with ~espeot to relocating the retail
portion of the project. Sr. Dodd stated that he felt it would
be more pleasing to see office development~ rather than the rear
of a shopping center, fronting Walmsley Boulevard. Mr. Willey
stated tho ~e$ign of the project allew~ ~ufficlent Screening and
buffering below grade of this project from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods across Walmsley Boulevard.
Mr. McCracken stated the proffers provide for /mproving
signalization at the intersection of Route 360 and Walmsley
Boulevard at Ricks Road and installing a signal at the main
entrance of this project off Route 360, if such a signal is
warranted.
Mr. Willey stated the applicant objects to the relocation of the
retail portion of the project as the applicants have already
designed the basic center with a buffer screening the
residential property across the ninety (90) foot right-of-way
and developing from a west to east direction of the site
provides more opportunity to economize in the development of the
project and prohibits travel across the undeveloped portions of
the project.
Mr. Applegate questioned if total office development of this
site, with lesser retail development, would not have the same
impact on the Northern Planning Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan in that more office use, rather than mixed use, would be
created, which would not be in accordance with the Plan. Mr.
Peele stated the Plan indicates, as an underlying land use on
this tract, office use and it does suggest that a mixture of
uses could be appropriate. He stated, in him opinion, the
project could be 100% office use and still be in compliance with
the Plan.
Mr. Willey stated the proffered conditions are acceptable.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request, subject to the acceptance of the
following proffered conditions:
1. Plan of J.K. Timmonm and Associates for Cross Points
Marketplace, dated February 14, 1986, shall be the Master
Plan for the property. Community Business (S-2) land uses
are requested for Buildings A-~; Office Business District
(O) land uSe~ are requested for Buildings F, G, and B, and
in the area shown as "Future Office Development"; and B-3
land uses are requested for Parcels I, J, K, and L, except
those uses listed on Exhibit 1 attached.
2. Ingress and egress to the property shall be as shown on the
Master Plan and as approved by the Transportation
86-757
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Department and VDH&T. Mope specifically, the developer
will:
A) Improve the existing crossover and left-turn stacking
lane on the westbound lane of Route 360 into the
Center's primary entrance.
9} North of the proposed entrance on Walmsley Boulevard
there will be improvements consisting of five (5)
lanes for the following:
1} Right-turn lane on Walmsley Boulevard for
eastbound traffic onto Route 360.
2) Northbonnd lane on Walmsley Boulevard continuing
north onto Hicks Road.
3) Left-turn lane for westbound traffic onto Route
360 from Walmsley Boulevard.
4) A left-turn stacking lane for southbound traffic
on Walmsley Boulevard entering the development.
5) A deceleration lane for northbound traffic on
Walmsley Boulevard to turn right into the
development.
6) A southbound through-traffic lane on Walmeley.
C) The developer will dedicate the ultimate forty-five
(45) feet from centerline of right of way along the
entire Walmsley Boulevard frontage of the development.
An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be
installed along Hull Street Road for the entire property
frontage.
The existing topography of the property shall be utilized
by the developer as much as possible and enhanced by
planting and landscaped areas, particularly where
topography is changed.
From the ingress point on Walm$1ey Eoulevard an approximate
one hundred {100! foot buffer shall be reserved along the
southern property line (Walmsley Boulevard). Such buffer
may be modified by the Planning Commission through the
schematic plan review process. The buffer shall be
landscaped ~o ae to screen this development from adjacent
properties as shown on the conceptual landscape plan sub-
mitted with the application in this case. A detailed
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Pla~nlng
Department for approval within ninety (90) days of clearing
and rough grading. A fifty (50} foot setback shall be
established along Hull Street Road.
Developer shall permit the owner of the property on Route
360, which is not included in this case, to share in an
access to Route 360.
The retail structure~ ~hall have an architectural style as
depicted in the elevations prepared by Freeman & Morgan,
Architects, P.C., submitted with the application. The
office structures shall have an architectural style similar
to the attached photographs of ~tructures located at
Windsor Executive Center, Courthouse Road, Chesterfield
County, Virginia.
A complete sign package, to include typical colors, sizes,
lighting, etc., shall be ~ubmitted to the Planning
Commission for approval. Signs shall comply with the
requirements of the respective zoning classifications as
set forth in the Routes 60/10 sign requirement ordinance.
86-758
10.
11.
Ail uses located within the "Future Development" shall be
Office Business (0) land uses. Architectural appearance
for Future Development area shall be compatible with the
improvements constructed on the rest of the d~velopment,
and architectural plant for buildings to be constructed in
this area shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval at th~ time of schematic plan review of this area.
The Developer shall construct and plant the combination
fencing and site screen berm as depicted in the Landscape
Plan revised August 13, 1986, paget 1 through 3 inclusive,
prepared by J.K. Timmon$ and Associates, Inc. In no case,
however, shall landscaping be less than that specified in
Condition 11 C) 6 for landscaping along Route 360.
The following shall be applicable with respect to the
development, except to the extent that they be modified by
1) enactment of a proposed Overlay District by the Board of
County Supervisors, or 2) action of the Planning Commission
at Plan of De~eloument or Schematic Plan Review:
A) Yard Requirements.
1) Setbacks along Route 360 and Walmsley. Boulevard.
The required setback for buildings and drives
along major arterials will be fifty (50) feet.
The required setback for parking areas will be
fifty (50) feet with the provisien that such
parking areas are located to the side and rear of
buildings.
2) Side Yard (East Perimeter)
The side yard setbacks fe~ buildings, drives, and
parking areas shall b~ a minimum of fifty (50)
feet except for the access to Route 360, as shown
on the Master Plan.
B) Development Standards.
1) Utility lines underground.
All utility lines such as electric, telephoner
CATV, or other similar lines shall be installed
underground. Thit requirement shall apply to
lines serving individual sites as well as to
utility lines necessary within the project. Ail
junction and access boxes shall be screened with
appropriate landscaping. All utility pad
fixturet and meters should be shown on the site
plan. Th~ nscesslty for utility connections,
meter boxes, etc. should be recognized and inte-
grated with ths architectural elements of the
site plan.
Loading areas.
The site shall be designed and buildings shall be
oriented so that loading areas are not visible
from any of the project periraeters adjoining any
"A," "R~" "R-TH," or "R-MF" District or any
public right of way.
3) Architectural treatment.
The exterior wall surfaces (front~ rear, end
sides) of each individual building visible from a
public street shall be similar in architectural
treatment and materials. No block or metal
buildings shall be visible from any "A," "R,"
"R-TH" or "R-ME" District or public right of way.
Ail rooftop equipment shall be shielded and
screened from public view.
4) Exterior lighting.
All exterior ilghts shall be arranged and
installed so that no direct light projects into
86-759
c)
~)
6)
adjacent parcels or public righte of way.
Lighting standards shall not exceed twenty (201
feet in height and shall be of a directional type
capable of shielding the light source from direct
view.
Driveways and parking areas.
Driveways and parking areas shall be paved with
concrete, bituminoum concrete, or other similar
material. Surface treated parking areas and
drives shall be prohibited. Concrete curb and
gutter shall be inmtalled around the perimeter of
all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall
be designed so as not to interfere with
pedestrian traffic.
Outside storage ar~as.
Outdoor storage shall be permitted by the
underlying zoning districts, provided that all
outdoor storage areas shall be visually screened
from public streets, internal roadways, and
adjacent property. Screening shall consist of
either a solid board fence, masonry wall, dense
evergreen plant materials or such other materials
as may he approved. All such screening shall be
of sufficient height to screen storage areas from
view.
