09-10-1986 MinutesSeptember 10, 1986
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applegate
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Hedrfok
County Administrator
Staff in Attendanoe:
Mrs. Doris DeHart, Dir.,
Legislative Services
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Asst. Ce. Administrator
Mr. Robert Hodder,
Huilding Official
Mr. William Howell, Dir.
of Gen. Services
Dr. Hurt Lowe, Hxec. Dir.,
Mental Health & Mental
Retardation
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., ~nv.
Mr. Robert Masden, Asst.
Co. Adm. for Human
Services
Mr. 8teven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir.of News/Info.
Services
Mr. Timothy Perry,
Landfill Manager
Mr. William D. Peele, Act.
Dir., Planning
Mr. Lane Ramsey~ Dir.,
Budqet & Accounting
Mr. Richard F. Sale, Asst.
Co. Adm. for Development
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.,
of Utilities
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order in Room 502 oi the
Administration Building at 2:00 p.m.
1. WOI~KSESSION
Mr. Dodd stated the joint work session between the Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Cormmission had been scheduled to
discuss qeneral and speci£ic issues relevant to the general
direction regarding the quality of life and economic development
of Chesterfield County.
Mr. Daniel presented a brief summary of the issues and explained
the circumstances which precipitated the subsequent formation of
a subcommittee, of Planninq Con~issioners and Board members,
which was charged with addressing growth and development issues
within the County and instructed to bring forth an agenda for
consideration to the full joint bodie~ o~ the Board and
Commission.
Discussion ensued regarding general and specific issues (i.e.,
the general direction of development and the quality of life and
economic development in the County, with specific emphasis on
the impact of density and the road networks as they affect
citizens of the County; the pace and quality of development; the
roles of the Planning Commission and staff; community
86-679
involvement in the planning process; underground utilities;
street lights; mobile hemes; updated General Plan 2000; rezoning
to achieve land use ~onsistency; road front development; private
septic and well systems; signs; protecting future r~ad rights of
way; and establishment of a policy planning group).
It was noted that many of these issues, which arose through the
preparation and public interaction in the process oi the General
~lan revision, are among the issues considered the most
significant and of the highest priority. It was noted that
public concern about Chesterfield's growth and development is
escalating; that residents expect a more rational and organized
approach to assessing and approving development; that residents
and the development community have become increasingly concerned
and active about the quality, pace and costs of development
(i.e., the need for road network expansion and improvement,
managing growth, controlled density, sign control,
commercial/industrial encroachment into residential
neighborhoods, sidewalks, streetlights, utilities, etc.); that
citizens feel Chesterfield's rapid growth experience has and
will continue to negatively affect Chesterfield as a good place
to live; that a "balance of growth" should be considered and a
community definition £or the quality of development established;
that more emphasis needs to be placed on quality planned
development; that a "no growth" philosophy may come without
improvement~ in development standards which could have negative
effects on local referendums and elections as well as the
quality of public servioss and ecencmical development pursuits;
that the governing body of Chesterfield should establish
provisions for hew it wishes the County to develop and market it
that way; that whether Or net the County needs or wants to
provide services to its citizens that are closely associated
with urbanized environments needs to be determined; etc.
It was the consensus that a task force should be established to
addre~ thsse concerns and issues and bring recommendations back
to the Board by January 1, 1987. Those persons selected to
serve on the task force were Mr. Geoffrey Applegate, Mr. Harry
Daniel, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Lawrence Belcher, Mr. Richard
Sale and Mr. Steve ~icas. Mr. Mayes indicated that he felt the
task force should include community representation. The group
agreed there would be ~ample opportunity for community
representation at the time the matter is presented for a public
hearing. There was discussion of a member of the Board of
Supervisors serving on the ~lanning Commission, effective
January 1, 1987, and the benefits which could be derived from
such representation.
DINNER
Tbs Board recessed
dinner.
to the Airport Crosswinds Restaurant for
Mr. Dodd called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at the
Courthouse at 7:10 p.m. (EDST).
Mr. Dodd introduced Mr. John Sherrer, who gave the invocation.
3. ~,nRnG~ OF ALLEGIA~NCE TO ~HE FLAG 0~ 'r~ UNITED STAT~S 0F
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America was recited.
86-680
4. i%~PRO~ALOF
4.A. AMENDMENT TO JUNE 26, 1985 MINUTE8
Mr. Applegate stated he had abstained on the original vote for
Zoning Case 85s035 due to a possible conflict of interest and
again disclosed to the Board that he has ownership interests in
property located in the general area, declared a possible
conflict cf interest, pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Act, and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Pools stated that on June 26, 1985, the Board of Supervisors
considered zoning request 855035 by William B. DuVal, regarding
a large parcel of land generally at the intersection of Route
360 and Nort~ Spring Run Road. He stated the Board, after a
lengthy discussion, approved Mr. DuVal's request, with a
modification relative to house sizes. He stated that as Mr.
