04-23-1986 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
NLINUTES
April 23, 1986
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. S. Applegate
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. N. ~. Carmichael,
Comm. of Reven~e
Mrs. Doris Degart,
Legislative
Mr. Bradford S. Bammer,
Asst. Co. Admin.
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir.
of Parks & Rec.
Mr. Robert Hodder,
Building Official
Mr. William Howell,
Dir. of Gen. Services
Mr. Richard Nnnnally,
VPI/SU Ext. Agent
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Dir. of ~nv. Enq.
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Services
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir.
of Budget & Acctg.
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
~r. David Welohons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Frederick W. Willis,
Dir. of Human
Mr. James Zook, Dir. of Planning
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
a.m. (EST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Hedrick introduced Reverend Donnie Cantwell, Pastor of Open
Door Baptist Church, who gave the invocation.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
The Rledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the Unites States of
America was recited.
3. A~PROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Mayes, s~oonded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the minutes of April 9, 1986, as amended.
86-276
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel as they were not present at
the April 9, 1986 meeting.
4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Stith. Mr. Stith stated that Mr. Gte(
Blevins, District Executive of the Robert E. Lee Council, Boy
Scouts of America, was scheduled to appear before the Board to
present tickets to the Scout Show at the Virginia State
Fairgrounds on May 10th. The Board indicated they would
interrupt the meeting when Mr. Blevins arrived.
5. BOARD COMMITTE~ REPORTS
Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation to Mr. Mayas for attending the
Fior~c¢i opening since he and Mr. Daniel had been out of town on
County business. Mr. Mayas indicated it was an enjoyable
occasion. Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation to Mrs. Girone and Mr.
Applegate for their attendance at the Highway Commission
hearings on behalf of the County.
Mrs. Girone stated that on Monday there was a meeting on the
Midlothian Coal Mines. She stated there is a landowner who is
very interested in the history of the mines and will be working
with the County regarding the mine project, historical people
were also present, and there is combined effort to, hopefully,
make this a safe situation with a site that can be used for
tourism and/Or education.
Mrs, Girone stated last Sunday the Friends of the Library had a
well-known archaeologist from Williamsburg speak regarding the
history of Jamestown and that 2027 will be the 400th anniversary-
of the founding of Jamestown and they are asking that the local
governments and citizens get together for a major celebration at
that time. She stated that the Chesterfield Friends of the
Library are going to be the first to send a resolution which will
go the General Assembly requesting tha~ a study committee be
appointed for this purpose.
Mrs. Girone stated that she and Lane Ramsay had spoken to the
Chesterfield Business Council regarding the budget as they were
interested in what necessitated the increase in the levy; she
attended the opening game of the Richmond Braves which was a
sellout; she attended the Roads Commission meeting which she had
written the Board about and which she is continuing to follow;
she stated Mr. Willie Lanier was a guest at the meeting of
Midlothian Friends of the Libraries and plans are to invite him
to the Board meeting for recognition of his many achievements.
Mr. Applegate stated that he had attended a Courts Committee
meeting with all the judges in attendance and all seem to he
in agreement as to how the new courts building should be
designed.
Mr. Mayas indicated ~r. Dodd had mentioned the functions he had
attended.
Mr. Daniel stated that he and Mr. Dodd had attended the Hannover
Germany Trade Fair and this year they made specific calls on
businesses who are considering expanding their markets in the
United States. He stated most of these markets do not currently
exist in this portion of the Country which is exciting. He
~tated they also met with chambers of Commerce of cities in
=urope and representatives of Embassies to begin an exchange of
information so that we can obtain an early identification of
companies wishing to locate in th~ United States. He Stated he
and Mr. Dodd would be giving the Board members a more detailed
86-277
report. Ee stated Mr. Balderson made approximately 60 individual
contacts, it is another building block for economic development
for the County~ it was very successful, etc. He briefly
described the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp of World War II
which they visited, an East Berlin village~ etc. and indicated
the importance of freedom in this Country. Mr. Dodd stated hie
impressions of East Berlin were the same as described by Mr.
Daniel.
Mr. Daniel invited the Board to the Iron Bridge Park opening on
Saturday, April 26th at 1:00 p.m.
6. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES
IN TBE ORDER OF ~R~S~NTATION
Mr. Applegate inquired if there were any citizens from the Lucks
Bane area present. He stated the item on the aqenda dealing with
that road will involve only asking the Righway Department to
plate the widening of the road into the Six Year Construction
Plan and there is no action to take property, condemn property,
etc. He stated currently plan~ are to improve the ~houlders and
to place a two inch overlay of asphalt on the existing surface.
Mr. Dodd requested that the people present meet with the Highway
Department outside for more detailed information.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
deferred Item 9.A., Route 36 Grade Separation Project, until
after lunch; added Item ll.N.I., Set Date for Work Session with
the Charter Committee; added Item ll.N.2., Set Date for Meeting
with Volunteer Fire Chiefs; and adopted the agenda as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated that he had indicated to Senator Robert Russell
that he would be allowed, if he so desired, to address Item 11.
E., Re~olution and Ordinance Relating to Prohibiting the
Consumption of Alcoholic Beverage~ in County Park~.
7. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
7.A. DECL~-RING ~AY 12-16, 1986 AS "POLICE WEEK"
Mr. Hedriok introduced Colonel Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police,
who was present.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution wac adopted:
Whereas, the dedicated, loyal and brave members of Police
Departments throughout the Country provide an invaluable service
to all citizens; and
Whereas, the week of May 12-16, 1986 is recognized as
National Police Week; and
Wherea$~ the County is proud and honored to have such
outstanding and professional individuals as our police officers
in Chesterfield County who serve to protect the health, safety
and welfare of it~ citizenry.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors declares May 12-16, 1986 as Police Week in
Chesterfield County and calls this recognition to the attention
of all its clt~zene.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd presented Colonel Pittman with the executed resolution.
Colonel Pittman expressed appreciation for thi~ reeoqnition and
for the support given during the years. Be stated the Memorial
86-278
Service would be held on May 13, 1986 and the Board would
receiving announcements.
8. Htr%RINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS ON CLAIMS
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens scheduled
at this time.
9. DEFERRED ITEMS
9.A. ROUTE 36 G~AD~ S~PA~ATION PROJ~CT
Mr. Hedrick stated consideration of the Route 36 Grade Separation
project had been deferred until after lunch.
10. PUBLIC ~EARINGS
10.A. 1986/87-1991/92 SECONDARY ROAD SIX YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertls~d to
consider the 1986/87-1991/92 Secondary Road Six Year Construction
Plan by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. McCracken stated that there had been several changes in the
list of projects discussed at the work session. He stated that
the Stigai1 Drive project had been deleted and the Highway
Department has indicated they may be able to take care of this
project through their maintenance program and the Highway
Department has added a bridge project on Nash Road which is to
meet the federal bridge replacement funding obligations, Ne
further stated that staff recommended the Lucks Lane project be
given a higher priority thus moving it up in the Six Year Plan;
and that a project at the Buford and Jahnke Road intersection be
added for the turn lane extensions which will be paid by the
Boulders Development as part of their zoning conditions.
Mr. Mayas inquired why the Route 36 Grade Separation project was
taken out of the Secondary Road Plan and placed in the Primary
Plan. Mr. McCracken stated that if a new project is built under
the Secondary System the County would be limited to the amount of
funds that are used on rural additions which is 2% of VDH&T's
budget for Chesterfield. He stated if the project were included
in the Primary System there is a greater possibility of obtaining
adequate funding than through the Secondary System Six Year Plan.
He added that the Secondary Six Year Plan funding will be
approximately $16,900,000 and of that amount $3,700,000 will be
for routine items such as seeding, fertilizing, preliminary
engineering, etc. He stated approximately $13,000,000 will
remain to be allocated for Secondary ROad improvements. Re
stated the highway funding is going down, we received
approximately $2,200,000 this year and it will probably be less
Mr. Daniel inquired about the Hopkins Road project. Mr.
McCracken stated the project would begin in 1989 and it should be
completed in 1991, Mr. Daniel inquired when the four laning of
Turner Road would be completed. Mr. McCracken stated that
project should be advertised in April, 1987 and should be
completed within eighteen (18) months. Mr. ~ocracken stated the
smaller incidental improvements could be completed within
eighteen (18) months. Mr. Daniel inquired what effect the
addition of the Lucks Lane project would have on the list. Mr.
McCracken stated it would delay the Courthouse Road project by
approximately eighteen (18) months if funding were diverted from
the Courthouse project.
Mr. Dodd inquired why the amount of money was being reduced when
the gasoline sales are going up. Mr. Nedrick stated the gas
that, since the prices are going down, so are the revenues. He
stated he thought the General Assembly did allocate additional
money for the Secondary Road program for this year throuqh a
change i~ the formula last year but because of the decreasing
86-279
prices in gasoline, the revenues are down and more than offset
what we would have gotten. He stated if the formula had not
changed, there probably would have been a more dramatic effect
than what we are facing.
Mrs. Girone stated to build a two lane road one mile~ it costs
$1,000,000. She stated the intersection of Robious and Route 147
was $2,000,000 and is the County's total allocation. She stated
the County is in such dire need of money and what we receive is
absolutely frustrating. Mr. Dodd stated he agreed but he hopes
the Study Commission will come up with a bond issue for
additional money.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the main issue was that our
Transportation Section is making the plans so that when the
Governor addresses the problem, we will have the plans as to what
we need to set the priorities.
Mr. McCracken presented the Board with an overview of the Six
Year Plan for the Secondary Systsm including previous plans, what
could be expected to be completed by 1991, etc. Mr. Mayes stated
that since the State is trying to address the road needs for the
Commonwealth, that this is only a small portion of what will he
presented as far as the needs for the County. He inquired if
there were a comprehensive plan being prepared for the County in
the event the Governor's Commission completes its work and asks
for needs which includes the entire County. Mr. McCracken stated
that the County has identified approximately $508,000,000 oi road
improvements that are needed today. He stated the State also has
a plan which has identified several projects in the County that
are considered immediate needs. Mr. Mayes expressed concern that
there were no major projects included for Matoaea District. Mr.