Landscaping Requirements.
1} Landscapin~ Plan and Planting Requirements.
a) A landscaping plan shall be submitted
conjunction with schematic plan approval.
b) Such landscaping plan shall be drawn to
scale, including dimensions and distances,
and delineate all existing and proposed
parking spaces or other vehicl~ areas,
access aisles, dniveways, and the location,
size and description of all landscaping
materials.
Plank Materials Specifications.
a) Quality.
Ail plant materials shall be living and in a
healthy condition. Plant materials used in
conference with the provision of these
specifications shall conform to the
standards o£ the most recent edition of the
"American Standard for Nursery Stock,"
published by the American Association of
Nurserymen.
b) Size a~_~.
i} Small Deciduous Trees. Small deciduoue
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than twelve (12) feet. A
minimum caliper of at least two and
one-half (2-1/2) inches at the time of
planting shall be required.
ii) Large Deciduous Trees. Large deciduous
trees shall be of a ~pecies having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than thirty (30) feet. A
minimum caliper of at least three and
one-half (3-1/2) inches at the time of
planting shall be required.
iii) Evergreen Trees. Evergreen trees shall
have a minimum height of five (5) feet
at the time of planting.
2)
86-760
iv)
Medium Shrubs. Shrubs and hedge form~
shall have a minimum% height of two (2)
feet at the time of planting.
c) Landeca~inq Design.
i) Generally, plantinq required by this
sectiou should be in irregular line and
spaced at random.
ii) Clu~tering cf plant and tree ~pecie~
shall be required to provide a pleasing
composition and mix of vegetation.
iii) Decorative walls and fences may be
integrated into any landscaping
program. The use of such walls or
fences, when having a minimum height of
three (3) feet, may reduce the amount
of required plant materials at the
discretion of the DirectOr of Planning.
d) Tree Preservation.
i) Preservation of existing trees is
encouraged to provide continuity,
improved buffering ability, pleasing
be
the
scale and image along the Corridor.
ii) Any healthy existing tree may
included for credit towarde
requirements of this Section.
Maintenance.
a) The owner, or his agent, shall be re-
sponsible for the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of all landscaping materials as
may be required.
b) Ail plant materials shall be tended and
maintained in a healthy growing condition
and free from ~efume and debris at all
times. All unhealthy, dying or dead plant
materials shall be replaced during the next
planting season.
c) All landscaped areas shall be provided with
a readily available water supply.
Installation and Bonding Requirements.
a) All landscaping shall be installed in a
sound, workmanshiplik¢ manner and according
to accepted, good planting practicee and
procedures. Landscaped areas shall require
protection from vehicular encroachment by
such means as, hut not limited to, wheel
stops or concrete or bituminous curbs.
b) Where landscaping is required, no cer-
tificate of occupancy shall be issued until
the required landscaping is completed in
accordance with the approved landscape plan.
When the occupancy of a structure is desired
prior to the completion of the required
landscaping, a certificate of occupancy may
be issued only if the owner or developer
provides to the County a form of surety
satisfactory to the Planning Department in
an amount equal to the costs of the re-
maining plant materials, related materials,
and installation costs.
c) Ail required landscaping ~hall be installed
86-761
and approved by the first planting season
following issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or the bond shall be forfeited to
the County.
Arterial Frontage Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required along Route 360
within the required setback of any let or parcel
and shall be provided except where driveways or
other openings may be necessary.
Landscaping shall be required at the outer
boundaries or in the required yards of a lot or
parcel and mhall be provided except where
driveways or other openings may be required,
a) Perimst~r Landscaping alon~ Route 360 and
Walmsley.
i) At least One large deciduous tree for
each fifty lineal feet and at least one
evergreen tree for each thirty lineal
feet shall be planted within the
setback area along Route 360.
ii) At least one small deciduous tree for
each thirty lineal feet shall be
planted within the setback area.
iii) At least one medium shrub for each ten
lineal feet shall be plan%ed within the
setback area.
iv) Low skrubs and ground cover shall be
reasonably dispersed throughout.
b) Perimeter Landscaping along the Eastern
Boundary.
i) At least one large deciduous tree for
each fifty lineal feet and at least One
evergreen tree for each thirty lineal
feet shall be planted within the
setback area.
ii) At least one small deciduous tree for
each fifty lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
iii) At least One medium shrub for each
fifteen lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
iv) Low shrubs and ground sever shall be
reasonably dispersed throughout.
c) Landscaping Standards for Parking Areas.
i) Interior parkin~ area landscaping.
a) Any parking area shall have at
least twenty (20) square feet of
interior landscaping for each
space. Each required landscaped
area shall contain a minimum of
100 ~quare feet and have a minimum
dimension of at least ten feet.
With the provision of at least
thirty (30) square feet of
interior landscaping for each
parking space, parking space size
may be reduced to 9.5 x 20 or 190
square feet.
b) The primary landscaping material
used in parking areas shall be
86-762
13.
14.
15.
16.
trees which provide shade or are
capable of providing shade at
maturity. Each landscaped area
shall include at least one small
tree. The total number of trees
shall not be less than one for
each 200 square feet, or fraction
thereof, of required interior
landscaped area. The remaining
area shall be land,caped with
shrubs and other vegetative
material to complement the tree
landscaping.
Landscaping areas shall be
reasonably dispersed throughout,
located so as to divide and break
up the expanse of paving. The
area designated as required
setbacks shall not be calculated
as required landscaped area.
ii) Peripheral parking area landscaping.
Peripheral landscaping shall be
required along any side of a parking
area that abuts land not in the right
of way of a street such that:
A landscaped or natural strip at least
ten feet in width shall be located
between the parking area and the
abutting property lines, except where
driveways or other openings may be
required. At least one small tree
shall be planted in the landscaped
strip for each fifty (50) lineal feet.
An additional lane of pavement shall be installed along
Walmsley Boulevard for the entire property frontage.
Access to the development ~hali be as approved by the
Transportation Department at the tlma o~ Schsmatlc Plan
Review.
Developer will pay for the cost of the required signal
modifications at Route 360 and Walm~ley Boulevard.
Developer will pay for one-half of the ~Qst Qf a ~ignal at
the main entrance to the development on Route 360 if a
signal is warranted.
At the time of schematic plan review for th~ office
development, the Planning Commission may reduce the office
square footages shown on the master plan in order to creats
a campus or office park type atmosphere.
Prior to schematic plan approval, a revised traffic report
shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department.
Vote: Unanimous
$6S072 (Amended)
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATES,
INC. AND NORLODGE, INC. requested rezoninq from Agricultural (A)
to Convenience Business (B-I) with a Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on the proposed
B-1 tract and an existing zoned B-2 tract plus an amendment to
zoning (Cass 79S088) relative to buffer requirements on a parcel
fronting approximately 1,090 feet On the east line of Huguenot
Road, opposite Alverser Drive. Tax Map 16-8 (1) Parcels 16, 17
and Part of Parcel l0 and Tax Map 17-5 {1) Part of Parcel 5
(Sheets 7 and 8).
86-763
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, subject to certain conditions. He stated since
the original submission, and subsequent to the Commission's June
meeting, this request was amended to include an additional 10.3
acres in an effort to resolve ~oncern~ relative te piecemeal
development along Huguenot Road. Ee stated the amended location
of the hotel/motel will provide a transition between
Chesterfield Mall and the existing and future office and
residential development to the north and west, and the developer
has agreed to minimize the visibility of the five (5) story
structure from the residential development to the north as well
as minimize the view of the hotel/motel from Huguenot Road. He
stated, should th~ Board wish to approve the amended plan, it
will be necessary tc adopt all the Planning Commission's
recommended conditions, except Condition 9, and adopt staff's
recommended Condition 9.