DuVal began to develop the project, he advised he did not feel
Condition 17, on page 85-431 of the Board minutes, accurately
reflected the Board's action, with respect to the size of the
homes. He stated staff has carefully reviewed the minutes,
tapes of the meeting and handouts the applicant presented to the
Board members at the meeting and agrees that a correction is in
order to co~rect!y reflect the Board's decision.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
amended page 85-431 of the June 26, 1985 Minutes so that
Condition 17 of Case 85S035 reads as follows:
"17. The following minimum square footage shall govern house
size. Required amenities shall include attached covered
porches, covered stoops, breezeways and garages, which
shall not be included in computing minimum square footage;
One story (Ranch style)
TWO story
One and one-half story
· . . 1,200 finished square feet
· . . 830 gross square feet on
the first floor
· . . 830 grOSS square feet on
the first floor"
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent= Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
4.B. AUGUST 27, 1986
On motion Of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes,
approved the minutes of August 27, 1986, as amended.
Vote~ Unanimous
the Board
5. CO~TYADMINIST~ATOR'S CO~{ENTS
Mr. Masden introduced Dr. John N. Pastore, Chairman of the
Henricus Foundation, who commented briefly about the efforts and
achievements involved in the restoration of Henrfcns Park. He
stated there has been tremendous interest from the citizens of
both Chesterfield and Henrico Counties. He expressed
appreciation for the participation and cooperation of the
governing bodies and administrations of Chesterfield and ~enrico
Counties, as well as the contributions of private enterprises
and tremendous efforts of those volunteers involved in the
project, ae stated his ultimate goal is the formation of a City
of Benricus, of which he anticipates completion within the next
two (2) years. He extended an invitation to the Beard members
to attend the Dedication Ceremony for 375th Anniversary of
Henricus ~cheduled at 11:00 a.m. on September 19, 1986, at the
Henricus Historical Bite.
86~681
Mr. Dodd commended Dr. Pastore for his accomplishments and
expressed th~ Board's appre¢iatien for the enthusiasm which has
been displayed toward the restoration of this historical site.
6. BO~D (D~ITTEE I~EPORTS
It was generally agreed, due to the length of fhe
foreqo the Board Committee Reports.
agenda, to
~Q~ESTS TO POSTPO~ ACTION~ ~ERGENC~ ADDITIONS OR CHaRGES
TN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board added
Item 12.F.6., Set Public Bearing Date to Consider Johnston
Willis Financing; there was discussion of issuinq up
$5,500,000 in Supplemental Lease/~urchasing Financing to fund
the construction of the County Coures Building and it was
generally agreed to defer consideration of this matter until
September 24, 1986; and adopted the agenda, as emended.
Vote: Unanimous
8. P~SO~IONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
8.A. MR. CLIFTON STARGARDT~ ON ATTAINING RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Clifton Stargardt, son of Lt. Col. and Mre.
Kenneth B. Stargardt of Kendelwick Drive, has attained the rank
of Eagle Scout, which is the highest rank awarded to a young man
in the BOy Scouts of America; and
WBEREAS, Clif has been a member of Troop 874 sponsored by
St. Lukes United Methodist Church of Chesterfield, Virginia
since Sept~ber of 1981, and has held several offices in the
Troop and has been very active in the advancement of the younger
Scouts; and
WMEREAS, Clif was the first boy in the Troop elected by his
fellow troop members to be a candidate for the Order of The
Arrow, which is a group of honor campers in Scouting; and
WHEREAS, Clif is a member of the Manchester High School
Show Choir, the National Honor Society and the school sponsored
bands, was selected for Boys' State and has been a me~%ber of the
Virginia Association of Competitive Swimmers team for several
years; and
W~EREAS, Growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship and priding
himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Clif is
indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens
of whom we can all be very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, th~ Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby extends it congratulations to
Clifton Stargardt and acknowledges the good fortune of the
County to have such an outstandinq young man as one of its
citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Clifton
Stargardt and introduced his parents, Lt. Col. and Mrs. Kenneth
H. Stargardt, Scout Master Best and members of Troop 874, who
were also present.
86-682
8.B. Mr. J. RUPFiN APP~RSON POR OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
~ERF2%S, Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson has for the pamt two years
served as the first ~resident of the Matoaca Magisterial
District Advisory Council and while serving in this capacity has
been responsible for outstanding achievements; and
W~RRAS, Mr. Apperson served as an elected representative
from the Dale District on the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County from January 1, 1964 through December 31,
1979; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Apperson volunteered many additional hours of
service to the citizens of Chesterfield County as a
representative on various service and planning organizations
such as the Ruritan Club and as Historian for the American
Legion; and
WHEREAS, as a resident of the Matoaca Magisterial District,
Mr. Apperson has continued his ~crvic¢ to the citizens of
Chesterfield a~ President of the Matoaca Magisterial District
Advisory Council; and
WHEREAS, during his leadership in the Matoaca District the
first concrete plan for a grade separation in ~ttriok was
developed and approval of the Southern Planning Area Land Use
and Transportation Plan, as well as numerous other projects
benefitting not only the Matoaca Magisterial District but the
entire County, were accomplished.