McCracken stated the Six Year Plan is developed based upon
projected funding and does not provide for funding of what is
needed.
There was no one present ko address the matter.
There was some discussion regarding the inclusion of the Lucks
Lane project as well as its affect on the overall plan and the
need to allocate some funds to each project so that they all
continue rather than complete a total project each year.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the 1986/1987-1991/92 Virginia Department of Highways an
Transportation Secondary Road Six Year Construction Plan as
amended which includes giving the Lucks Lane reconstruction
project a higher priority, to provide turn lane improvements at
the Jahnke Road/Buford Road intersection with the understanding
the funding will be provided from sources other than the County
or VDE&T, and that the Criteria for Project Selection also be
approved. (A copy of the plan and the criteria is filed with the
papers of this Seard.)
11. bT~W BUSINESS
ll.A. REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR FALLING CREEK ~LE~NTAR¥ PTA PROJECT
Mr. Hester stated that staff has been working with the Falling
Creek Elementary School PTA representatives to attempt to provide
playground equipment. Be stated the PTA has raised $1,500 and
is asking the County to fund the remainder of the equipment which
would be similar to that at other elementary schools. He stated
the president of the PTA was to present the check but she has not
arrived.
On motien of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, fhe Board
accepted $1,500 from the Falling Creek Elementary School PTA and
86-280
appropriated $5,000 from the Eale District 36 Road ~unds to be
used to purchase playground equipment for the Falling Creek
Elementary School.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated he would like the Board to interrupt the
meeting when Ms. Mannell arrived.
ll.B. PRESCHOOL ALLOCATIONS FOR TRAINING OF PRESCHOOL
BAi~DICAPPED STUDENTS
On motion of Mr, Mayas, eeconded by Mr. Eaniel~ the Board
increased the School operation budget by $20,320 for receipts and
expenditures which will cover a grant recently received from Titl
VI-E of the Education of ehe Handicapped Act to train preschool
handicapped students.
ll.C. HOUSEHOLD HAZAPJ~OUS WASTE DAY
Mrs. Girone stated the report on the Household Hazardous Waste
Day was meant to serve as an indication that the County may run
ever the cost anticipated for the disposal of wastes on ~ay 17,
1986 depending on the amount of citizen response. She stated
this was a possibility and they would like the Board to be aware
of this, Mr. Dodd inquired if the intent was for this to be an
annual event. ~e seated he had no problem if this were being
done on a trial basis and if it proved to be feasible but if
there is a large deficit he would have a problem.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
acknowledged the report that the County may have to supplement th
cost should industry and private contributions not meet expected
goals for the funding of the Household Hazardous Waste Day.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D. AGREEMENTS WITH HMK ANB VDH&T FOR ALTER~ATIV~ FOR ~OWBITE
PARKWAY PROVIDING FOR DIRECT ACCESS TO THRIR PROPERTY
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute
agreements allowing VDE&T to include within the award cf the
contract for the Powhite Extension, HME'S additional access
improvements and to insure that HMK will be responsible for the
total cost of their project, subjece to approval by the County
Attorney.
Mr. ~ayes stated he would like to see the changee prior to their
being approved by the County Attorney's office. Mr. Hedrick
assured the Board that should there be ~ny conceptual changes or
substantive changes, the Board will be made awar~, prior to
approval. (A copy of the agreements are filed with the papers of
this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
ii.E. RESOLUTION AND SET PUBLIC ~EARING DATE TO CONSIDER
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
IN COUNTY PARKS
Mr. Micae stated that historically the County has taken a
position that State law and County regulations prohibit the
consumption of alcoholic beverages in County parks. He stated
that effective July 1, 1986 the ABC Board will have the authority
86-281
to issue banquet and special events permits which will permit the
consumption of alcoholic beverages in parks. Be stated that Mrs.
Girone has requested consideration of a resolution and ordinance
which would express the Board's collective judgement regarding
this activity. He stated current law controlling this is
regulated by reference to State law which prohibits consumption
and violators are charged under state law. He stated if this
ordinance were adopted they could be charged under County
Ordinance but after July 1, 1986, it would not preempt
consumption under a banquet or special events license. Mr.
Daniel inquired if the County could, under any other legal
procedure, require a County permit prior to County facilities
beinq utilized. M~. Micas stated it depended on administrative
regulations. Mr. Daniel inquired if the procedures ~culd be
written mo that for the privilege of using County facilities, the
individuals involved would not be permitted to consume alcoholic
beverages. Mr. Micas stated that could not be done. Me added
further that it is his understanding that the ABC Board may or
may not consider, when reviewing applications for banquet Or
special event applications, the desires of the localities. Mr.
Mayes inquired if an Ordinance adopted by the Board would
supersede the State Code, Mr. Micas stated it would not.
Mrs. Girone stated we do not have a problem in the County today
but we will after July 1, 1986 because the law was changed. She
stated that she felt the parks in the County were for family
enjoyment and not for the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Maye~ mtated he agreed but the State Code is allowing
citizens that riqht and the County Code cannot take that right
away. Mr. Applegate inquired if previously ~he ABC Board could
issue much licenses. Mr. Micas stated they have done so in other
parts of the State and the State law was ambiguous as to whether
not they had the authority. Mr. Appleqate inquired if the State
allows the consumption in the State parks and if not, he did not
feel they should be allowed to do so in County parks.
Mr. Dodd stated he had a real problem with the consumption of
alcohol in the parks. Be stated whether the Board has the right
to stop it or not is debatable, but he felt the Board should make
a declaration of how it feels this should be handled. Be stated
the State is changing the law for permitted drinking age from 18
to 21 and now they will allow drinking in the parks. Be stated
he felt it would present uncontrollable situations.
Mr. Daniel inquired if another sentence could be added to the
proposed ordinance which would read "that no County Department
will issue use permits for public park facilities where alcoholic
beverages would ~e permitted." Mr. Micas stated this ~tat~msnt
should not be included am it would not be legally enforceable as
there have been a number of law suits whereby localities have
tried to control through zoning the consumption of alcohol end
the Supreme Court has ruled this is not constitutional. Mr.
Daniel stated he felt the statement should stand.
Mr. Applegate inquired if a permit were required for
organizations to use County facilities. Mr. Mester stated that
he would have to issue a permit for a shelter. Mr. Applegate
stated that in that ~a$~ if someone were not going to use a
shelter they would not have to obtain a permit from the County.
Ne stated that this change in state law was not included in the
County'~ legislative package which was discussed with the
legislators and that it ~hould have been. Mr. Dodd stated the
General Assembly passes a lot of bills and they don't always ask
the Board for itm opinion. Mrs. Girone stated that if the Board
had known a~out this earlier, it could have asked the Governor to
veto the bill which would have been a service to all the
localities. Mr. Dod~ stated he had a problem with the proposed
86-282
ordinance should the additional verbiage not be enforceable.
Mre. Girone stated this action would only set the date for the
public hearing to consider the ordinance.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Danielt the Board set
the date of May 14, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to
consider an Ordinance, relating to drinking in County parks and
further the Board adopted the following resolution:
WM~REAS, th~ County of Chesterfield operates a system of
family parks to serve the recreational needs of County citizens;
and
WHEREAS, the County has made significant capital
improvements to each park including shelters, baseball, football
and soccer fields, bleachers, tennis and basketball courts,
hiking trails, biking trails and other facilities; and
Wt~BRBAS, the parks have specifically been developed to
provide family-oriented recreational facilities; and
WHeReAS, the consumption of alcoholic beverages in County
parks creates extraordinary problems in the administration and
control of the parks and activities therein; and
W~EREAS, the consumption of alcoholic beverages in County
parks creates significant problems in policing persons who are
driving and participating in sports or other activities in the
parks; and
WHEREAS, tho BOard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
does not approve of the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the
parks; and
W~EREAS, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law
effective July 1, 1986 which may allow consumption of beverages
in County parks if a permit is obtained from the Virginia
Alcoholic Beveragce Control Board ("ABC Board").
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~SOLV~D that the Board of Supervisors
of Cheste~fleld County hereby requests that the ABC Soard not
approve any licenses or permits which would allow the consumption
of alcoholic beverages in Chesterfield County parks as such
approval will negatively affect the family-oriented recreational
opportunities in the parks as well as jeopardizing the quality of
the programs and the safety of participants.
Vote: Unanimous
Senator Robert Russell made the following statement and requested
that it be recorded in totality:
"Mr. Chairman, members of ths Board, thank you for allowing
me a few minutes on your agenda today. Before you vote on the
proposed resolution regarding the consumption of alcoholic
beverages by groups in our County parks using a banquet license
issued by th~ Virginia ABC Board, let me put the matter in
perspective.
At the outset, let me make clear that I sm not an advocate
of either side of the question. I am an advocate of the
principle that you, the government closest to the people, have
the unobstructed authority to decide either way, whichever the
people want.
Several civic club members have asked me in the past months
why they were not allowed to hold their annual fund-raising
barbecues and other outings in one of the pavilion areas in one
of our County parks. Some cite the fact that the City of
Colonial Heights allows these functions at White Bank Park, a
86-283
City facility. They also know such events are held in other
public parks in virginia localities.
In looking into the matter, I found that state law was not
clear as to whether persons using such licenses would be liable
£or public drinking if someone lodged such a complaint.
understand this to be the question which has prevented
Chesterfield authorities from dealing directly with this cfuestion
in the past.
I then introduced SB 352 to clarify the matter. The purpose
of the bill was always to clarify the law, not change it. That
is what SB 352 accomplishes. ~ou should be able to deal with
this question clearly and cleanly - on its merits - without being
controlled by a vague State statute which is obviously being
interpreted differently in other localities in Virginia, as close
by as Colonial Heights.
One of your members has raised the question as to why T did
not consult with you on the bill. Since it does not change your
ultimate authority to control the process, nor require you to
take any action of any kind, there was no reason to do so.