Mr. Phil Rome stated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, Seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
i. The followinq conditions notwithstanding, the Zoning Plan
prepared by J.K. Timmons and Amseciate~, P.C., dated June
19, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
With the exception of the hotel/motel, no ~trueture ~hall
exceed a heiqht of three (3) stories. In conjunction with
the approval of this request, a two (2) story exception to
the height limitation for the proposed hotel/motel shall b~
granted. Further an exception to thc square footage
limitation for the proposed hotel/motel and depart~ent
store shall be granted. The proposed hotel/motel shall not
exceed a height of five (5) stories. In conjunction with
schematic plan review, architectural elevations/renderinqs
of all buildinqs shall be submitted to the Plannin9
Co--lesion for approval. All buildings shall be compatible
with each other as well a~ Chesterfield Mall.
Prior to or in conjunction with schematic plan review, a
hydraulic analy~i~ of the existing twelve (12) inch trunk
sewer shall be submitted to the Utilities Department. %f
sufficient capacity for the proposed development does not
exist in the twelve (t2) inch trunk sewer line, the density
and uses shall be reduced or the developer shall be
responsible for improvements necessary to obtain sufficient
capacity. (U)
Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic. (EE)
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, sixty (60)
feet of right Oi way, measured from the centerline of
Huguenot Road~ shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Further, in conjunc-
tion with schematic plan submission, a plan for the align-
ment Of the "Prep0$ed Drive" shall be ~ubmltted to and
approved by ~hs Transportation Department. Prior to any
development on Parcels I or II, or at such time there is a
commitment for construction of ~he "Proposed Drive," right
of way for the "Proposed Drive" which encroaches into the
subject property shall be dedicated to and for the County
of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T&CPC)
Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy permit, a right-turn
lane and ¢~rb and gutter shall be e0n~tructed along
Huguenot Road.
86-764
The developer shall be responsible for construction of two
(2) lanes of the ultimate four lane typical section of the
"Proposed Drive" to VDH&T standards from Huguenot Road to
the easternmost point at which the "Proposed Drive" en-
croaches on the subject property, plus proper turn lanes.
A phasing plan for construction of the "Proposed Drive" and
turn lanes may be submitted to the Transportation Dspart-
ment for approval.
9. Parcel I shall be limited to those uses permitted in the
Office Business (0) District plus a freestanding hank or
savings and loan (with drivs-in window(s)). The bank or
savings and loan shall be located on the southern portion
of Parcel I and south of a building(s) housing only those
uses permitted in the Office Busines~ (0) District. The
bank or savings and loan shall no% be permitted until such
time that an office building(s) is under construction on
the northern portion of the site. Parcels ~, ~, and IV
shall be permitted all Convenience Business (B-l) uses plus
the following B-2 and B-3 uses:
a, funeral home
b. health club
c. printing shop
d. cocktail lounge or nightclub (if operated as
part of a restaurant or hotel)
e. department store
Further, within Parcel III and/or Tax Map 17-5 (1) Part of
Parcel 5, a hotel/motel shall be permitted, provided that
it is set back at least 410 feet from the oenterline of
Buguenot Road and, further, that the schematic plan pro-
vid~s for the construction of another building between the
hotel/motel and Buguenot Road. Ail existing trees on
Parcels III and IV, between the proposed hotel/motel site
and Buguenot Road shall be maintained, except as necessary
to construct an entrance road, until the issuance of a
clearing and grading permit for construction of a build-
ing(s) between the hotel/motel and Huguenot Road.
10. Signs shall comply with the requirements of Division 7.1,
Special Sign Districts of the Zoning Ordinance relative to
shopping centers, except that a maximum of two (2) free-
standing signs shall be permitted on the subject property,
not exceeding twenty-five (25) feet in height and
square feet in area. In addition, the height of the
letters on the building-mounted sign on the hotel may
exceed twenty-four (24) inchee, but shall not exceed
forty-eight (48) inches. Sign colors and style shall be
compatible with the architectural style of the buildings.
A sign package depicting this requirement shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction
with schematic review. (P&CPC)
11. All driveways and parking areas shall be located a minimum
of fifty (50) feet from the right of way of Huguenot Road.
~owever, parking which serves any building, which is three
(3) stories or less, may be located within thirty (30) feet
of Huguenot Road if the thrss (3) stories or less buildings
are also located within thirty (30) feet of Huguenot Road,
and if the driveways and parking areas are located to the
rear or side of the buildings. Ail driveways and parking
shall be located a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from
the "Proposed Drive." Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Planning Commission may reduce any of the above setbacks to
a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet if, at the time of
schematic plan review, documentation is submitted which
proves that the spirit and intent of the fifty (50) foot
setback can be accomplished in a lesser width. (P&CPC)
12. Internal driveways and parking areas shall be designed to
accommodate future traffic flow between parcels and to .the
east. (P&T)
86-765
16.
Vote:
13. Within the required setbacks along Huguenot Road and the
Proposed Drive, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be
planted. A conceptual plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval
in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department in conjunction with
final site plan review. (P)
14. The interior of the public parking area shall be landscaped
with a minimum of ten (10) square feet of interior
landscaping £or each parking space. Each required
landscape area shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet
and have a minimum dimension of at least ten (10) feet.
Each land~cape area shall include at least one (1) tree,
having a clear trunk of at least four (4) feet. The total
number of trees shall not be less than one (1) for each 200
square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior
landscape area. The remaining area shall be land~caped
with shrubs and other vegetative material. This landscap-
ing shall be in addition to the required landscaping along
Huguenot Road. In conjunction with schematic plan review,
a conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department in conjunc-
tion with final site plan review. (P)
(Note: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval or any
building permits, schematic plans must be approved by the
Planning Commission.)
15. In conjunction with schematic plan submission, an access
plan, identifying access points to Huguenot Road add the
"Proposed Drive," shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
Loading areas shall be screened from view. (P)
86S100
In Dale Magisterial District, B. FORACE HILL requested rezoning
from Agricultural (A) to Office Bu~ines~ (0) of 3.4 acres with a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk
exceptions on the proposed Office Business (O)tract plus a 0.7
acre Convenience Business (B-i) tract. This request fronts
approximately 135 feet on the west line of Lori Road, approxi-
mately 300 feet north of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-8 (1)
Parcel 6 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Conm%ission reconnnended approval of
this request, ~ubject to certain conditions.
Mr. Jim Hayes stated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., dated April 22, 1986,
shall be considered the Master.Plan. (p)
2. Prior to release of a building permit, thirty (30) feet o%
right of way, measured from the centerline of Lori Road,
mhall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield,
free and unrestricted.
3. Prior to release of an occupancy permit, additional pave-
86-766
ment and curb and gutter shall he constructed along Lori
Road to accommodate a left-turn lane. (T)
The existing pavsd easement south of the site shall be
widened to twenty-four (24) feet prior tO any connection
thereto. This easement shall be curbed and guttered~ as
deemed necessary by Environmental Engineering.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
following use and bulk exceptions shall be granted:
e. A ten (10) foot exception to the twenty (20) foot ~ide
yard building setback requirement along the northern
property line.
b. Ail B-1 uses shall be permitted, provided they are
located on the 0ffi¢~ Business {O} tract and within a
single building and encompass no more than 5,000 gross
square feet. A hank or savings and loan institution
shall be permitted within the Office Business (0)
tract.
e. be
No
The Convenience Eusiness (B-I) tract shall
restricted for use as a restaurant and/or office.
other uses shall be p~rmitted. (P)
6. Buildings shall have a Colonial architectural style.
Colored r~ndering~/elevations shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. (P)
7. Ornamental trees and shrubs shall be installed along Lori
Road to minimise the view of driveways and parking areas.