NOW, THEREFORE B~ IT R~SOLV~D, that the Chesterfield County
Eoard of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Apperson's tremendous
community work and applauds his successful term as President of
the Matoaca Magisterial District Advisory Council and wishes him
Success in his continued service to the citizens of Chesterfield
County.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Mayas stated Mr. Apperson was not present; however, the
resolution would be presented to him on September 15, 1986.
Mr. ~edrick stated there were nc hearings of citizens
at this time.
10. DEFERRED ITF24S
10.A. CONSIDERATION OF CENTRAL AI{EA LAND USE AND
scheduled
TRANSPORTATION PI~N
Mr. Poole stated the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing
to consider the Central Planning Area Land Use and
Transportation ~lan on July 9, 1986, at which time the Board
deferred its decision for (60) days and directed staff to
evaluate a number of issues. He stated staff has continued to
review the recommended Plan and has prepared additional
revisions to address Board concerns. He stated staff also met
with citizens of the Salem Church Road area to discuss
alternatives to the proposed collector road between Salem Church
and Lewis Road~. ~s stated, although a number of alternatives
were discussed, agreement was not reached on a recommended
proposal and neither staff nor the community feel that a
consensus will be reached. ~e stated staff is recommending, at
this time, that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Central
Plannln~ Area Land Use and Transpprtation Plan as recommended by
th~ Planning Commission and revised by staff and direct staff to
86-683
proceed expeditiously to revise Ordinances to improve
development standards along the Route 10 Corridor.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt it would be appropriate to reopen the
public hearing to allow additional citizen input.
Mr. Dodd reopened the public hearing on the Plan.
Ms. Janet Farmer expressed appreciation to the Board for its
support and understanding of citizens' concerns with regard to
the proposed extension of Salem Church Read. She requested the
Board consider approval of a citizens' proposal for the Central
Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which would
delete the proposed extension of Salem Church Road, downgrade
the right-of-way of existing Salem Church Road from ~he proposed
ninety (90) feet to seventy (70) feet, and requested that
study be authorized for the establishment of a service road to
run between the projects known as Iront~ridge and Chesterfield
Meadows, such road to be placed a minimum of 600 feet from Route
10. She stated further that the proposed overlay District for
Route 10 should be adopted before future development is
undertaken.
Mr. T. L. Soschen, President of the Salem Woods Homeowners
Association, voiced opposition to the portion of the Central
Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan seeking the
extension of Salem Church Road from Central~a Road to Route 10
at Lewis Road. He stressed area residents unyielding resolve to
oppose the concept of this road because they are convinced the
proposed road will greatly increase the volume of traffic which
already traverses Salem Church Road, raise the specter of
automobile and pedestrian accidents, decrease the aesthetic
appearance of the community, depreciate property values,
increase traffic volumes in front of Salem Church Educational
Plaza which will place area children even more at risk when
attempting to cross Salem Church Road, funnelling traffic off
Route 10 via the proposed roadway is not a viable option,
increasing traffic volumes through a large residential area to
satisfy the present and anticipated traffic increases on a major
arterial such as Route 10 is Unethical, impact of constructing a
four (41 lane thoroughfare through this project will reduce
developer's financial assets and result in less compatible,
cheape~ construction of the development which will have an
adverse impact on adjoining residential properties. He stated
that at some point the Board will have to face the issue of
calling a halt to unbridled growth in Chesterfield County's
commercial and residential areas. He stated the citizens
understand that the proposed extension of Salem Church Road is
an attempt to get a handle on increasing traffic volumes in this
area of the County, however, they are convinced the proposal for
Salem Church Road Extended is an inadequate attempt at growth
control that disregards the well being of those already living
along the Salem Church, Beulah, and Hopkins Roads corridors. He
submitted petitions to the Board containing the slgnaturcs of
182 citizens from the Salem Woods vicinity opposing the proposed
extension of Salem Church Road as proposed in thc Plan. He also
expressed the citizens' appreciation for Mr. Daniel's attendance
at several citizen meetings regarding this matter.
Mr. ~arl Schlenker expressed concern regarding the rapid and
dramatic growth of Chesterfield County and questioned what
action is planned to accommodate the increased growth in the
population and address the overall road problems facing the
County. Re stated that perhap~ the time has arrived for the
Board to Kay that it is time to slow dow]l, evaluate thc present
situation, and determine what the County should look like in the
future and how to arrive at that goal. He stated he believed
that the County as a whole, possibly the entire Richmond
vicinity, needs to step back and reconsider wher~ it is going
and how to get there. He stated the environment in which he
chose to live is pleasing to him, as it is to other residents in
86-684
the area, and he urged the Board to take action before the
Richmond area becomes a land of asphalt and concrete.
Mr. Daniel stated that a joint work session of the Board of
Supervisors and Planning Commission was held earlier in the
a£tornoon at which theze types Qf issues were addressed. Ee
stated the Board and Commission appointed a task force to study
these issues and bring forth a report, targeted for January I,
1987, which would be presented at a future public healing.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the proposed salem Church Road ~xtended,
with respect to the Central Plannin~ Area Land Use and
Trans ortation Plan, is directly related to the main road of the
proposed development in the upcoming zoning case (Case 86S097).