I have always had the impression that you, like me, wanted
local govermment to enjoy the widest possible latitude,
especially in matters involving our personal freedoms and the use
of our own facilities. Our Rouse of Delegatem members muDt have
felt the same, since they all voted for the bill.
I question whether we can - or should - s~cure for you only
the authority you want and shield you from responsibility to
decide questions with which you would rather not deal.
Let me say in summary, SB 352 passed the House and the
Senate with only token opposition. No objections were ever
raised by the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia
Municipal League, the parks and recreation lobby or by anyone
else. Thc Governor signed the bill, after it was reviewed by the
Atterney General's office, and nO One asked any questions of me.
Therefore, I must conclude that whomeve~ reads into this
legislation any attempt at mischief with regards to our parks
~ithsr does not understand the law er is motivate~ by other
reasons. That is especially true since I have already e×plained
the bill to the sponsor of this resolution.
I have included here a copy of the January 17, 19S6 opinion
from the ABC Board as well as a copy of their letter dated April
22, reaffirming your continued authority in this matter. For the
record, a copy of my April 16 letter to Chairman Dodd, including
a copy of SB 352, is also enclosed. (Copies are filed with the
papers of this Board.)
I will be happy to answer any questions you might have."
Senator Russell stated the Richmond Times Dispatch quoted Mr.
Micas stating that alcoholic beverages are not allowed in County
parks under his interpretation of Btate law. He stated the
reason for the hill is because Chesterfield interprets State law
different than everyone else. He stated the bill only clarifies
the law and the process will remain as it has been. He stated
the County will have to give a permit to an individual for a
specific area, then they will have to qo to the ABC Board with
that permit and request a banquet or special events license. He
stated that has been the law and that is the way it will work
after July 1, 1986. ~e stated the Board can adopt a separate
ordinance relating to "public drinking". He stated the Lions
Clubs, the Rotarians, etc., who have their major fund raising
events with a barbecue and a beer truck, will be the ones
requesting these licenses. He stated the ABC Board will not give
an individual a banquet license for alcohol unless he has an
approved per, it from the County. He stated the legislature is
sensitive to ABC laws, local interest, etc. and the bill was
drawn by various groups in the State.
86-284
Mrs. Girone stated that if a citizen obtains a permit from the
ABC Board to drink in the public parks of the County, the purpese
of this bill was to prevent thegn from being arrested for doing
so. Senator Russell stated that was correct except that they
cannot obtain that license unless the County gives them a permit
to use a shelter. Re explained that the ABC Board will give
licenses for a specific shelter, etc. but not for the park itself
and they physically mark off an area. Mrs. Girone stated that i~
not written as part of the law--only that the ABC Board can issue
a permit and there are no restrictions that the County must
sanction or issue a permit, etc. She stated it becomes an issue
between the individual and the ABC Board and the County has no
control. Senator Russell stated that would be handled through an
administrative process at the State level which is not written in
law and he indicated this is how it has been done for years and
this law would not change the existing process. ~s. Girone
~tatad that heretofore there has not been public drinking in
public parks by a permit and after July 1, 1986 there will b~
because of SB 352. Senator Russell indicated that was incorrect.
Mr. Applagate referred to a letter from Mr. Gilman and Mr. Reed
indicating that the local governing body has to approve the use
of the park before they would allow the consumption of alcoholic
beverages. He stated he felt that in January, 1986 there was a
process for handling issues of interest to the local governing
body and still the issue is being discussed today and time has
been wasted. Ee stated if it had been handled through the normal
process, it would have been discussed and settled ~onths ago.
Mrs. Girona stated the oitisens of the County are up,et with the
proposed changed.
The Board expressed appreciation for Senator Russell's time in
addressing the Board on this matter.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR ORDINANCES TO CONSIDER
BUILDING INSPECTION FEES, ANIMAL CONTROL PENALTIES,
~ROBZQN AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FEES AND PERSONAL
PR0PRR~Y PRORATION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board
set the date of ~une 11, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. to consider ordinances
relating to erosion and sediment control fees and personal
property proration and the date of June 25, 19S6 at 9:00 a.m. to
consider ordinances relating to building inspection fees and
animal control penalties.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
ll.G.1. STP~EET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
approved the following street light installation costs with funds
to be expended from the ac~ounta as indicated:
1. Marquette Road and Bonnie Brae Road, $1,194.00
Dale District Street Light Funds
2. Willowdale Court and Willowdale Drive, $587.08
Matoaca 3¢ Road Funds
3. Winterbourne Drive and Willowdale Drive, $563.08
Matoaca 3¢ Road Funds
4. Willowdale Drive and Ravensbourne Drive, $342.08
Matoaca 3¢ Road Funds
5. Winterbourne Drive and Ravensbourne Drive, $323.08
Matoaca 3¢ Road Funds
~6-285
ll.G.2. INITIATION OF PROCESS TO AMEND BAST~RN AR~A PLAN
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
requested the Planning Commission to initiate the plan revision
process and recommend appropriate amendments .to the Eastern Area
Plan within the Ruffin Mill Road Utility Assessment District.
Vote: Unanimous
12.~. CONSENT ITEMS
12.H.1. STAT~ ROAD ACC=PTANCE
This day the County Environmental ~nglneer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Silvertree Lane and Silvertree Court in Tinsberry
Trace, Section 5, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Silvertree Lane and
$ilvertree Court in Tinsberry Trace, Section 5, Matoaea District
be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further rssolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is r~quested to
take into the Secondary System, Silvertree Lane, beginning at th
northern end of existing Silvertree Lane, State Route 1264, and
running northerly 0.09 mile to the intersection with Silvertree
Court, then continuing northerly 0.10 mile to end in a temporary
turnaround; and Silvertree Court, beginning at the intersection
with Silvertree Lane and running northeasterly 0.15 mile to end
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Department of Highways drainage ~assments.
These roads serve 41 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of ~ighways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Tinsberry Trace is recorded as follows:
Section 5. Plat Book 35, Page 69, March 18, 1980.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of South Ridge Drive, Duck River Road and Duck River
Court in Plum Creek at Southridge, Section One, Clover Kill
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Appleqate,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that South Ridge Drive,
Duck River Road and Duck River Court in Plum Creek at Southridge,
Section One, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are
established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, South Ridge Drive, beginning at
the intersection with Genito Road, State Route 604, and going
0.03 mile northeasterly to the intersection with Duck River Road
and continuing 0.01 mile to tie into proposed South Ridge Drive
of Plumb Creek at South Ridge, Section Two; Duck River Road,
beginning at the intersection with South Ridge Drive and going
0.06 mile easterly to the intersection with Duck River Court and
continuing 0.09 mile southeasterly to tie into proposed Duck
River Road of South Ridge, Section A; and Duck River Court,
86-286
beginning at the intersection with Duck River Road and going 0.16
mile northeasterly to a cul-de-sao.
This request is inclusive ei the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
These roads serve 57 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Bighways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these reads.
This section of Plum Creek at Sonthridge is recorded as follows:
Section One. Plat Book 48, Page 43, January 10, 1985.
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Sunnygrove Road, Copperpenny Road, Copperpenny
Terrace and Cepperpenny Court in Ashley Grove, Sections A, B, and
C, Dale District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Sunnygreve Road,
Copperpenny Road, Copperpenny Terrace and Cepperpenny Court in
Ashley Grove, Sections A, B, and C, Dale District, be and they
hereby are established a~ public roads.
And be it further resolved that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Sunnygrove Road, beginning at the
intersection with Newbys Bridge Road, State Route 649, and going
0.22 mile easterly to the intersection with Copperpenny Road and
continuing 0.07 mile southeasterly to a cui-de-sac; Copperpenny
Road, beginning at the intereeotien with Sunnygrove Road and
going 0.03 mile southwesterly to tie into proposed Copperpenny
Road, Ashley Grove, Section D. Again, Copperpenny Road,
beginning at the intersection with Sunnygrove Read and going 0.10
mile northeasterly to the intersection with Copperpenny Terrace
and continuing 0.05 mile northerly to a temporary turnaround;
Copperpenny Terrace, beginning at the intersection with
Copperpenny Road and going 0.06 mile easterly to the intersection
with Copperpenny Court and continuing 0.17 mile northerly to a
cul-de-sac; and Copperpenny Court, beginning at the intersection
with Copperpenny Terrace and going 0.13 mile southeasterly to a
cul-de-sao.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
These roads serve 42 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Boar~ of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
These sections of Ashley Grove are recorded as follows:
Section A. Plat Book 44, Pages 98 & 99, January 6, 1984.
Section B. Plat Book 45, Page 19, February 24, 1984.
Section C. Plat Book 47, Pages 30 & 31, September 18, 1984.
II.H.2. REQUEST FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PERMIT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved the request for a bingo/raffle permit from the Reruns
Road Athletic Association for calendar year 1986.
86-287
Vote: Unanimous
ll.N. SET DATES FOR
ll.N.1. MEETING WITH CMARTER C05~4ITT~E
It was generally agreed the Board would meet with the Charter
Co~ittee at 7:30 p.m. on May 21, 1986 in Room 502 cf the
Administration building.
ll.N.2. ~B~TING WITH VOLUNTEER DISTRICT FITCH CNIEFS
It was generally agreed th~ Board would meet with the Volunteer
District Fire Chiefs at 5:00 p.m. at the Airport Restaurane on
May 21, 1986.
UTILITy DEPART~fENT ITEMS
ll.I.1. VACATION OF PORTION OF UTILITY BASEMENT ACROSS LOT 3,
ROBINDALE SUBDIVISION
Mr. ~edrlck stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of a 16 ft.
utility easement across Lot 3, Robindale Subdivision. There was
no one present to discuss this matter.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, Seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board,
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a 16 foot utility
easement on Lot 3~ Robindal¢ Subdivision, Midlothian
Magisterial District, Chesterf±eld County, Virginia, as
shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in
Plat Book 49 at page 93.