Also, the parking area shall have at least ten (10) square
feet of interior landscaping per parking space. ~ach
landscaped area shall contain a minimum of fifty (50)
square feet and shall be at least five (5) feet wide. At
least one tree, having a clear trunk of at least five (5)
feet, shall be provided for each 200 square feet of in-
terior land,caped area. The remaining area shall be
landscaped with mhr~bs or ground cover not to exceed three
feet in height. Such landscaped areas shall be located so
as to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area
designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as
required landscaped area. A conceptual landscaping plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall
be submitted for approval within thirty (30) days of rough
clearing and grading. (P)
(Note: The schematic plan should locate the existing
larger trees and the site design should attempt to maintain
these trees.)
8. Signs shall comply with Zoning Ordinance requirement~ for
the Route 10 Special Sign District. (P)
9. Concrete curb and gutter shall be in,tailed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE)
10. Development shall be limited to a maximum of 50,000 square
feet of gross floor area. (P)
11. Th~ existing single family dwelling may he ~onverted for
use as offices for B. Forace Hill, exclusively. This use
may continue for a period not to exceed two (2) y~ars from
the date of approval of this request, unless extended by
the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan
review. U~e of the existing structure may occur without
compliance o~ the conditions stated herein for the overall
development. A~ ~xception to the requirement that
driveways and parking areas be paved shall be granted in
86-767
conjunction with use of the existing structure only.
Driveways and parking areas shall be graveled with a
minimum of six (6) inches of %21 or %21A stone and shall be
delineated by a permanent means {i.e., timber curbs,
railroad ties, etc.). A single sign identifying the use,
not to exceed eighteen (18) square feet and a height of
thirteen (13) feet, and non-illuminated shall be permitted.
Schematic plan approval shall not be required for use of
the existing structure. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
85S168 (Amended)
In Clover ~ill Magisterial District, TOMAHAWK PARTNERSHIP, LTD.,
A VIRGINIA LIMITED PARTNERShIp requested rezoning ~rom
Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l] plus Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 34
acre parcel fronting approximately 2,530 feet on the north llne
of Hull Street Road, approximately 420 ~eet west of Warbro Road.
Tax Map 62-3 (1) Parcels 2 and 3 (Sheet
Mr. Pools stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, subject to certain conditions. He stated many of
the conditions in this report embody the overlay zoning district
standards.
Mr. Herbert Gill stated the rec~mended conditions are
acceptable.
Mr. Cheatham stated he is in agreement with the general
provisions of this request as outlined in the Request Analysis
and Recommendation as recommended for approval by the Planning
Contmission. Re stated his primary interest lies with the future
development of this property as it relates to the development of
his property to the west and that he wished to be assured that
as this property develops it will be developed in a compatible,
high quality manner as recommended by the Planning Co~ission.
Ne also expressed concerns regarding access, quality of
construction, landscaping, setbask requirements, etc. with
respect to this project.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by ~.D. Lewis and Associates, P.C., dated July 10, 1986,
and the Textual Statement dated July 11, 1986, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Prior to schematic plan approval, a hydraulic analysis of
the thirty (30) inch Nuttree Branch trunk sewer and down-
stream facilities shall be submitted to the Utilities
Department for approval to verify that the existing system
is adequate to serve the proposed uses. (U)
3. Prior to the release of any building permit, a sixty (60)
foot right of way, from Route 360 to the northern property
line, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chester-
field, free and unrestricted. This dedication, as well as
any other public road dedication, shall be via subdivision
plats. Access to Route 360 shall be limited to the public
road to be constructed within the sixty (60) foot right Of
way. The exact location of this public road shall be
approved by the Transportation Department at the time of
schematic plan r~view. At the time of ~chematic plan
review, the Planning Co~missi0n may modify this condition
to allow additional access to Route 360. (T)
86-768
4. Prior te release of an occupancy permit, additional pave-
ment and curb and gntter shall be constructed along Route
360 for the entire property frontage. The developer shall
be responsible for any modifications to the crossover(s)
along Route 360 to include modification of the left-turn
lanes. (T)
5. The developer shall be responsible for one-half of the cost
for signalization, if warranted, at the proposed public
road/Route 360 intersection. (T)
6. Prior to the release of any building permits, a sixty (60)
foot right of way, from the proposed public road to the
adjacent parcel to the west, ~hall be dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. The
exact location of the stub road shall be determined and
approved by the Planning Commission prior to any approval
of schematic plans for an individual site. (T)
7. Yard and Height Requirements.
(a) Yards. The following yard requirement shall apply:
{1) Setbacks along Route 360. All buildings and
drives shall have a minimum seventy-five foot
setback from Route 360. Parking areas shall have
a minimum one hundred foot setback from Route
36O. The parking area setback may be reduced to
seventy-five feet when parking areas are located
to the side or rear of buildings. Within these
setbacks~ landscaping shall be provided in
accordance with Condition 16.
The following yard requirements shall apply to
any lot or parcel:
(2) Front yard. The front yard setback for build-
ings, drives, and parking areas shall be a
minimum of forty feet from public rights-of-way
other than major arterials.
(3) Side yards. The side yard setbacks for build-
ings, drives, and parking areas shall be a
minimum of thirty feet. The minimum corner side
yard shall be forty feet. One foot shall be
added to each side yard for each three feet that
the building height adjacent thereto exceeds
forty-five feet or three stories, whichever is
less, subject, however, to the provisions of
Section 21-27 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(4) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard setback for
buildings, drives, and parking areas shall be
forty feet. One foot shall be added to each rear
yard for each three feet that the building height
adjacent thereto exceeds forty-five feet or three
stories, whichever i~ less, ~ubject, however, to
the provisions of Section 21-27 of the Zoning
ordinance.
8. Permitted Variations in Yard Requirements.
The required minimum yards may be reduced with the pro-
vision of additional landscaping, follows:
(1) Setbacks alo~ Route 360. The required setback for
buildings and drives along Route 360 may be reduced to
fifty (50) feet with the provision of landscaping in
accordance with Condition 16, "Perimeter Landscaping
C." The required setback for parking areas may be
reduced to fifty (50) feet with the provi~ion of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 16, "Perlme-
86-769
tar Landscaping c," and when such parking areas are
located to the side and rear cf buildings.
(2) Front yar~. The required front yard setback along
public rights-of-way ether than major arterials may be
reduced to twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 16,
"Perimeter Landscaping C."