Mr. Peele stated the southern portion of the proposed Salem
Church Road Extended is shown on the Ironbridge Development
Master Plan. He stated, should the Board eliminate the proposed
extension of Salem Church Road from the Plan, the applicants are
seeking approval of amendments to their original conditions of
zoning to be able to respond to and comply with the Board's
action on the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan. Mrs. Girone inquired what would prevent the stub road
from being extended through the next property in the future.
Mr. Peele stated the property to the north is not yet zoned, it
is Agricultural, and would most likely be developed as
residential in the very near future. Re stated the developers
would have to qo through a zoning process to rezone the land and
the subdivision process would address the issue of
extending/connecting the ~tub road to adjoing properties. Be
stated any action the Board would take on the Central Planning
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan would be available to the
Planning Commission and ~taff relative to determining a
recommendation for whethe~ or not the road should be extended.
Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to staff and area citizens for
their efforts on this issue. He stated, even though there were
several areas cf disagreement, he wished to compliment the many
people who participated in the process which produced the
Central Planning Area Land U~e and Transportation Plan. He
stated the overlay plan is in process, the standards have been
drafted and the actual maps will be prepared such that the
overlay plan will be presented to the Planning Co~ission in the
October/November timeframe. Re recommended that the Plan be
adopted, with the elimination of the extension of Salem Church
Road, that the right-of-way of existing Salem Church Road be
downgraded from the proposed ninety (90) feet to ~eventy (70)
f~et and that County staff be instructed to immediately initiate
a study that will identify alternatives ~or the establishment of
a parallel ~ervlce road from the Irenbridge Development to the
Chesterfield Meadows Development, such road to be a minimum of
600 feet fr~m Route 10 and the overlay district of Route 10.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
wHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
adopted the General Plan 2000 on June 22, 1977; and
WHEREAS, Title 19.1, Chapter 11, Article 4 of the Code of
Virginia provides for the preparation and review of a
comprehensive plan for all Virignia localities, and allow
preparation of this Plan in parts; and
WBEREAS~ the Chesterfield County Boa~d of Supervisors
requested that the Chesterfield County Planning Commission
review the existing Plan for the Central Plannin~ Area and to
determine if revisions to the General Plan 2000 were needed; and
WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission has
considered proposed Plan alternatives and has held public
hearings on the proposed Plan revisions; and
86-685
WSERHAS, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission has
recommended that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
adopt staff's Recommended Plan, subject to certain changes.
NOW, THHREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors adopt the recommended Central
Plannin~ Area Land Use and Transportation Plan as an amendment
to the Chesterfield General Plan 2000 to guide future
development and provision of streets and public facilities in
the area except:
1. eliminate proposed Salem Church Road Extended, from its
intersection with Centralia Road to Route 10 at Lewis Road;
and authorize a study for the establishment of a parallel
service road between the projects known as Ironbridge and
Chesterfield Meadows, such road to be placed a minimum of
600 feet from Route 10;
2. downgrade the right-of-way of existing Salem Church Road
from the proposed ninety (90) feet to seventy (70) feet;
3. change the proposed land uses on the east side of Route 10,
and in the vicinity of the Airport, from Sigh Density
Residential Use to Medium High Density Residential Use, and
4. add a note to the Medium Density Residential land use along
Route 10 through Chester to indicate that conversion to
Office Use would be appropriate if carefully conditioned to
protect adjacent residential land useS.
Mr. Daniel stated the general ninety (90) foot right-of-ways
defined in the Plan will certainly be used as a guideline for
reserving necessary rights-of-way for future widenings, but
there may arise situations where it may not be feasible to
require the ninety (90) foot dedication, He stated there are
other major thoroughfares which have been defined a~ ninety (90)
foot corridors, such as Centralia Road, that do provide for the
future widening and improvements but they are corridors which
currently experience much higher traffic volumes.
Mr. Dodd inquired if the Plan addresses the issue that the Route
10 Corridor, west of Chester, would be designated as light
commercial and office use. Mr. Peele stated there are Plan
notes which indicate that the underlying zoning designation of
light commerical and office use could be appropriate on large
scale projects in this area.
Mr. Dodd inquired where the boundaries of this Plan are located
with respect to the Village of Chester and if the area is
designated as Office Use. Mr. Peele stated the Plan terminates
in the area of Interstate 95. Mr. Dodd stated he intended for
the development of this corridor to transition from residential
to office use over the next twenty (20) year period and for such
development to be handled in a quality manner.
In response to a question by Mrs. Girone, Mr. Peele explained
and pointed out the land use designations on the Plan map.
Mr, Dedd expreeeed his appreciation to staff for the many
diligent hours spent on this Plan and the citizens for their
involvement and support.