W~EREAS, Amrhein Construction Co. has petitioned the Board
of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a
portion of a 16 foot utility easement on Lot 3, Robindale
S~bdivision, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield
County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat
Book 49, page 93, made by Balzer & Associates Inc., dated July 8,
1985. The portion of the utility easement petitioned to be
vacated is more fully described as follows:
A portion of a 16 foot utility easement on Lot 3, Robindale
Subdivision, the location of which is more fully shown,
shaded in red on a plat made by Balzer & Associates
Incorporated, dated March 3, 1986, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance.
WHBREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as emended, by advertising; and,
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of the utility easement sought to be vacated.
NOW TU~9~FORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code oi
~irginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of alley be and
is hereby vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
86-288
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section
15.1-455 of the Code of Virglnla, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is
to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion
of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title
of the portion of utility easement vacated in the property owner
free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of
the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Dnnrhein Construction
Company, or their successors in title, as grantee.
11.I.2. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
ll.I.2.a. RUFFIN MILL ROAD
ll.I.2.a.1. SHPJ4IN, INC.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
aufhorlzed the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owner if the amount as
set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owner by registered mail on April 24, 1986, of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject of ~eid condemnation proceedings. This action is on an
emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
Shamin, Inc. W86-5CB/2 $143.00
Vote: Unanimous
11.I.2.a.2. JOHN W. WARE~ JR.~ TRUSTEE
On motion o£ Mr. Dodd, seconded by MX. Applegate, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the followinq property owner if the amount as
set opposite their name is net accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owner by registered mail on April 24, 1986, cf the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject of said cond~mnatlon proceedings. This action is on an
emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
John W. Ware, ~r., Trustee W86-SCB/3 $680.00
ll.I.2.b. FALLING CREEK SEWER FORCE MAIN - PAUL S. AND ETTA R.
ISAAC~ JR.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, eeconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
rejected the counteroffer from~ar, and Mrs. Paul S. Isaac¢ Jr.
in the amount of $3,331.74 and authorized the County Attorney to
institute condemnation proceedings against the following property
owners if the amount as set Opposite their names is not accepted.
And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify
said property owners by registered mail on April 24, 1986, of the
County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is
to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action
is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise
86-289
immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the
Code of Virginia.
Paul S. and Efta R. Isaac, Jr. S85-20C/33,34 $2,082.33
li.J. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Contingency Account, the General Fu~d Balanoe~ the
Road Reserve Funds, the District Road and Street Light Funds.
The Board receseed to travel to the Route 36 Grade Separation in
Ettrick.
The Board reviewed the situation at the Route 36 Grade Separation
in Ettrick and Mr. Mayes presented various facts concerning the
project.
The Board recessed to travel to King's Barbecue for lunch.
Mr. Dodd stated the Board would be considering a deferred matter
from earlier this date, Item 9.A., Consideration of the Route 36
Grade Separation Project, prior to hearing the zoning cases. He
stated, as past practice, the Chairmanship is rotated during
zoning sessions and Mr. Applegate would be presiding.
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he owns property in the
vicinity of the Route 36 Grade Separation pf0jent, declared a
conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive
Conflict cf Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
9.A. ROUT~ 36 GRADR SEPARATION PROJECT
Mr. Mayes presented the Board with a revised resolution which
would change the scope of the Route 36 Grade Separation project
from an underpass to an overpass with an aligrunent with
Chesterfield Avenue instead of with Dupuy Road. He stated
funding would be sought with the assistance of the elected
officials as matching funds above the allocated funds for the
roads from the state. Mrs. Girone suggested that wording "above
the standard allocation" be included. This was acceptable to the
Board.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs, Girone, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, by resolution on February 8, 1984, the Board of
Supervisors acknowledged that a serious traffic problem exists at
the intersection of Chesterfield Avenue with East River, Laurel,
Woodpecker, and Bickory Roads at the railroad crossing at
Ettrick; and further resolved that once funds have been found fo/
improvements to the Route 36 location, it is the intention of
this Board to approve and begin the design for said improvements
and
WHEREAS, by resolution on February 22, 1984, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to request a design for a
railroad underpass or an appropriate grade separation for Route
86-290
36 at Ettrick at the earliest practicable date; and further
authorized that the funding for the above stated design will be
allocated from the primary road funds, otherwise funds shall be
appropriated fr~m the Unappropriated Surplus of the General Fund;
and
WHEREAS, by resolution on May 9, 1984, the Board authorized
the County Administrator to enter into a contract with the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDR&~) for
the design of the Ettrick Underpass/Overpass, and further that
$150,000 be appropriated from the fund balance of the General
Fund for the payment of such contract, and further, that the
detailed sketch and letter from Mr. Mayas be forwarded to VDH&T;
and
WHEREAS, by resolution on October 10, 1984, the Board
requceted that VDH&T proceed with a design of an underpass only
at Route 36 at ~ttrick and that the additional $165,000 be
appropriated from the Fund Balance of the General Fund which
added to the previously appropriated $150,000, making a total of
$315,000 for the project; and
WHEREAS, after a one year delay, and upon insistence by
VDH&T, by resolution on F~bruary 27, 1985, the Board authQri~ed
the County Administrator to instruct VDH&T to proceed with VD~&T
schemes of an underpass/overpass alternative for the connection
of River Road to Chesterfield Avenue and an underpass/overpass
alternative for connection of River Road to Eaet River Road and
that the County Administrator also inform VDH&T that County funds
have been programmed ($2.5 million) for the construction of this
project as soon as the design is approved; and
WHEREAS, after three months delay, and upon insistence by
VDH&T by resolution on May 22, 1985, the Board authorized the
County Administrator to advise VDH&T to proceed with the design
of the River Road to East River Road alignment aS an overpass;
WI~EREAS, the District Supervisor and th~ majority of the
District's citizens oppose the proposed overpass on Route 36 at
Ettrick for the following reasons:
1. The overpass will be about thirty feet higher than the
surrounding ground area creating major visual and aesthetic
impacts on the beauty and economic development of the area.
2. Current overpass plans will require condemnation of the
property of several well-established businesses (doctor's office.
auto parts store, gas station, restaurant, grocery store, drug
store, and bank); however, the recommended underpass will go
through two open fields west of the present grade crossing which
will not detour traffic during construction.
3. The current plans favor major flow of traffic, i.e.,
River to East River Roads; however, the traffic flow from River
Road to Chesterfield Avenue is almost the same; either route
serves traffic equally as well.
4. The current overpass plans will dictate the need for a
temporary d~tour during construction; however, with a
Chesterfield alignment underpass, shifted further west of the
present railroad crossing, the temporary detour would be
eliminated; thus, reducing the cost of the project.
5. The Chesterfield Avenue underpass alignment will require
right of way acquisition through mainly vacant property and not
disrupt existing businesses and condemnation of more expensive
l~nd areas.
86-291
6. Current overpass plans will make Chesterfield Avenue, an
historic route south, a dead end, and will bypass and isolate the
village of Ettrick.
NOWr TREREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of
Supervisors will instruct VDH&T to end further work on th~
overpass, and to proceed without delay with existing plans to
complete the design and construct an overpass west of the present
grade Crossing with alignment with Chesterfield Avenue.
BE IT FUR~H~ K~S0LVED, That the funding for the des~qn and
right of way for the four lane overpass grade separation on Route
36 at Sttrick, aligned with Chesterfield Avenue, be allooated
fr~ the $2.5 million reserve fnnd which was set aside for the
project based upon UD~&T's estimate to complete the project
initially.
BE IT FURTRER I~ESOLVED, That state elected officials fo~
Chesterfield County be requested to seek $2.5 million matching
funds above the standard allocation from t_he State of Virginia
and the Governor's Transportation Fund to insure the timely
construction and alignment of an overpass on Route 36 at Ettrick
and
BE IT FURTEER RESOL\rED, That an overpass on Route 36 at
Ett~ick be made a part of the Southern Area Land Use and
Transportation Study now underway.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
M:. Daniel inguired what remains of the $~,985,000 in the road
funds and requested that it be recorded accordingly on the
balance sheet.
~r. Dodd returned to the meeting.
ll.L. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE ROME PERMITS
86S077
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Richard A. Moore requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting th,
south line of Dwight Avenue approximately 340 feet east of
Jefferson Davis Highway, and better known as 2527 Dwight Avenue.
Tax Map 67-12 (4) Bellwood Addition, Block B, Lot 23 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Moore was present. There was ne opposition. On motion of
Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this
reguest for a period of five year~ ~ubject to the following
standard conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
86-292
Vote:
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
@6S07g
In Bermuda Magisterial District, David L. Bausell requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting the
southwest line of West Hundred Road, approximately 500 feet west
of Pinebark Road, and better known as 1601 West Hundred Road.
Tax Map 117-9 (1) parcel 20 (Sheet 33).
Mr. Bauselt was present. There was no opposition present. Mr.
Dodd indicated the purpose of this mobile home was to provide
security for e piece of industrial land and it is not visible.
On motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request for a period of five years subject to the
following standard conditions:
t. The applicant shall be the owner an~ occupant of the mobile
home.
2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to bc
pa~ked 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. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
.qqt be placed on a permanent foundation.
5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the
shall be used.
6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant ehal
then obtain the necessary permits ~rom the Office of the
Building official. This shall be dune prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be qrounds for
revocetion of the Mobile Home Permit.
ll.M. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
85S105
In Metoaca Magisterial District, CHARLES E. ~AIL=Y,
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Re2identiel (R-12) On
a 25.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 680 feet on the south
line of Centralia Road, approximately 150 feet west of Hollyberr
Drive. Tax Map 96-10 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31).
86-293
Mr. Peele stated the applicant had requested a 30 day deferral.
He stated the applicant and the staff have been working to
resolve mutual concerns and he would like an additional deferral.
On motion Of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of this matter until May 28, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
85S157
~n Clover Nill Magisterial District, TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7) to
Co~amunity Business (B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development
to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 2~.9~ acre parcel fronting
in two (2) places on the southeast line of ~ull Street Road for a
total cf approximately 1,392 feet, als0 fronting approximately
1,420 feet on the north line of Walmsley Boulevard, and located
in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 39-12 (1) Parcels 1, I9, and 23 (Sheet 14}.