(3) Side yard. The required side yard may be reduced to
ten (10) feet with the prevision of landscaping in
accordance with Condition 16, "Perimeter Landscaping
(4) Rear yard. The required rear yard may be reduced to
twenty (20) feet with the provision of landscaping in
accordance with Condition 16, "Perimeter Landscaping
~.. (p)
9. Access and Internal Circulation.
Sites shall be designed to achieve direct pedestrian and
vehicular circulation between adjacent properties. An
access plan shall be required in conjunction with site plan
approval. Such access plan shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances, and clearly delineate
th~ traffic circulation system and the pedestrian circula-
ticn system as coordinated with that on adjacent properties
and within the development, including the location and
width of all streets, driveways, access afslee, entrances
to parking areas and walkways. (P)
10. Utility lines underground. Ail utility lines such as
electric, telephone, CATV, or Other similar lines shall be
installed underground. This requirement shall apply to
lines serving individual sites as well as to utility lines
necessary within the project. All junction and access
boxes shall be screened with appropriate landscaping. Ail
utility pad fixtures and meters shall be shown on the site
plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes,
etc., shall be recognized and integrated with the archi-
tectural elements of the site plan. (P)
11. Loadinq areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings shall
be oriented so that loading areae are not vieible from any
of the project perimeters or any public right-of-way. (P)
12. Architectural treatment. The exterior wall surfaces
(front, rear and sides) of each individual building visible
from a public etreet shall be similar in architectural
treatment and materials. No block or metal buildings shall
be visible from any public right-of-way. All rooftop
equipment shall be shielded and screened from public view.
13. ~×terior~. Ail exterior lights shall be arranged
and installed so that no direct lfght projects into adja-
cent parcels or public right~-of-way. Lighting standards
shall not exceed twenty feet in height and shall be of a
directional type capable of shielding the light source from
direct view. (P)
14. Driveways and parking areas. Driveways and parking areas
shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or other
similar material. Surface treated parking areas and drives
shall be prohibited. Concrete curb and gutter shall be
installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking
areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere
with pedestrian traffic. (P)
15. Outside storage areas. All outdoor storage areas shall be
visually screened from public streets, internal roadways,
and adjacent property. Screening shall consist of either a
86-770
16.
solid board fence, masonry wall, dense evergreen plant
materials o~ such other materials as may be approved. Ail
such screening shall be of sufficient height to screen
storage areas from view. Outdoor storage shall inolude the
parking of all company owned and operated vehicles, with
the exception of passenger vehicles, (P)
Landscapin9 Rec~uirements.
(a) Purpose and Intent.
Landscaping shall be provided for the visual eruhance-
ment of the Corridor; and to protect and promote the
appearance, character, and economio values of land
along the corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. The
purpose and intent of such landscaping requirements is
also to reduce the visibility of paved areas from
adjacent properties and streets, moderate climatic ef-
fects, minimize noise and glare, and enhance public
safety by defining spaces to influence traffic
movement. Landscaping will reduce the amount of storm
water runoff and provide transition between neigh-
boring properties.
(b) Landscaping Plan and Planting Requirements.
(1) A landsoaping plan shall be submittsd in con-
junction with site plan review.
Such landscaping plan shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances, and clearly
delineate all existing and proposed parking
spaces or other vehicle areas, access aisles,
driveways, and the 1ocation~ Size and description
of all landscaping materials.
(c) Plant Materials Specifications.
(1) Quality.
Ail plant materials shall be living and in a
healthy condition. Plant materials used in
conformance with the provision of these speci-
fications shall conform to the standards of the
most recent edition of th~ "American Standard for
Nursery Stock," published by the American
Association of Nurserymen.
(2) Size and Type.
(a) Small Deciduous Trees. Small deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than twelve (12) feet. A minimum
caliper of ab least two and one-half (2 1/2)
inches at the time of planting shall be
required.
(b) Large Deciduous Trees. Large deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than thirty (30) feet. A minimum
caliper of at least three and one-half (3
1/2) inches at the time of planting shall be
required.
(c) Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall have
a minimum height of five (5) feet at the
time of planting.
(d) Medium shrubs. Shrubs and hedge forms shall
have a minimum height of two {2) feet at the
86-771
(e)
time of planting.
(3) Landeeaping Design.
(a) Generally, planting required by this section
should be in an irregular line and spaced at
random.
(b) Clustering of plant and tree species shall
be required to provide a pleasing composi-
tion and mix of vegetation.
(c) Decorative wells and fences may be inte-
grated into any landscaping program. The
use of such walls or fences, when having a
minimum height of three (3) feet, may reduce
the a~ount of required plant materials at
the discretion of the Director.
(4) Tree Preservation.
(a) Preservation of existing trees is encouraged
to provide continuity, improved buffering
ability, pleasing scale and image along the
Corridor.
(b) Any healthy existing tree may be included
for credit towards the requirements of this
Condition.
Maintenance.
(1) The owner, or his agent, shall be responsible for
the maintenance, repair, and replacement of all
landscaping materials as may be required.
(2) Ail plant material shall be tended and maintained
in a healthy growing condition and free from
refuse and debris at all times. Ail unhealthy,
dying er dead plant materials shall be replaced
during the next planting season.
(3) Ail landscaped areas shall be provided with a
readily available water supply. The utilization
of underground storage chambers to collect runoff
to be later used to irrigate plant materials is
encouraged.
Installation and Bondip~ R~quirements.
(1) All landscaping shall be installed in a sound,
workmanship-like manner and according to ac-
cepted, good planting practices and procedures.
Landscaped areas shall require protection from
vehicular encroachment by such means as, but not
limited to, wheel stops or concrete or bituminous
curbs.
{2) Where landscaping is required, no certificate of
occupancy shall be issued until the required
landscaping is completed in accordance with the
approved land~cape plan. When the occupancy of a
structure is desired prior to the completion of
the required landscaping, a certificate of
occupancy may be issued only if the owner or
developer provides to the County a ~orm of surety
satisfactory to the Planning Department in an
amount equal to the costs of the remaining plant
materials, related materials and installation
costs.
(3) All required landscaping shall be installed and
approved by the first planting season following
86-772
(f)
(g)
issuance of a certificate of occupancy er the
bond shall be forfeited to the County.
Arterial ~rontaqe Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required along Reute 360
within the required setback of any lot Or parcel
except where driveways or other openinqs may be
necessary. The minimum required landscaping for
this setback shall be provided as per "Perimeter
Landscaping B."
Perimeter Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required at the outer boundaries
or in the required yards of a lot or parcel and shall
be provided except where driveways or other openings
may be required. The minimum required landEcaping for
all outer boundaries of any lot Or parcel shall be
provided as per "Perimeter Landscaping A." There shall
be different landscaping requirements as identified
herein, which are as follows:
(1} Perimeter Landscaping A.
(a) At least one small deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
for each fifty lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
(b) At least one medium shrub for each twenty
lineal feet shall be planted within ths
setback area.
(c) Low shrubs and ground cover ~hatl be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout.
(2) Perimeter Landscapin9 B.
(a) At least one large deciduou~ tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
for each thirty lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
(b) At least one ~mall deciduou~ tree fo~ each
fifty lineal feet shall be planted within
the setback area.
(c) At least one medium shrub for each fifteen
lineal feet shall be planted within the
(d) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout.
OR:
(a) A minimum three (3) foot high undulating
berm, and
(b) Perimeter Landscaping A.
(3) Peri~eter Landscaping C.
(a) At least one large deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
tree for each thirty lineal feet shall be
planted within the setback area.
(b) At least one small deciduous tree for each
thirty lineal feet shall be planted within
the setback a~ea.
86-773
(c) At least One medium shrub for each ten
lineal feet shall be planted within the
$etback area.
(d) Low shru~s and ground cover shall be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout.
OR:
(a) A minimum four (4) foot high
berm, and
(b) Perimeter Landscaping B.
Landsc~pin9 Standards for Parking Areas.
(1) Interior parking area landscapinc.
undulating
17.