Vote: Unanimous
10.~. STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNOR'S TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSALS
Mr. Daniel stated he wished to race--end that the Board consider
the resolution and_ statement included in the Board package
recognizing the Governor's concerns,
86-686
Mr. Applegate stated he felt paragraph 6 of the resolution
should reflect $1.5 billion, not $1 billion, in needs for ports,
airports and mass transit within the coming decade.
expressed concern that the Board would be remiss if it did not
object to the fact that the $400 million being proposed for the
ports over the next ten {10) years is to go entirely to Hampton
Roads. He stated there is an on-going study to expand the deep
water terminal or to consider moving the port to a southern
location which could pesslbly be in Chesterfield County.
stated if 15% of the tax dollars is permitted to be allocated to
Tidewater to enhance its economic development, then the best
interest of the Richmond region, and certainly Chesterfield, is
not being considered. He stated he could not support a
resolution allocating $400 million dollars for ports to Hampton
Roads, $250 million for airports, of which the Richmond Region
will only be allocated $25,000, and for the funding of the mass
transit situation in northern Virginia. He stated County
citizens will be paying the increased taxe~ generated by this
proposal as well and he did not think the Board should support
the proposed 15% to go to other localities.
Mr. Daniel stated, in response to Mr. Applegate's comments, it
is a question of whether or not the Board intends to forego the
approximate $300 million that has been identified as
Chesterfield's portion of the allocations. He stated in years
past Boards and members of this County have consistently lobbied
against targeted funding in other parts of the State and the
results have been negative. He stated the Board is aware of the
County road situations and this proposal is designed to address
those issues of which Chesterfield County has been identified as
a recipient of more than, in terms of needs, what has been seen
on paper at any one point in time. He stated the County's
attitude must change. He stated approval of this resolution
will place the Board in support of the process that will
identify the availability of a mechanism which will allow roads
to be constructed in Chesterfield County. Ms stated the
resolution does not address the particulars of who gets what
share. He stated the resolution specifically states
Chesterfield County has contributed $52 million in local funds
for the improvement of the highway system in the County and he
feels very comiortable in supporting this particular resolution.
Mr. Applegate stated there was also discussion to provide
additional funding for the railroads. Be stated he felt this
paper needs additional work and is a matter for the
Commonwealth's General Assembly to address.
Mr. Daniel read the resolution and clarified its contents. ~r.
Applegate stated he did not object to the discussion of highway
tranportation needs but he did not wish to discuss a paper that
proposes to allocate money to other regions. Mr. Daniel stated
he does not support giving up 15% or many of the specifics but
he did support g~tting something done.
MrS. Girene stated she felt it is the responsibility of this
Board of Supervisors to speak for Chesterfield County and the
motion on the floor speaks to the needs of the Commonwealth, not
the County. She stated she has prepared a substitute resolution
which identifies specifically each one of the County's projects,
including the improvements to the Appomattox Bridge into
Petersburg, the port of Richmond and the Richmond International
Airport, aa well as all of the road needs. She stated there is
a scheduled meeting where the Senate and the Eouse of Delegates
will listen to comments from anyone desiring to speak regarding
this issue and she felt the Board should direct its Chairman to
speak on behalf of Chesterfield County's needs, not only
identified by projects but identified through timing, as the
Governor's proposal is a ten year program. She stated that the
86-687
way the resolution is written does not guarantee if or when
Chesterfield will receive the necessary funding to address its
needs. She stated the improvements are needed within the next
£our (4) years, not ten (10) years. She stated her resolution
identifies all the road needs that have been identified through
the Plan process, identifies the needs for the ports, the
Richmond International Airport and it also places a timing on
the proposal, as all these improvements are needed by 1990.
Mrs. Girone made a motion to adopt the following substitute
resolution:
WHEREAS, a e~prehensive transportation network is
essential to the economic growth and prosperity of Chesterfield
County and the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, congested highways, inadequate ports and airports
threaten this economic growth and the quality of life now
enjoyed by our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
established a Commission to analyze and confirm Virginia's
critical transportation needs and to develop alternatives for
planning and financing a comprehensive transportation system
that will address Virginia's needs through the next decade; and
WI{EREAS, the Commission has identified present day critical
needs within Chesterfield County including a grade separation
for Chesterfield Avenue, improvements for the Appomattox Bridge
into Petersburg, widening of Midlothian Turnpike from Providence
Road to Huguenot Road, widening of Ironbridge Road from
Chippenham Parkway to the Chesterfield Courthouse, widening of
West Hundred Road through Chester, widening of Hull Street Road
from Turner Road to Courthouse Road, construction of Route 288
and Route 895, as well as the Chippenham Parkway/Jahnke Road
interchange; and
WHEREAS, the construction of these projects must be
completed by 1990; and
WHEREAS, new initiatives must continue to be developed for
acceleration of VDHaT's construction of the projects; and
WHEREAS, new policies must be developed by VDB&T to promote
and encourage economic development within the Commonwealth; and
local contributions to highway construction must
by the Commonwealth and a matching fund provided;
WHEREAS,
be recognized
and
WHEREAS, better access and expansion of Richmond
International Airport and the port of Richmond are essential to
the economic growth of the Richmond Region; and
WHEREAS, the need for construction of sight and sound
barriers on projects within urbanized areas has bsen expressed
by citizens within the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County supports Governor Daliles in
his efforts to provide an adequate, stable source of revenue for
the commonwealth's transportation needS.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board encourages fhe
Governor to continue his efforts to accelerate the construction
of these critically needed projects.