Mr. Peele stated the applicant would like e 60 day deferral of
this request. Mr. Applegate stated he had discussed the matter
with Mr. Ed Willey, attorney representing ~he applicant, and
since the land use and transportation plan will not be heard by
the Planning Commission until June 23, 1986, he would llke a
deferral until after that date. Mr. Willey was present and
stated that was acceptable.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred consideration of this matter until June 25, 1986.
85S070
In Midlothian Magisterial District, RALFORD I. HAYES requested
rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Office Business (0) plus
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exemptions on
a 4.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 850 feet on the
southwest llne Of Forest Nill Avenue, also fronting approximately
140 feet on Choctaw Road, and located in the southwest quadrant
of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 10-6 (2) Ben Air
Plat, Block 54, Lots 26A~ 26B, 26D and 27B (Sheet 3).
~r. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recta%mended approval
of this request subject to certain conditionm, He stated further
that subsequent to the Commission's consideration of the zoning
request, the Board had adopted the Ben Air Plan which rsco~ends
residential development in the area.
Mr. Hayes stated that from the corner of Choctaw Road to the City
line i~ 0.6 mile, th~ Ben Air Plan indicates this should be
residential, there are 12 houses in that area, etc. He stated he
did not see how this could remain residential and that it will
change in the future. He stated if his development is approved
there will be six new office buildings, the tax base would be
increased by $2,400,000, there would not be any impact on the
schools or the community, etc.
MS. Susan Cary, an adjacent property owner, presented a petition
with 473 signatures opposed to any kind of office zoning, stated
there was opposition originally which has grown dramatically,
they are interested in the land remaining Residential (R-15),
there are developers interested in developing it as rssidential,
the land is assessed as residential property at this time, they
do not want pressures from developers for higher land use to
outweigh the neighbors concerns, etc. She stated these are the
wishes of the Ben Air Community and requested denial of the
application.
86-294
Ms. Jean Mann, an area r~sident, stated she agrees with Ms. Cary
and if this application were approved, it would be contrary to
the plan which was adopted.
Mr. Dodd stated this parcel has been controversial for the last
several years. Be stated he did not feel R-15 quality
development would come along Forest Bill Avenue and he feels the
applicant builds quality developments and he has a problem with
denying a quality request.
Mr. Daniel stated he was sorry he was not present at the previous
meeting when the Ben Air Plan was discussed but he did read the
minutes. He stated the Board has an obligation to the individual
for development of their property but there i~ an equal right as
to what the public feels as to the level of development. Be
stated he has consistently tried to weigh each factor when the
two are conflicting. He stated there may not be an opportunity
for the developer to maximize his return on development but there
is the opportunity for a return. Be stated he did not know what
level of residential zoning would be proper but he did know that
the office use abutting the subdivision is not consistent with
development in the area. Me stated he would have to sustain the
recommendation of the Ben Air Plan.
M~. Mayes stated he had a problem when the developers cannot get
together with the residents that are being impacted before it
gets to the Board. He stated all details and compromises should
be discussed prior to the meeting. Me stated the Board should
not b~ involved with the intricacies but make sure that requests
are within the limits of the law.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board denied
this request based on the Hen Air Plan.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayer.
Nays: Mr. Dodd.
86S009
In Bermuda Magisterial District, THOMAS N. MYERS AND RALPH C.
BALL requested a Conditional Use for a two (2) family dwelling i.
a Residential (R-7) Distriot on a 0.2 acre parcel fronting
approximately 70 feet on the west line of Caldwell Avenue,
approximately 250 feet south of Pate Avenue. Tax Map 42-14 (5)
J.H. Chase, Lot 20 (Sheet 16)~
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission has recommended denial
of the request. Mr. Bill Cowan, attorney representing the
applicant, stated that this is a conditional use and they would
only be legalizing a use which has been in exletence for
approximately 13 years. He stated there have not been any
problems in the area since its inception, there are two stable
f~u~iliee in the dwelling, this will not chanqe the character of
the dwelling or the neighborhood, it is in a neighborhood that i~
in e state of flux, etc. Mr. Dodd inquired if the exterior of
the building would be changed. Mr. Cowan statsd it would not.
Mr. Dodd stated there does exist some mixed uses in the area.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, Seconded by Mr. Daniel, %he Board approved
this request subject to the following condition:
Except for routine maintenance and upkeep, no e~terior
changes shall be permitted to the existing structure.
Mr. Daniel expressed concern that this type of situation was
allowed to exist, that the Boa~d has consistently denied this
type of request, etc. When asked how this request was initiated
86-295
Mr. Peele indicated it was brought to the County's attention when
a prospective client was to purchase the property. There was
further discussion regarding whether the dwelling was occupied,
the decision as to proper land use, whether it concurs with plans
in the area, etc. Mr. Dodd stated he had not received any
oomplalnt~, there are duplexes and apartments in the area, etc.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Daniel as he felt the Board should vote on land
use and not a pending sale to enhance economic gain.
Other Board members indicated they were voting on land use and
not on the sale of the property as that was not brought to the
attention of the Board until several minutes ago.
$6S020
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ~OR~TS ~. JON~S, JR., INC. AND
M.~G. ASSOCIATES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A)
to Resid~ntlal (R-9) of two separate parcel~ totaling 2.5 acres:
one of which fronts approximately 165 feet on the north line of
Swift Creek Lane, approximately 150 feet west of Flintlock Drive;
the other lles approximately 280 feet off the north line of Swift
Creek Lane, approximately 650 feet west of Flintlock Drive. Tax
Map 163-13 {1) Parcel 19 and Tax Map 175-1 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet
49).
Mr. Peele stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to the acceptance of certain
proffered conditions. Mr. Jeff Collins, representing the
applicant, reviewed the request briefly, stating that the
property lies mostly in Chesterfield County, the access to the
property is in Colonial Heights, the majority of the property is
zoned R-9 and the applicants want to round out the parcel for a
subdivision. He stated the density is approximately 2.8 lots per
acre, the proposed southern area land use plan indicates a
general density Qf 4-7 units per acre so they are below that
density. He ~tated the applicant addressed some of the ooncerns
of the property owners as indicated by the proffers submitted.
He stated several concerns regarding an alternate access and
reduction of the d~nsity were not feasible nor in keeping with
the development around the area. se stated the question of water
and sewer came up and since it would have to come from the City
of Colonial Heights a letter was written with a respons~ received
indicating that they denied the request at this time and that no
utilities would be extended outside the City limits until certain
deficiencies within the City system have been corrected. He
stated a revised subdivision plan will have tO be submitted
indicating use of wells and septic tanks. He stated this denial
of the extension of water and sewer should not affect the outcome
of the case since staff and the Planning Commission have
considered the request favorably.
Mr. Charles Watson, an adjacent property owner, was present. He
stated he did not understand why the developers did not try to
work with adjacent property owners prior to coming to the
Planning Commission. He stated then it was too late as the
developer had already received one approval. He referred to the
letter from the City of Colonial Kelghts which was a Complete
denial, it is not consistent with the area development which
consists of one to three acre lots, there should be buffers,
there should be an alternative aco~ss across the old railroad bed
which was never considered, etc. Ee stated that the developer
lives in Colonial Heights and does not care about what is done on
the Chesterfield side, that this is one of the prettiest sites in
the County which will be destroyed, that it should be at least
R=25 zoning and not R-9 especially considering the lack of public
utilities available, ther~ is a natural drainage oreek to
Branders Bridge Road, etc. Be stated Swift Creek Lane cannot
handle the traffic which will be generated by this development,
86-296
who would pay the high cost for improving the road as a portion
of it is owned by the City of Colonial Beights and there is a
question of condemning the property by either or both localities
for the benefit of a private developer. Be stated the proffers
do not offer anything, they are only agreements to abide by
existinq laws of the state. Ee stated he had problems with the
way the developer is going from one jurisdiction to another
indicating what the other says is acceptable. He requested that
the Board not allow the developer to destroy this area.
Mr. Nell Wilson, an adjacent property owner, agreed with Mr.
Watson's co~tments and stated his major concern is the current
status of Swift Creek Lane and if the road were deeded to the
property owners, it is only 20 ft. wide, there are buses
traveling from both localities in the area, there are deep
ravines, etc. and additional traffic from this development would
be detrimental to the area.
Mr. Darrell Stoker, an area resident, stated that this property
is low and there is a natural drainaqe area. He stated if this
is approved the water will drain to other properties and the
foundations will not take it unless it is built up.
Mr. Collins stated that City Council turned down their request
because they are concerned about capaeity problems in their
sewage treatment system due to infiltration; there is a water
tank in the County that Serves Colonial Eeighhs; there may be a
not all required by law such as square footage, all brick
foundations and buffers along the creek; he outlined and
described the possible access to Sherwood Bills which was owned
by individuals; he stated he did not feel Swift Creek Lane could
be vacated at this point; that this request is appropriate and
consistent with other zoning in the area; that the drainage would
not change appreciably from what exists now; etc.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt this development would be more consistent
if it were developed with R-15 especially with wells and septic
tanks. Mr. Collins stated that the current development in the
area is more in line with R-9 and that the majority of the
proposed subdivision is currently zoned R-9 but he did not think
it would develop that way but more in line with R-15. Mr. Dodd
inquired why the applicant did not apply for R-15 then. Mr.
Collins stated that they would llks to have R~9 with public water
and sewer and that could still be possible. Mr. Dodd stated he
felt the applicant miqht be better off if he withdrew and
requested a higher density.
Mr. Maye~ expressed concern about the opposition, that this
discussion has been qoing on for some time and nO contact was
made with the Supervisor of the District which disturbed him. Be
stated he felt he could recoramend denial or deferral to allow for
further negotiations which he felt would be unsuccessful. Mr.
Daniel agreed that he felt R-9 zoning with septic tanks is
improper~ that something is w:ong when there is that much
dieeuseion at this point, etc. Mrs. Girone and Mr. Applegate
agreed that R-9 zoning iS inappropriate with saptlc tanks, there
are traffic and drainaqe problems, etc. Mr. Appleqate stated
small lot subdivisions with septic tanks are inappropriate which
is evidenced by the funds the County spends to handle problems
with failing septic systems.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied
this request.