(a) Any parking area shall have at least twenty
(20) square feet of interior landscaping for
each space. Each required landscaped area
shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet
and have a minimum dimension of at least ten
feet. With the provision of this landscap-
ing, parking space size may he reduced to
9.5 X 20 or 190 square feet.
(b) The primary landscaping material used in
parking areas shall be trees which provide
shade or are capable of providing shade at
maturity. Each landscaped area shall
include at least one small tree, as outlined
in this Section. The total number of treee
shall not be less than one for each 200
square feet, or fraction thereof, of
required interior landscaped area. The
remaining area shall be landscaped with
shrubs and other vegetative material to
complement the tree landscaping.
(c) Land~caping areas shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout, located so as to
divide and break up the expanse of paving.
The area designated as required setbacks
shall not be calculated as required land-
scaped area.
(2) Peripheral parking area landscaping.
Peripheral landscaping shall be reguired along
any eide of a parking area that abuts land not in
the right of way of a street such that:
A landscaped strip at least ten feet in width
shall be located between the parking area and the
abutting property lines, except where driveways
or other openings may be required. Continuous
hedge forms or at least one small tree, as
outlined in this Section, shall be planted in the
landscaped strip for each fifty lineal feet.
signs shall be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for
Special Sign Districts. Landscaping shall be provided
around freestanding signs. A landscaping plan depicting
this r~quirement shall be submitted to th Planning Depart-
ment for approval. (P)
86-774
86S085
In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~UG~N~ B. AND PEGGY J. HUBAND
requested rezening from Agricultural (A) to Residential
on a 6.5 acre parcel lying at the southern terminus of
Firethorne Lane, approximately 950 feet south of Glisson Road.
· ax Map 81-6 (2) Squarefield Park Farms, Part of Lots 14 and 15;
and Tax Map 81-10 (2) Squarefield Park Farms, Part of Lot 16
(Sheet 231.
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request.
Mr. Eugene Huband stated the recommendation is acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
this request.
86Sl10
In Bermuda Magisterial District, ROW~ A~0CIATE$, LTD.,
requested resenlng from Residential (R-40) to Residential (R-12)
on a 23 acre parcel fronting approximately 450 feet on the east
line of Chester Road, approximately 2,400 feet south of
Centralia Road. Tax Map 97-10 (1) Parcel 9 (Bheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, subject to the acceptance of proffered conditions.
He stated the square footages proffered on this request are
consistent with the square footages proffered on the Glen Oaks
Subdivision, with some minor differences in the items proffered
Mr. Jay Rewe skated he accepts the Planning Commission's
recommendation and presented a proffered listing of restrictions
for this case to the Board. Me briefly outlined t~e details of
the proffered restrictions as compared to those for Glen Oaks
Subdivision (i.e., removal of trees, swimming pools, underground
utilities, etc.) and offered amendments tc several of the
proffered nestrictions.
Mr. Micas stated the law requires that written proffers be
received by the Board prior to the meeting, therefore~ tho
amended proffers cannot be considered at this time. He stated
if the amended proffers are significant and the Board desires to
include them in this case, the Board has the option of deferring
the request and accepting the amended proffers prior to the next
meeting.
Mr. Dodd ~xpressed concern regarding the finished square footage
in the cape cod and tri-level homes and indicated he would
prefer that all square footages in this subdivision be finished.
Mr. Greg Gwaltney voiced concerns relative to the compatibility
and quality of this project as compared to Glen Oaks Subdivision
(i.e., paved streets, finished square footages, fences,
chimneys, etc.). Approximately seven (7) persons stood in
opposition to the request.
Mr. Rowe stated he would have no objection to amending his
proffered conditions to be compatible with the homes in Glen
Oaks Subdivision, relative to finished square footages of homes,
brick chimneys and paved streets.
In response to a question by Mr. Dcdd, Mr. Micas stated amended
proffered sondltions could not be considered at this time but
the request could ~e deferred and the amended proffers
86-775
Mr. Emerson stated that Erin Green Subdivision has proffers of
complete finished square feotages to ensure that the same
quality, as in Glen Oaks, would exist throughout the
development.
Mr. Rowe stated he would be agreeable to amending his proffers
to accommodate 1,400 square feet finished on ranchers, 1,600
square feet finished on cape cods and tri-levets and 1,800
square feet finished on two story homes.
Mr. Dodd moved that the request be approved subject to the
amended proffers. Mr. Daniel seconded the motion. Mr. Micas
stated that amended proffers could not appropriately be accepted
at this time. Mr. Dodd stated he would withdraw his motion and
recommend that the case be deferred until such time as the
applicant's amended proffers could be properly submitted for the
Board's consideration.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the $oard deferred
consideration of this request until October 22, 1986.
86Slll
In Bermuda Magisterial District, DAVID H, GATES requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (office) and
hulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.45 acre
parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the south line of West
Hundred Road, approximately 170 feet west of Curtis Street. Tax
Map 115-4 (2) Chester, Block 1, Lot 5 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of
this request.
Mr. Gates stated he is requesting a Conditional Use Planned
Development to convert an existing single family dwelling for
office use. Me stated he plans to develop a high quality, low
profile project which will not be detrimental to the integrity
of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong stated, although she feels that Mr. Gates
will develop a good project, she objects to approval of the
request because she does not feel the proposed use is the best
use for the property. She stated she felt the proposed use is
inconsistent with the Central Planain9 Area Land Use and
Transport~i,on Plan, approval would represent an encroachment
into an otherwise stable residential neighborhood and could
establish a precedent for further office/con~ercial development
leading to the deterioration of the neighborhood.
Mr. Dodd expressed concern that 70% of the subject area has
become rental property and that rental properties depreciate the
value of surrounding properties. Me stated he felt that the
Chester/Route 10 area will evolve into hiqh quality office
development.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request.
Vote: Unanimous
86S112
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JOHR B. NOP~FLEET, JR. requested
a Conditional Use to p~rmft a two-family dwelling in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.23 acre parcel fronting
approximately 50 feet on the north line of Myron Avenue,
approximately 350 feet cast of Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map
67-12 (4) Bellwood Addition, Block D, Lot 5 (Sheet 23).
86-776
Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of
this request.
Mr. Norfleet ~tated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dcdd stated he felt the proposed use i~ compatible with
existing area uses and is in accord with the Central Plannin~
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. A three (3) foot sidewalk shall be in,tailed connecting the
parking spaces to the entrance of ~ach unit. This sidewalk
shall be constructed of concrete, exposed agqregate, brick,
or some other similar material approved by Staff.
2. No outside storage ~hall be permitted. (P)
3. The foundation of the proposed structure shall be brick
veneered or a similar material approved by Staff. (P)
4. ~ntranceways into the proposed structure shall be
redesigned to provide an "A" pitched roof over each stoop.
(P)
5. The unit located closest to Myron Avenue shall be
redesigned such that an entranceway faces Myron Avenue.
Additionally, the unit farthest from Myron Avenue shall be
redesigned such that an entranceway faces north towards the
rear yard.
6. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted in
conjunction with site plan submittal.
7. The entrance to Myron Avenue shall be thirty (30) feet
wide. (VDH&T)
Vote: Unanimous
86S113
In Bermuda Magisterial District, COMMONWEALTH GAS PIPELINE
CORPORATION requested a Conditional Use to permit an above
ground utility structure in an Agricultural (A) District On a
0.1 acre parcel lying approximately 130 feet off the south line
of West Hundred Road, approximately 1,000 feet southwest of Iron
Bridge Road. Tax Map 115-9 (1) Part of Parcel 6 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, ~ubject to certain conditions.
Mr. George Brooks stated the recommended conditions are
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following Conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Commonwealth Gat Pipeline Corporation, dated June 1986,
and the Textual Statement submitted with the application~
shall be considered the plan of development.