Mr. Daniel stated that, as a matter of record, everyone of the
County's transportation needs have been documented and approved
by the Board through previous resolutions which have been
presented to the Legislature for consideration.
Mr, Mayes stated he felt the Board should support the original
resolution and encourage the Governor fo take the necessary
86-688
action to obtain the $1 billion per year necessary for
Virginia's transportation needs. He stated a lack of commitment
and action by the County will reenlt in the County getting much
less than needed to accomplish its goals.
Mr. Dodd asked for a second to Mrs. Girone's motion. There
being no second, he declared the motion dead.
In response to a question by Mr. Dodd, Mr. McCracken stated, if
the recommendation were to be approved as presented by the
Subcommittee for fiscal year 1987-88, Chesterfield County would
receive almost $6 million compared to $1.8 million en secondary
roads today or about a 350% increase in the funds, which does
not include the allocation to the Richmond District ~rlmary
System, of which Chesterfield has historically received 30% to
40%.
Mrs. Girone stated the primary money is allocated to the
Richmond District and that is all that is identified in the
Governor's Plan. She stated there are fourteen (14) local
governments in the Richmond District to which the plan affords
$21 million per year, however, the Plan does not state how much
each locality will receive. She stated her resolution states
exactly what Chesterfield want~ from that allocation and
identifies its specific needs. She added that it is the Board's
responsibility to speak for the County's needs and net just
merely endorse a $21 million increase ior the Richmond Region.
Mr. Daniel stated the original resolution endorses the process
that has lead to something happening. Be stated the Board has
articulated the County'~ specific need~ many times and have
spoken to those issues at the appropriate times, however~ now it
is time for final decisions to be made. He stated the Board
should lobby for the specifics again, if necessary. He stated
he felt the Board should support the Governor's proposal.
Mr. Applegate stated the portion of Mr. Dodd~s speech to be
pnesented to the Senate and House Finance Committee which states
that the Board of Supervisors ~ully supports the Governor's and
the Commission on Transportation'$ recommendation for addressing
Virginia'e transportation neede deals with financing and
requested that ~r. Dodd not present that statement on behalf of
the Board. He inquired what would happen if Chesterfield County
does not present a resolution at the public hearing. Mr. Dodd
stated Chesterfield County would probably be left out of the
allocations for improvements. He ~tated many previous requests
have addressed the County's transportation needs and have been
turned down due to a lack of adequate funding to addre~e those
needs. He stated roads need to be built and cannot be built
without adequate funding, however, no one wants to raise taxes
which would generate the revenues to meet the transportation
needs. He stated he supports the Governor's courage to take the
action necessary to generate the funds needed for the
transportation networks and feels the resolution should be
supported. Re stated Chesterfield County has invested $52
million of its own money for road improvements and needs
approximately $300 to $400 million now to maximize and
coordinate the investment.
Mr. Mayes stated that the Board expended a g~eat deal of time at
its work session discussing t~he need for roads, identifying what
is necessary to balance the growth and maintain the quality of
life in the County, all c~ which pointed to the lack o£ roads as
being the most ~ignifioant contributing faet0r of this problem.
He stated he felt supporting the Governor's proposal would be
the means by which it would be possible to remedy the problem.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt that the County's resolution should
identify to the General A~sembly and the Governor specific road
issues as she outlined in her resolution and provide a timeframe
within which to work.
86-689
Mr. Mayes stated the original resolutien is comprehensive and
adequately addresses the County's needs.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adopted the £ollowinq resolution:
WHEREAS, a comprehensive transportation network is
essential to the economic growth and prosperity of Chesterfield
County and the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, congested highways, inadequate ports and airports
threaten this economic growth and the quality of life nOW
enjoyed by our citizens; and
h~EE~AS, the Govenor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
established a Commission to analyze and confirm Virginia's
critical transportation needs and to develop alternatives f0~
planning and financing a comprehensive transportation system
that will address Virginia's needs through the next decade; and
WHEREAS, this Commission has dstermined that the
Commonwealth has more than $10 billion in present day critical
highway construction needs; and
WHEREAS, within a twenty year planning perspective the
Commonwealth will face an additional $10 billion in highway
construction needs; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the
Commonwealth will have more than $1 billion in needs for ports,
airports, and mass transit within the coming decade; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has identified present day critical
needs within Chesterfield County and which must be addressed in
order to provide an adequate transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Chesterfield County support
improvements to the transportation network and have
overwhelmingly approved $52 million in local funds for the
improvement o£ the highway system in Chesterfield County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Beard of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County applauds and supports
Governor Baliles and the Commission for their leadership in
addressing Virginia's transportation needs.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes.