Vote: Unanimous
86S02§
In Midlothian and Clover Hill Magisterial Districts, MIDLOTBIAN
ENTERPRISES, INC. AND LAVEEB INTERESTS requested rezoning from
86-297
Office Business (O) and Residential Townhouse (R-TN) to
Reaidentiel (R-7) of 41.0 acres; from Residential (R-7) to
Community Business (B-2) Of 46.0 acres; and from Agricultural
(A), Residential (R-7), Residential (R-15), Residential Townhouee
(R-TH), Co~tmunity Business (B-2), and Light Industrial (M-l)
office Business (O) of 418.0 acra~. In addition, amendments are
requested to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 79S142)
encompassing the tracts being reeoned plus additional tracts
currently zoned Residential (R-7), Residential (R-15), and Office
Business (O) containing an additional 442.0 acres to permit use
and bulk exceptions. The total tract contains 947.0 acres and
fronts on the east and west sides of Coalfield Road to the south-
east and northwest of Lucks Lane, and is more commonly known as
Evergreen. Tax Map 36 (1) Part of Parcels 7, 8, and 14; Tax Map
37 (1) Park of Parcels 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 21 (Sheet
13).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
of the request subject to certain conditions as well as
acceptance of certain proffers. Mr. Bryce Powell, representing
the aDpllcant, stated he felt the application was timely and
represents the needs of the community, the County and the
developer. He stated the application represents over a year and
one-half of work, it encompasses two parcels of land for an
orderly development of both, the land use and transportation plan
conforms with the Route 288/Powhite study approved by the Board
in 1985, the land uses represent a reduction of current zoning,
on the residential side they are proffering a reduction of 45% of
what is currently zoned and on the commercial side a reduction of
approximately 10% of what could be built under current zoning,
when the project is completed it will produce over $400,000,000
of taxable property, the application represents over $10,000,000
of road needs in the northern area of the County which are not
internal to the project but roads that all the citizens will
receive benefit from, this project will produce a better access
to Route 288/Powhite, etc. He stated the road problems will net
be compounded by this development and they are dedicating
approximately 38 acres to the County. The Board viewed a slide
presentation indicating the type of project which will be
developed. ~e stated they hav~ met with the neighbors,
negotiated and reached compromises, worked with staff, etc. He
stated the conditions aa recommended are acceptable.
There waa no opposition present.
Mrs. Girone inquired about the intersection of Prince William
Drive and Coalfield Road as it was an issue at the Planning
Commission meeting. Mr. Powell stated that Prince William Drive
does not cross Coalfield according to the plan. Mrs. Girone
stated she felt this was a very handsome development. Mr.
Applegate stated with the strides being made to seek additional
economic development in the County thi~ is a very timely
application as this is the type of development which ehould be
encouraged in the County. Mr. Daniel requested that this
presentation be made available to Mr. Balderson, Director of
Economic Development. Mr. Powell stated this has been discussed
and he looked forward to wcrklng with the County in this regard.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the application,
Textual Statement, dated November 25, 1985, with Exhibits I
through VIII, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Tn all Office Business (O), CoImnunity Business (B-2), and
multifamily/townhouse tracts, concrete curb and gutter shall
be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and
parking erea~. Drainage shall be deeiqned ac as not to
86-298
interfere with pedestrian traffic. This condition may be
modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic
plan review, upon docLlmentation that alternative measure~
are as durable and as easily maintained as concrete curb and
gutter. (EE)
3. Prior to State acceptance of any subdivision roads or roads
in the medium density residential tracts, or occupancy of
any commercial/office establishments, or occupancy of more
than 700 multifamily/townhouse units that drain to one or
more of the three p~oposed lakes, the ownership and
maintenance for the lakes ~hall be established as the
responsibility e£ private parties. An indemnlfieation
agreement shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering to
save the County harmless from vector control, maintenance,
replacement responsibilities, etc. Upon approval o£ the
agreement by the County, it shall be recorded. Upon
completion of the construction of the detention facility, it
shall be certified by a professional engineer. (EE)
4. TO avoid potential siltation and algae problems, the mini-mum
depth of all lakes shall be 3½ feet within ten (10) feet of
the shoreline. (EE)
5. Dams shall be designed in accordance with the standards
outlined by the Soil Conservation Service. The release rate
shall be based upon the adequacy of receiving channels as
approved by Environmental Engineering. (EE}
6. Prior to, or in conjunction with, the first schematie/sub-
division approval, a conceptual pedestrian walkway plan for
the entire development shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval. This plan shall facilitate
pedestrian movements throughout the development. The plan
shall be implemented in conjunction with development of any
tract which adjoins the pedestrian system. Detailed plans
for construction of each phase of the system shall be
snbmitted to the Planning Department for approval in con-
junction with submission of subdivision final check plats or
final site plans. (P)
7. In addition to the buffer areas described in the Textual
Statement, VI, Proposed Rezoning B. General Conditions.
1. Buffer areas. Page 8, A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be
provided adjacent to Lucks Lane. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement,
VI. Proposed Rezonin~ ~. General Conditions. 1. ~uffer
Areas. Page 8; C. Office Business (O) District. 2. For
Research and Develoument Office Uses. (C) Buffer areas and
setback requirements. Page 13; 3. For Medium Density
Office Us~s (d) Buffer areas and setback ~e~uirements. Page
15.
8. Upon submission of a comprehensive sign package, the
Planning Commission may modify the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., may be either more or less restric-
tive) to the extent that the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance and concept of the development are met and that
proliferation is not encouraged. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement,
VI. Proposed Rezoning. B. General Conditions. 5.
Signage, Page 9.)
9. Prior to or in conjunction with the first schematic plan
approval within each individual tract, un overall conceptual
development plan for the entire tract shall be submitted for
approval. This plan may be the schematic plan for the
entire tract. This conceptual plan shall reflect the
required open space, buffers, access locations, and other
86-299
tract criteria us outlined in the Textual Statement and
herein. (p)
10. At least fifty (50) feet of the 100 foot buffer area in the
R&D tracts, adjacent to the Vepco easement, shall be
exclusive of that easement, or any other utility easement.
This condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at
the tlme of schematic plan review if documentation is sub-
mitted which proves that screening can be accomplished in a
lesser width or that utilities in the buffer can be
accommodated and, at the same time, sufficient screening
accomplished. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Textual ~tatement
VI. Rropessd Rezonlnq. C. Office Business (O) District.
2. For Research and Development Office Uses. (C) Buffer
areas and setback requirements. Page 13.)
11. No building in the R&D tracts shall exceed a height of two
(2) stories unless documentation is submitted to the
Planning Commission that buildings will not be visible to
any adjacent residential properties; in which case the
height may be increased, provided the maximum height does
not exceed that which would be visible te adjacent res-
idential development or twelve (12) stories, whichever
less. (P)
12. Development in those MDR tracts (i.e., MDR 4 and MDR 5)
which are adjacent to LDR tracts (i.e., LDR 2 and LDR
shall be confined to those uses permitted in the R-TE Zonin,
District.
(Note: This condition is in addition to VI. Proposed
Rezonin~. C. Mediums Density Residential District.)
13. In conjunction with submission of the first schemat-
ic/subdivision plan for any MDR tract, a plan for the
provision of recreational facilities to serve those tracts
shall be submitted for approval. Recreational facilities
shall, however, be provided based upon R-TH and R-MF
requirements either for each individual tract or the entire
MDR area. If recreational facilities are p~ovided for the
entire tract, restrictive covenants ~hall be recorded to
permit joint use of facilities. (P)
14. ~ach individual MDR tract shall conform to the R-MF or R-TH
Zoning Ordinance requirements based on the type of
development except that individual developments shall not bs
required to have a minimum of ten (10) gross acres for R-TH
or twenty (20) gross acres for R-MF. Furthermore, at the
time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may
modify specific requirements, provided the spirit and intent
of the requirement is accomplished through architectural
and/or site design features. (P)
15. A fifty (50} foot buffer shall be provided in any B-2 tract
(i.e., SR and CR) where adjacent to any MDR tract. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to vi.
Zoning. E. Community Business District (B-2). (C) Buffer
areas and setback requirements, Page 20.)
16. The Community Business (B-2) tracts (i.e., CR and eR) shall
be designed such that architecture, visual, and site design
do not project typical strip development. Architectural
renderings/elevations shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission ~or approval in conjunction with schematic plan
review. (P)
17. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
86-300
18, Prior to construction of Route 288 and/or Powhite Parkway,
all necessary sewer line crossings shall be installed. (U)
19. The developer shall be responsible for constructing any new
facilities, or improving any existing facilities, which are
necessary to provide sewer capacity to the development. (U)
20. Coalfield Road Relocated and Road "A" shall have a minimum
ninety (90) feet rights of way and shall be dedicated via
subdivision plat. Dedication shall Occur in accordance with
the approved phasing plan. (T)
21. The Master Plan submitted with the application shall be
considered the Master Road Plan. Approval of the plan by
the County does not imply that the County gives final
approval of any particular road alignment or section. (T)
22. In addition to submission of road construction plans to
VDH&T and Environmental Engineering, the plans shall also b(
submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department.
23. Any additional right of way (or easements) required for
Powhite Parkway, in excess of that (those) specified on
currently approved VDHaT Powhite Extension Plans, to obtain
a minimum of 200 feet of total right of way shall be
dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted. Dedication shall occur in accordance with the
approved phasing plan.
24. Public uses such as fire stations, water tanks, police
precincts, etc. shall be permitted in the "Community
Facility" t~act upon approval of the use by the Planning
Commission at the time of schematic plan review. (P)
25. The above conditions supersede all previously imposed
conditions of Case 79S142 for the property encompassed by
this zoning. (P)
And further the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
A. Land Use Proffers
1. The applicants will provide a minimum 200 foot buffe~
area adjacent to and between the "Project" (as defined
in the rezoning application) and Lots 8-15 of
Queensmill Subdivision, located on Darrell Drive.