2. The style and quality of the building shall be as depicted
in the elevation~ ~ubmitted with the application. (P)
Vote~ Unanimous
~6-777
In Matoaca Magisterial District, SAMUEL H. W~$T requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Offine Business (0) with
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk
exceptions on a 1.55 acre parent fronting approximately 200 feet
on the north line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 460 feet
east of Edenshire Road. Tax Map 114-6 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Pools stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, subject to oertain conditions.
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he is a client of Mr. Sam
West's CPA ~irm, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the
Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Aot and excused
himself from the meeting.
Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr. stated the recommended conditions are
acceptable, with the exception of Condition 16. He stated he
concurs with the Planning Commission's recommended condition 16.
He requested that this condition be amended to add the phrase
*'along Route lO" after the word "relocated" in the fifth line
of that condition.
There was no opposition present.
In response to a question by Mr. Mayes, Mr. McCracken stated
staff'~ condition recommended that the project be designed so
that access could be shared with the property to the east
whereas the Planning Commission's condition recommended that a
temporary access be permitted until such time as the adjacent
property is developed and, at that time, the temporary access
can be eliminated and the access relocated and designed to be
shared with the adjacent property.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Austin Hrockenbrough and Associates, dated 7/2/86, shall
be considered the Master Plan, (P)
2. Uses permitted shall be limited to those allowed in the
Office Business (O) District, plus the following Conve-
nience Business (B-l) use~:
a. Antique shop
b. Book or statlonsry store
c. Brokerage office
d. Candy store
e. Delicatessen
f. Florist shop
g. Office supply store
h. Photography studio
Except where stated herein, all bulk requirements of the
Office Business (O) District shall apply. (P)
3. Yard and Height Require~.pDts.
(a) Yard~. The following yard requirement shall apply:
(1) Setbacks ~lon$ ma~or arterials. All buildings
and drives shall have a minimum seventy-five foot
setback from the proposed right,-of-way of major
arterials as indicated on the Chesterfield
General Plan, as amended. Parking areas shall
have a minimum one hundred foot setback from pro-
posed rights-of-way o~ major arterials. The
parking area setback may be reduced to seventy-
five feet when parking areas are looated to the
side or rear of buildings. Within these set-
86-778
backs, landscaping shall be provided in accor-
dance with Condition ll.
(2) Front yard. The front yard setback fo~ build-
ings, drives, and parking areas shall be a
minimum of forty feet from public rights-of-way
other than major arterials.
(3) Sid~ yards. The side yard setbacks for build-
ings, drives, and parking areas shall be a
minimum of thirty feet. The minimum corner side
yard shall be forty feet. One foot shall be
added to each side yard for each three feet that
the building height adjacent thereto exceeds
forty-five feet or three stories, whichever is
less, subject, however, to the provisions of
Section 21-27 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(4) ~. The minimum rear yard setback for
buildzngs, drives, and parking areas shall be
forty feet. One foot shall be added to each rear
yard for each three feet that the building height
adjacent thereto exceeds forty-five feet or three
stories, whichever is less, subject, however, to
the provisions of Section 21-27 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(b) Height requirements.
The maximum height of all buildings as permitted by
Section 21-38 of the Zoning Ordinance. Special height
restrictions may apply because of Airport height
restrictions.
Permitted Variations in Yard ~s~uirements.
The required minimum yards may be reduced with the pro-
vision of additional landscaping:
(1) setbacks along major arterials. The required setback
for buildings and drives along major arterial~ may be
reduced to fifty (50) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 11, "Perime-
ter Landscaping C." The required setback for parking
areas may be reduced to fifty (50) feet with the
provision of landscaping in accordance with Condition
11, "Perimeter Landscaping C," and when such parking
areas are located to the side and rear of buildings.
(2) Front yard. The required front yard setback along
public rights-of-way other than major arterials may be
r~dnced to twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 11,
"Perimeter Landscaping C."
(3) Side a~d. The required side yard may be reduced to
ten {10) feet with the provision of landscaping in
accordance with Condition 1I, "Perimeter Landscaping
B" (except when adjacent to any "A", "R", "R-TH" or
"R-MF" District).
(4) Rear ya~. The required rear yard may be reduced to
twenty {20) ~eet with the provision of landscaping in
accordance with Condition 11, "Perimeter Land~caping
S" (except when adjacent to any "A", "R", "R-TH" or
"R-MF" District). (P)
Utility lines underground. All utility lines such as
electric, telephone, CATV, or other eimilar lines shall be
installed underground. This requirement shall apply to
lines serving individual sites as well as to utility lines
necessary within the project. Ail junction and access
boxes shall be screened with appropriate landscaping. All
utility pad fixtures and meters should be shown on the site
86-779
plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes,
etc., should be recognized and integrated with the
architectural elements of the site plan. (P)
6. Loading areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings shall
be oriented so that loading areas are not visible from any
of the project perimeters adjoining any "A", "R", "R-TH" or
"R-MF" District or any public right-of-way. (P)
7. Architectural treatment. The exterior wall surface~
(front, rear and sides) of each individual building visible
from a public street shall be similar in architectural
treatment and materials. NO block or metal buildings shall
be visible from any "A", "R", "R-TH" or "R-MF" District or
public right-of-way. Ail rooftop equipment shall be
shielded and screened from public view.
8. Exterior l~ghtin~. Ail exterior lights shall be arranged
and installed so that ne direct light projects into adja-
cent parcels or public rights-of-way. Lighting standards
shall not exceed twenty feet in height and shall be of a
directional type capable of shielding the light source from
direct view. (P)
9. Driveways and parking areas. Except as specified herein,
driveways and parking areas shall be paved with concrete,
bituminous concrete, or other similar material. Surface
treated parking areas and drives shall be prohibited.
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic. (P)
10. Outside storage areas. Outdoor storage shall be permitted,
provided that all outdoor storage areas shall be visually
screened from public streets, internal roadways, and
adjacent property. Screening shall consist of either a
solid board fence, masonry wall, dense evergreen plant
materials or such other materiels as may be approved. Ail
such screening shall be of sufficient height to screen
storage areas from view. Outdoor storage shall include the
parking of all company owned and operated vehicles, with
the exception of passenger vehicles. (P)
11. Landscaping Requirements.
(a) Purpose and Intent.
Landscaping shall be provided for the visual enhance-
men~ of the Corridor; and to protect and promote the
appearance, character, and economic values of land
along the corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. The
purpose and intent of such landscaping requirements is
also to r~duce the visibility of paved areas from
adjacent properties and streets, moderate climatic ef-
fects, minimize noise and glare, and enhance public
safety by defining space~ to influence traffic
movement. Landscaping will reduce the amount of storm
water runoff and provide transition between neigh-
boring properties.
Landscaping
(1) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for
approval in conjunction with site plan review.
(2) Such landscaping plan shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances, and clearly
delineate all existing and proposed parking
spaces or other vehicle areas, access aisles,
driveways, and the location, size and description
of all landscaping materials.
86-780
(o)
(d)
Plant Materials Specifications,
(1) Quality.
All plant materials shall be living and in a
healthy condition. Plant materials u~ed in
conformance with the provision of these specl-
fications shall conform to the standards of the
most recent edition of the "American Standard for
(2)
Nursery Stock," published by the American
Association of Nurserymen.
Size and Type.
(a) Small Deciduous Trees. Small deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than twelve (12) feet. A minimum
caliper of at least two and one-half (2 1/2)
inches at the time of planting shall be
required.