Nays: Sro Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Applegate stated he objected to the method of taking 15% to
fund projects for other localities to enhance their economic
development. Mrs. Girone stated she objected to the fact that
the Board of Supervisors in Chesterfield County did not identify
the need~ of the County in its resolution. Mr. Daniel stated
this Board has passed many resolutions and presented many
speeches to numerou~ Highway Commissions addressing every
transportation need in the County. He stated if the County had
been more supportive Of previous issues it may have not taken
such a long time to get projects, such as Powhite, approved.
10.C. APPOINTMENTS
10.C.1. COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
appointed Mr. J. Norbert Federspiel, representing Clover Hill
District, to the Community Services Board~ whose term is
effective immediately and will expire December, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
86-690
10.C.2. NOMINAT~ONS FOR THE YOUTE SERVICES COMMISSION
It was generally agreed to defer consideration e£ nominations to
the Youth Services Commission to the Septembe~ 24, 1986 meeting.
10.C.3. CAMP BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD
~Lr. Applegate stated Mrs. Peggy Baugh declined the nomination to
the Camp Baker Management Board, as she had been under the
impression the nomination was for the Community Services Board.
He withdrew Mrs. Baugh's nomination and indicated hs would
present another name at a later date.
ll. PINBLICHEA~/NGS
ll.A. 86S097 - VIRGINIA LANDMARK CORPORATION
868097 (AM~NDHDI
In Matoaca Magisterial District, VIRGINIA LANDMARK CORPORATION
requested rezoning from A to R-15 with Conditional Use Planned
Development, B-1 to R-7; R-7 and R-15 to B-l; and R-15 to O;
plus amendments to a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case
78S105) on a 354 acre parcel fronting a total of approximately
4,400 feet on Iron Bridge Road, opposite Lewis Road. Tax Map
114-2 (1) Parcel 2 and 114-6 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Conumission recommended approval of
the request, subject to certain conditions and acceptance of
proffered cohditions. He stated the applicant iE ~eeking
amendments to the original cass in order to maintain the quality
and integrity of the proposed development, not increase density.
Mr. Jay Weinberg, representinq the applicant, p~esented a brief
summary of the request and explained the eight (8) main
differences between the original application and the current
request. Ee stated the amended application is in conformance
with the proposed Central Planning Area Land Use and
Trans ortation Plan and meets the splzit and intent of the
original zoning. He stated the proffered conditions, as well as
the recommended conditions, will help to ensure that the project
develops in a manner compatible with existing and proposed area
development. In response to a question by Mr. Mayas, Mr.
Weinberg stated the proposed request is in conformance with the
requirements of the Southern Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan.
Mr. Peele explained the southern portion of the proposed four
(4) lane parkway road is shown in a similar location where it
was shown and approved by the Board in 1978, however, the
significant change relative to the roadway is the applicant's
request to be relieved of the requirement to construct the four
(4) lane road through the project, if the Board did not require
Salem Church Road to be extended on the Central Planning 6r~3
Land Use and Transportation Plan. He stated the Planning
Commission would review the status of the proposed roadway
network £urther during subdivision review.
Mrs. Girone stated the Board's action removed Salem Church Road
Extended from the Central Plannin~ Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan, however, if thi~ zonin~ request is
approved, as amended, the Board will still be encouraging the
extension of Salem Church Road.
Mr. Daniel stated the modifications to the Central A~ea Plan
stated that County staff will study a collector-distributor road
that would parallel Route 10 which would be no closer than 600
feet to Route 10, that the road can take one of many directions
but the exact location is yet to be determined, that the County
staff will consider and study the proposed location in its
overlay and recercc~end the best possible location for that four
lane road to be e×tended parallel to Route 10 in such a way that
it would tied in with the Chesterfield Meadows Complex.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the balance of that road was going to
stay on this plan.
Mr. Welnberq stated without the amendments the applioant has no
ohoioe but to construct a four lane road from the northern to
the southern most boundary lines of the project; he stated he is
requesting an amendment to the conditions of zoning which would
reduce that road to two lanes, which road will end wherever
Chesterfield County designates.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board ought to vote on that
specific issue as well. Mr. Daniel stated the Board has not
addressed the question as to whether or not the County
Transportation staff feel~ that the balance of the site needs to
be serviced by a four lane road within the project. He stated
that it could be built and still be in accord with the Land Use
and Transportation Plan passed earlier. Mrs. Girone inquired if
the site needs the four lane road to the terminus of the
property or if it needs a two lane road.
Mr. McCracken stated staff will determine the four lane versus
the two lane road when detailed subdivision plans are received
and if the traffic generated by the residential neighborhoods
warrants a four lane road to serve that neighborhood. Mr.
Daniel questioned if the specific zoning requested by the
applicant $tates those facts. Mr. McCracken stated it does, the
flexibility is there that will require a four lane road or a two
lane road, whichever is needed.
Mr. Daniel stated the developer will construct a four lane road
from Lewis Road to the northwest property line which should
ultimately tie in to Chesterfield Meadows; secondly, once
detailed plans are submitted, staff will review them and
recommend whether or not the northeastern portion of that
road network should be four lane or two lane based on the amount
of traffic~ and in any ease, that road will not be in any way,
shape or form connected into Centralia Road at Salem Church
Road.