Beginning at the extreme eastern point of Lot 15 and
proceeding in an eastwardly and southeastwardly
direction, the width of the buffer area will decrease
to 100 feet. The applicants will construct, at their
expense, an 8 foot high salt treated wooden fence
within the aforesaid buffer areas.
2. The fence will be located no closer than 100 feet from
the rear property lines of Lots 8-15 of Queensmill
Subdivision. The fence will be erected prior to or in
conjunction with the paving of the "Project road" (as
that term is defined in the rezoning application) that
serves the portion of the Project adjacent to the
aforesaid lots (and, therefore, the location of the
fence) may be changed, upon the written consent of the
owners of all of the subject lots, in order to enhance
the fence as a light/noise barrier.
The location of the intersection of the Project read
with the road leading from the medium density offic~
parcels, near Lots 8-15 Of Queensmill Subdivision will
be reviewed and, if practical, relocated closer to the
intersection of the Project road with Coalfield Road
(as relocated). Any such relocation would, of course,
require the review and approval by the Virginia
86-301
Department of Highways and Transportation and the
Chesterfield County Transportation Departmsnt.
4. The applicants agree that the height of any hotel con-
structed within the MXD district will not exceed 8
stories.
5. The applicants agree that no hotel or conference center
will be constructed on land that is proposed ~or B-2
zoning in the rezoning application.
6. With respect to ~pace to be used for retail purposes in
the Project:
a. There will
b. There will
c. There will
d. There will
be no coin-operated laundry.
be no movie theaters or concert halls.
be no video or pinball machines or
be no convenience-type stores (such as
or a "7-11").
e. There will be no store operated by the Virginia
Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission.
The hour~ of operation for all u~es sxcept restau-
rants and related uses will be from 8:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
7. The applicants agree to grant to Chesterfield County
the prior right to purchase from the applicants 35
acres adjacent to the school site being donated by the
applicants in connection with the rezoning application.
The final configuration of such site must be reasonabl
acceptable to the applicants.
Transportation Proffers
1. To provide for an adequate area roadway system at the
time of the complete development of this project, the
developer shall be responsible for the following
improvements.
Construct the realignment of Coalfield Road as a
four lane roadway between Powhite Parkway and
site.
b. Construct the extension of Route 288 north of its
interchange with Powhite Parkway as a six lane
facility through its intersection with Lucks Lane
then tapering down to a four lane roadway through
its inter~ection with Coalfield realigned.
c. Construct the extension of Brandermill Parkway
north of Powhite Parkway as a two lane roadway.
d. Construction improvements to the interchange of
Powhite Parkway and Route 288:
1. Powhite Parkway westbound off-ra~p (Ramp "G")
2. Route 288 southbound off-ramp (southwest
quadrant loop)
3. Extension of two northbound through lanes of
Route 288 across Powhite Parkway
4. Northbound Route 288 bridge structure (3 lane
width)
86-302
Vote:
e. Provide signalization, whom warranted, at the two
site road intersections at Luckc Lane and
Coalfield Road.
f. Construct:
1. Two lanes of Powhite Parkway between Route
288 bridge structure and the Coalfield Road
selected intersection.
2. The ramp from westbound Powhite Parkway to
northbound Coalfield Road relocated.
3. The ramp from southbound Coalfield Road
relocated to westbound Powhite Parkway.
4. Loop from southbound Coalfield relocated to
eastbound Powhite Parkway.
5. The southbound bridge structure of Coalfield
relocated over Powhite/288.
g. Applicant agrees to dedicate right of way to
Chesterfield County, if necessary, for scheduled
improvements in Powhite/288 corridor. Dedication
to be accomplished before issuance of first
building permit within project.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan
submission, a phasing plan for required road
improvementS, with supporting traffic analysis, shall
be cubmitted to the Transportation Department and VDH&T
for approval.
Specific roadway improvements set forth in these
transportation proffers are required ~y the time of
full site development and are to be constructed in
accordance with the phasing plan approved by the
Transportation Department. The developer shall provide
the Transportation Department with additional traffic
studies upon completion of each phase if requested.
Roadway improvements shall be increased or decreased by
the developer as required by the Transportation
Department if these studies demonstrate that traffic
generation rates and distributions solely by this
development are materially different ac determined by
the Transportation Department from projections set
forth in the traffic study prepared by WSA and dated
1/31/86. I~ satisfactory improvements cannot be
provided, the Planning Commission may reduce the
permissible densities to the extent that acceptable
levels of service are provided as determined by the
Transportation Dspart~nent.
Unanimous
86S038
In Matoaca Magisterial District, L&L PROPERTIES requested a
Conditional Use to p~rmit an outdoor recreational facility in a
Mobile Home Subdivision (MH-2) District on a 5.6 acre parcel
lying approximately 1,350 feet south of the southern terminus of
Fiata Drive, also lies approximately 710 feet tact of the eastern
terminus of Arrowfield Road. Tax Map 163-12 (1) Part of Parcel 1
(Sheet 49).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Charles
Landon, representing the applicant, stated that the conditions
were acceptable except for Condition %3 with regard to the paving
86-303
and curbing and gutter for the storage area for the boats and
campers. Mr. Peele stated the zoning ordinance requires this
area to be paved since it is for more than five vehicles. He
stated staff was not aware of this concern until this time or
they could have suqqested a change in the zoning application so
the Board could address the matter. Mr. Landon stated he could
live with the condition but he did not see the need for it.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone stated this is a nice development.
Mrs. Girone stated that because of the fine reputation and
development that Mr. Landon is constructing, she felt the Board
should look favorably upon his request to delete paving in the
storage area when normally the Board would not. Mr. Peele stated
the conditions do not require paving, it is the zoning ordinance
which requires it and the Board cannot grant modifications to the
ordinance under the current application. He stated the paving
does not have tO be asphalt but could be tar and gravel. He
stated the Board does have the ability to delete the curb and
9utter but not the paving requirement. Mr. Landon stated that
would be acceptable.
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 Charles C. Townes and Associates, P.C. dated 6/21/82,
shall be considered the plan of development.
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to between ~:00 a.m. and
9:00 p,m., Sunday through Thursday; between 8:00 a.m. and
11:00 p.m., Friday through Saturday. vehicular driveways
shall be barricaded with a locked gate when the facilities
are not opened for use. (P)
3. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be curbed and gut-
tered, except those located in the 100 year floodplain, the
driveway leading to the parking area located within the 100
year floodplain, and the RV parking/storage area. (BS)
4. Parking shall be provided at a ratio cf one (1) space for
each ninety (90) square feet of combined swimming and wadin¢
pool areas, and four (4) spaces for each tennis and
basketball court. (P}
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that all driveways an~
parking areas for six (6) or more vehicles be paved. Also,
the BOCA Code requires two-way driveways to be a minimum of
twenty-four (24) feet in width unless local agencies grant
exceptions. On a routine basis, driveways serving parking
lots containing up to fifteen (15) parking spaces to be
twenty (20) feet in width are permitted; and driveways
serving parking lot~ of sixteen (16) to thirty (30) parking
spaces to be twenty-two (22) feet in width.)
5. There shall be no outside public address system er speakers.
(~)
6. All outdoor lighting shall be no higher than fifteen (15)
feet and shall be designed so as not to project light into
adjacent properties. All outdoor lighting shall be timed so
as not to illuminate after 11:00 p.m. (P)
7. One (1) sign to be located at the entrance to the parking
area for the clubhouse shall be permitted. This sign shall
not exceed three (3) square feet in area and a height of ten
(10) feet. In addition, a directional sign, not to exceed
two (2) square feet in area and five (5) feet in height,
shall be permitted at the entrance to the RV parking and
storage area. These signs shall not be lighted. A render-
ing of these signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval prier to erection. (P)
86-304
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be provided between the
proposed RV parking area and Block B, between the
northernmost parking area and Block B, and along the
frontage on Swiit Bluif Drive. The twenty-five (25) foot
buffer shall be landscaped so as to effectively screen the
use from adjacent properties. A conceptual landscaping plan
depicting this requirsmsnt shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final
site plan review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting
this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval within sixty (60) days of rough
clearing or grading. (P)
Mr. Dodd stated he has not voted on a mobile home park in the
last ten years~ he would vote on this application as it is not a
mobile home park but a mobile home subdivision and he felt it was
not a competing business with his own and did not cause a
conflict of interest.
Vote: Unanimous
86S039
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, PORTER PROPERTIES, ALF~AED L.
AND GRACE M. CARR, AND CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH requemted (1)
amendment to previously granted zoning (Case 76~D49) to permit
relocation of buffer; (2) rezoning from Residential (R-7) te
General Business (B-3) of 0.14 acres; and (3) Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit bulk (setback) exceptions. These
requests lie on a 0.85 acre parcel fronting approximately 168
feet on the north line of Hull Street Road, approximately 585
feet east cf Suncrest Drive. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Parcel 31 and Part
of Parcel 4 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had reco~ended approval
of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Porter
reviewed the application briefly and stated the conditions were
acceptable. There was no Opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by E.D. Lewis and Associates, revised 12/19/85, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
western property line adjacent to the Residential (R~7)
property. With the exception of landscaping and a fence (if
desired), there shall be no facilities located in the
buffer. The buffer shall be landscaped with ornamental
trees and shrubs. In conjunction with final site plan
submission, a landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
(p)
(Note: As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the treatment
of the buffer must be such that the parking areas are
screened from view of adjacent R-7 property to the west.)
3. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
4. Storm sewer shall be installed along the Route 360 frontage
in conformance with the approved VDH&T design.
5. Concrete curb and qutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic. (BE)
6. Within the fifteen (15) foot setback along Route 360,
ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted so as to
minimize the view of driveways and parking areas from Route
86-305
r\
360. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall b~
submitted tO the Planning Department for approval in con-
junction with final site plan review. (P)
Prier to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Route
360, as deemed necessary by the Transportation Department
and VDH&T. (~)
Access to Route 360 shall be limited to a single en-
trance/exit to be shared with the adjacent property to the
east. (T)
In conjunction with the approval of the request, the
Planning Co~mission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan~ subject to the conditions stated herein.