(b) Larg~ Deciduous Trees. Large deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
greater than thirty (30) feet. A minimum
caliper of at least three and one-half (3
1/2) inches mt the time of planting shall be
required.
(c} Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall have
a minimum height of five (5} feet at the
time of planting.
(d) Medium shrubs. Shrubs and hedge iorms shall
have a minimum height cf two (2) feet at the
time of planting.
(3) Landsoa in De$i n.
(a) Generally, planting required by this section
should be in an irregular line and spaced at
(b) Clustering of plant and tree species shall
be required to provide a pleasing composi-
tion and mix of vegetation.
(c) Decorative walls and fences may be inte-
grated into any landscaping program. The
use of such walls or fences~ when having a
minimum height of three (3) feet, may reduce
the amount of reguired plant materials at
the discretion of the Director.
(4) Tree Preservation.
(a) Preservation of existing trees is encouraged
to provide continuity, improved buffering
ability, pleasing scale and image along the
Corridor.
(b) Any healthy existing tree may be included
for credit towards the requirements of this
condition.
(1) The owner, or his agent, shall be responsible for
the maintenance, repair, and replacement of alt
landscaping materials as may be required.
(2) All plant material shall be tended and maintained
86-781
in a healthy growing condition and free from
refuse and debris at all times. Ail unhaalthy,
dying or dead plant materials shall be replaced
during the next planting season.
(3) All landscaped areas shall be provided with a
readily available water supply. The utilization
ef underground storage chambers to collect runoff
fo be later used to irrigate plant materials is
encouraged.
(e) Installation and BeDding Requirements.
(1) All landscaping shall be installed in a sound,
workmanship-like manner and according to ac-
cepted, good planting practices and procedures.
Landscaped areas shall require protection from
vehicular encroachment by such means as, but not
limited to, wheel stops or concrete or bituminous
curbs.
(2) Where landscaping is required, no certificate of
occupancy shall be issued until the required
landscaping is completed in accordance with the
approved landscape plan. When the occupancy of a
structure is desired prior to thc completion of
the reguired landscaping, a certificate of
occupancy may be issued only if the owner or
developer provides to the County a form of surety
satisfactory to the Planning Department in an
a~ount equal to the costs of the remaining plant
materials, related materials and installation
costs.
(3) Ail required landscaping shall be installed and
~ppreved by the first planting season followinq
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the
bond shall be forfeited to the County.
(f) Arterial Frontage Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required along Route 10 within
the required setback of any lot or parcel and shall be
provided except where driveways or other openings may
be necessary. The minimum required landscaping for
this setback shall be provided as per "Perimeter
Landscaping B" below.
(g) Perimeter Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required at the outer boundaries
or in the required yards of a lot or parcel and shall
be provided except where driveways or other openings
may be required. The minimum required landscaping for
all outer boundaries of any lot or parcel shall be
provided as per "Perimeter Landscaping A" below.
There shall be different landscaping requirements as
identified herein, which shall be provided a~ follows:
(1) Perimeter Landscaping A.
(a) At least one small deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
for each fifty lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
(b) At least one medium shrub for each twenty
lineal feet shall be planted within the
setback area.
(c) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout.
86-782
(2) Perimeter Landscapin9 B.
(a) At least one large deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
for each thirty lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
(b) At least one small deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet shall be planted within
the setback area.
(c) At least one medium shrub for each fifteen
lineal feet shall be planted within the
setback area.
(d) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout.
(a) A minimum three (3) foot high undulating
berm, and
(b) Perimeter Landscaping A.
(3) Perimeter Landscaping C.
At least one large deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one everqreen
tree for each thirty lineal feet shall be
planted within the setback area.
(b) At least one small deciduous tree £er each
thirty lineal feet shall be planted within
the setback area.
(c) At least One medium shrub for each ten
lineal feet shall be plante~ within the
setback area.
(d) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout.
OR:
(a) A minimum four (4) foot high undulating
(b) Perimeter Landscaping B.
{1) Interior parking area landscaping.
(a) Any parking area shall have at least twenty
(20) square feet of interior landscaping for
each space. Each required landscaped area
shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet
and have a minimum dimension of at least ten
feet. With the provision of this landscap-
ing, parking space size may be reduced to
9.5 X 20 or 190 square feet.
(b) The primary landscaping material used in
parking areas shall be trees which provide
shade or are capable o£ providing shade at
maturity. Each landscaped area shall
include at least one small tree, as outlined
in this Section. The total number of trees
shall not be less than one for each 200
square feet, ur fraction thereof, of
required interior landscaped area. The
remaining area shall be landscaped with
86-783
shrubs and other vegetative material to
complement the tree landscaping.
(c) Landscaping areas shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout, located so a~ to
divide and break up the expanse o£ paving.
The area designated a~ required setbacks
shall not be calculated as required land-
scaped area.
(2) Periph.~a! parking area landscaping.
(a) Peripheral landscaping shall be required
along any side of a parking area that abuts
land not in the right of way of a street
such that:
A landscaped strip at least ten feet in
width shall be located between the parking
area and the abutting property lines, except
where driveways or other openings may be
required. Continuous hedge forms or at
least one small tree, as outlined in this
Section, shall be planted in the landscaped
strip for each fifty lineal feet. (P)
12. Signs shall be regulated by the Route 10 Special Sign
District requirements for office parks in Office Business
(O) Districts. Landscaping shall be provided around
freestanding signs. A landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval. (P)
13. At such time as public sewer is extended to within 500 feet
of the request parcel, the owner/developer shall extend the
sewer to Serve the entire 1.56 acre parcel. (U)
14. Prior tO the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, one
hundred (100) feet of right of way, measured £rom the
centerline of Iron Bridge Road, shall be dedicated to and
for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T)
15. An additional lane of pavement and curb and guttar ~hall be
constructed along Route 10 for the entire property
frontage. Prior to schematic plan approval, a phasing plan
for these improvements may be submitted to, and approved
by, the Transportation Department, (T)
16. T~mporary access shall he permitted, as depicted on the
Phase I Waster Plan, until such time as adjacent property
develops. At such time adjacent property develops, the
temporary access shall be eliminated and access shall be
relocated along Route 10 and designed to be shared with the
adjacent property. The developer shall grant any easements
necessary to accommodate shared access. In addition, until
~ueh time that the access is relocated or until such time
that occupancy of Phase II i~ desired, driveways and
parkin9 areas may be graveled with a minimum of six (6)
inches of 921 or ~21A stone and shall be delineated by a
permanent means (i.e., timber curbs, railroad ties, etc.).
At such time that the access is relocated or occupancy of
Phase II, all on-site dniveways and parking areas shall be
constructed in accordance with Condition 9.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
86-784
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.A. AMENDMENT TO MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1986
On motion o£ Mr. Applogate, seconded by Mr. Daniel,
approved the minutes of August 13, 1986, as amended.
Vote: Unanlmo~s
the Board
3.B. SEPTBMBBR 10~ 1986
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the minutes of September 10, 1986, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.I. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went
into Executive Session to consider the u~e of real property, for
public purposes, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
ll.L. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HRARING TO CONSIDER LEASE OF REAL
PROPERTY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
suspended the rules and added ll.I.B., Set Public Hearing Date
to consider lea~ing reel property to Trinity United Methodist
Church, and set the date of October 22, 1986, at 9:00 a.m.,
Vote: Unanimous
12. ADJOURI~4~
On motion of Mr. A~plegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adjourned at 4:05 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Ootober 8, 1956.
County Administrator
R. ~ ar 1 a~n_.4_llad~_~
Chairman
86-785