(p)
86S040
In Midlothian Msgisterial District, 2900 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP re-
quested amendment to Conditional USe Planned Development (Case
80S089) to increase the number of lots from 55 to 57 in a
Residential (R-15) District on a 22.31 acre parcel lying
approximately 300 feet west of the intersection of Benbow Road
and Elaine Avenue. Tax Map 18-5 (4) Brighton Green West, Block
A, Lots 3-48; Tax Map 18-5 (4) Brighton Green west, Block B, Lot~
5 and 6; Tax Map 18-9 (8) Brighton Green West, Block A, Lots 1
and 2; Tax Map 18-9 (8) Brighton Green West, Block B, Lots 1-4
and Lot 7 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Peele stated the Playnnin9 Commission had recommended approval
of this request. Mr. Jim Hayes was present representing the
applicant. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Qirone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved thi~ request.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel excused himself ~rom the meeting.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his company was
involved in the sale of the property in the next case, declared
potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia
Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from
the meeting.
86~044
~n Midlothian Magisterial District, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER
COMPANY requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 85S008) to permit a microwave tower height to
be increased from 130 feet to 159 feet in a Light Industrial
(M-l) District on an 11.81 acre parcel fronting approximately 56
feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike across from
Otterdale Road. Tax Map 15 (1) Parcel 32 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the Plannln9 Commission had recommended approval
subject to a single condition. Mr. Ashby Baum was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the soard
approved this request subject to the following condition:
The microwave tower and dish shall be installed as depicted
in the elevations submitted with the application. (p)
86-306
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. ~irone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
86S057
In Bermuda Magisterial District, KENNETH W. WELLS requested
rezoning from Community Business (B-2) and Residential (R-7) to
General Business (B-3) with a Conditional Use Planned Development
to permit bulk exceptions on a 3.5 acre parcel fronting
approximately 280 feet on the west llne of JefferSOn Davis
highway, also fronting approximately 365 feet on the south line
of Drewry's Bluff Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of
the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 51
(Sheet
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Dean Hawkins,
representing the applicant, stated they are concerned with
Condition 93 which requires that they pave the storage area,
display area and the side of the property with porous pavement
and they would prefer that it be open graded gravel that
course, clean and durable. He stated that it also requires that
the parking area be curbed and guttered and they would prefer to
have bumper blocks to allow the water to flow in a sheet flow
fashion. He stated they would like Condition 94 to be deleted
which requires that curb and gutter be required along Route 1 and
Drewry'~ Bluff Road,
requiring a 50 ft. buffer to be amended to require a 5 ft.
buffer. Ke also asked that Condition #5 be further amended to
require a chain-link security fence along the southern property
line instead of a solid board fence.
requires the ~torage area for bcat~ to be placed 50 ft. from the
property line and they would rather that be 25 ft. and then place
their display areas within that 25 ft. setback adjacent to Route
1. Ee stated they would like to have a speaker system installed
which could be directed toward Je££erson Davis Bighway. Mr.
Daniel stated the Board has turned down speaker systems for
automobile dealers with a lot more acreage than this. Mrs.
Girone stated one was approved on Route 60 and there are a lot of
complaints as you cannot direct the sound. Mr. Hawkins stated
the other conditions were acceptable.
Mr. John Moseley, representing his parents who have lived
adjacent to this site since 1936, stated they are not opposed to
the rezoning or to the proposal. He stated that they would like
the board fence with trees to be planted as outlined in Condition
95 as it would act as a noise barrier and screening. He stated
they are opposed to the speaker system as the house sits 33 ft.
from the property line. He stated the applicant has indicated
that the landscaping on his parents property could act as
buffer but he stated the vegetation and hedge row on his parents
property is not evergreen. Be stated that his parents have lived
there a long time and would like to continue to do so. He stated
he was in agreement with the conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Mrs. Girone stated she was agreeable to the adjacent property
owners' concern~ and conditions. She stated that she felt the
speakers were unnecessary and that they would cause problems.
Mr. Daniel agreed that the conditions as set forth are proper
because the Board is concerned with quality of development and he
would not like to see them eliminated. He stated he felt the
buffering would not hinder the development and if an amendment is
necessary later, the Board could consider it. He stated he felt
the Planning Commission conditions were correct. Mr. Mayes
stated he f~lt human considerations should bo given to the
Moeeleys since they have lived there for many years when thi~
86-307
type of situation is being considered. Mr. Appleqate stated he
did not have a problem with the bumper blocks nor the gravel of
the storage area but he agreed with other members of the Hoard.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt strongly about the sound and lights
penetrating into the neighborhood and these conditions should
remain, that the curb and gutter along Route 1 is necessary
because the applicant is not accessing Route 1 but that it should
be required on Drewry's Bluff Road, that washed gravel was
acceptable on the storage area with the r~mainder being paved,
that a wooden fence on the south side of the property as
requested by the adjacent property owners would be proper, that
bumper blocks tn replace the curb and gutter on the storage area
would be acceptable and that he did not have a problem with the
25 ft, setback off the front of Jefferson Davis Highway for the
display pads only with the main storage area to be setback 50
feet so the readway would not appear crowded.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request subjeot to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Dean E. Hawkins, AMLA, dated January 27, 1986, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
3. All public driveways and parking areas shall be paved with
bituminous concrete, The mtoraqe and sales area may be
constructed of gravel. Concrete bumper blocks shall be
installed around the perL~eter of all bituminous concrete
driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so
as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (EE&BS)
4. Prior to issuance of an OCcupancy permit, additional
pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along
Drewry's Bluff Road, as deemed necessary by the
Transportation Department and VDE&T. (T and VDH&T)
5. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northern and western boundary where adjacent to Parcels 16
and 62 on Tax Map 67-3. The buffer shall consist of
landscaping, having a sufficient initial height and of a
species which will provide year-round screening. Other than
utilities, which run generally perpendicular through the
buffer, there shall be no facilities permitted in these
buffer areas. A solid board fence shall be installed and
maintained five (5) feet off the southern boundary of the
site. This fence may have seourity devices on the top.
Between the southern property line and the fence, cedar
trees shall be installed. A conceptual plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review.
Prior to any clearing and/or grading, the buffer area shall
be flagged and the Planning Department contacted to inspect
the buffer areas. If existing vegetation and/or topography
is not sufficient to provide year-round screening,
additional landscaping shall be required. A detailed
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval within sixty (60) days of rough
clearing and grading, of prior to occupancy, whichever
occurs first. (P&CPC)
6. The storaqe area/sales lot shall be set back a minimum of
fifty (50} feet from Jefferson Davis Highway. The storage
area/sales lot and parking area shall be set back a minimum
of fifteen (15) feet from D~ewry'$ Bluff Road.
The fifty (50) foot setback along Jefferson Davis Highway
shall be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet to permit a
maximum of four (4) display pads. Display pads shall be
limited to a maximum area of 400 square feet each.
$6~308
10.
11.
Ornamental tress and shrubs shall be planted along Jefferson
Davis Bighway. Additional landscaping shall be concentrated
around the display pads. Minimum landscaping shall include
at least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at least five
(5) feet, plus a mix of medium and 1Ow height shrubs and
ground cover for each vehicle display pad. A conceptual
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed land-
scaping plans depicting these requirements shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with ~inal site plan review. (P)
7. The interior of the public parking area shall be landscaped
with a minimum of ten (10) square feet of interior
landscaping for 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 landscape
area shall include at least one (1) tree, having a clear
trunk of at least (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 ar~a shall be landscaped with shrubs and other
vegetative material. This landscaping shall be in addition
to the required landscaping along Jefferson Davis Highway.
In conjunction with schematic plan review, a conceptual
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval. A de-
tailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department in conjunction with
final site plan review. (P)
8. Prior to the release of any building permit, forty-five (45
feet of right Of way, measured from the centerline of
Jefferson Davis Highway and thirty (30) feet of right of
way, measured from the centerline of Drewry'e Bluff Road,
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield,
free and unrestricted. (T)
9. There shall be no outside speaker or paging system. The
Planning Commission may modify this condition at the time of
schematic plan review if documentation is submitted which
proves that an outdoor speaker or paging system will not be
audible from adjacent Residential (R-7) property. (P)
All exterior lighting shall bs low level and positioned so
as not to project into adjacent residential properties. (P)
SIGNS
b.
The existing billboard shall be removed prior to
clearing and grading.
One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed 100 square
feet and a height of thirty (30) feet, shall be
permitted to identify this use. Other than directional
signs, no other freestanding signs shall be permitted.
All other signs shall comply with B-3 bulk re-
quirements, except where specified herein. Signs may
be externally lighted, but may be internally lighted
only if the signfield is opaque with translucent
letters.
Prior to erection of any signs, a complete sign
package, to include typical colors, sizes, lighting,
etc., shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval. (P)
86-309
,, )
12. In conjunction with schematic plan review, render-
lugs/elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Commis-
sion for approval. The facades of the building which are
exposed to Drewry'$ Bluff Road and Jefferson Davis Bighway
shall employ decorative masonry and/or glass material. Ail
other facade~ shall be of subdued color~. (P)
13. The only General Business (B-3) use permitted shall be a
boat/recreational and/or automobile sales, service and
repair. (P)
14. There shall be no operation after 9:00 p.m. (CPC)
15. The developer shall be responsible for notifying the
property owner of Parcel 8, On Tax Map 67-7 (1), of the date
and time of schematic plan review. (CPC)
(Note: Prier to obtaining a building permit or site plan
approval, schematic plans must be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval.)
Vote: Unanimous
86S058
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JACK T. SHOOSMITH requested
rezoninq from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l) on a
27.66 acre parcel fronting approximately 950 feet on the south
line of Bermuda Hundred Road, approximately 2,100 feet west of
Discovery Drive. Tax Map 119-14 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheets 34 and 43).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
of the request. Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr. was present representing
the applicant. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dcdd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved
this request.
Vote: Unanimous
12. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adjourned at 4:15 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. on March 14, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
Richard L. Bedrick
County Administrator
Chairman
86-310