There was considerable discussion regarding the service road,
the condition that a road may or may not be necessary, etc.
Mr. Weinberg stated there will be no roads in this project
connected to Salem Church Road.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Appleqate inquired as to what the Board is going to ask the
developer to do that is going to connect this property with some
other property to the west. Mr. Daniel stated that as
commercial development continues down Route 10 between these two
developments they will be makinq their "contributions" to the
road network. Mr. Peele stated it is his understanding that the
Board is not asking thi~ developer, or the developer of
Chesterfield Meadows, to build this connection.
Mr. Weinberg stated the road would be built wherever the County
designates it to be and the the road will not b~ taken offsite
or connected to Salem Church Road. Mr. Applegate inquired who
makes the decision where that road will go. Mr. Weinberg stated
the decision is made by the Planning Commission at the time of
86-692
schematic plan review. Mrs. Girone stated that if an OVerlay of
the road within this project were to be placed ov~r the Central
Planning Area Land Use and Transportation ~lan, it would show a
road connection out of this project to ~alem Church Road.
Mr. Daniel stated he disagreed as there are other future zoning
cases that will be in that path which will preempt that from
happening. Re etated the County schematic review process will
identify how much traffic will be generated and the road can be
scaled down from ~our lanes to two lanes anywhere along that
corridor to service the people that live within those
boundaries.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Siggins Associates, Inc., dated A~ril 11, 1986, and the
Textual Statement, dated August 6, 1986, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. For Tract A, curb and gutter requiremente ehell be based on
the Chesterfield County Subdivision Ordinance. For all
other tracts, where curb and gutter are required at the
time of schematic plan review, concrete curb and gutter
shall be installed. Drainage shall be designed so as not
to interfere with pedestrian traffic.
3. Schematic or subdivision approval shall not be given by the
County until the size and location of the lake(s), th~
retention storage volume, and permissible release rates
have been approved by the ~ngineering D~partment. The
plans for the retention basin shall be presented on a
minimum 1":50' grading plan. The design inflow hydrograph
for the lake shall be the SCS 24 hour duration 100 year
storm. (EE)
4. Dams shall be built at elevations such that on-site build-
ings or existing buildings downstream will net be jeop-
ardized should the dams ~ail. A dam failure analysis shall
be performed and submitted to the Engineering Department
for approval prior to, or concurrent with, final road and
drainage plan approval. (~)
Prior to release of any building permits, or recordation of
right of way and/or subdivision plats, ownership and
maintenance of any lake or pond shall be established as the
responsibility of private entities. An indemnification
agreement shall be submitted to Chesterfield County, care
of the Environmental Engineering Department, to save the
County harmless of vectors, maintenance~ and replacement
responsibilities. Upon completion of construction of the
facility, the structural integrity of the dam, the required
storage volume, the i00 year floodplain, and general
conformance of the constructed facility to the design plan
shell be certified by a professional engineer.
6. Storm water will be collected from all developed areas of
Ironbridge through storm drainage systems and transported
to permanent water impoundments located within Ironbridge,
or otherwise be detained or retained, as determined to be
necessary at the time of schema%lc plan review. (EE)
7. Specific roadway improvements set forth in the transporta-
tion proffers are required by the time of full site devel-
opment, and are to be constructed in accordance with the
phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department.
The developer shall provide the Transportation Department
86-693
with additional traffic studies upon completion of each
phase, if requested. Roadway improvements shall be in-
creased or decreased by the developer, as required by the
Transportation Department, if these studies demonstrate
that traffic generation and distributions (solely by this
development) are materially different, as detezmined by the
Transportation Department, from projections set forth in
the traffic study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates,
Inc. for this project. If 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 Transporta-
tion Department. (TI
8. The southernmost access road shall be constructed to a
three (3) lane typical section at its intersection with
Route 10. (T)
9. All public roads shall be bonded te meet State standards
for acceptance into the State ~ystem at the time cf right
of way dedication to the County. (P)
(Note: This condition supersedes Section III. Multi-
family (Tracts F-1 and F-2), paragraph S. Development
Conditions, sub-paragraph 18.
10. The proposed parkway shall stub into the northern property
line in the vicinity of Tracts El, K2, J5 or D. This line
shall be located at least 600 feet from Route 10. The
exact location of this stub shall be approved by the
Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review.
(RS)
Proffered Conditions
A. Traffic Proffered Conditions
1. In COnnection with Schematic Plan Review for portions
of the Property abutting Route 10, additional right of
way shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County so that
the distance between the property line abutting the
right of way of Route 10 and the existing centerline
o£ the right cf way for Route 10 is approximately one
hundred (100) feet.
2. At the time of the first Schematic Plan Review for
development on the Property, an access plan for Route
10, the Parkway, and the northernmost access road
servia9 the Property shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the Planning commission. Thereafter,
modifications to the aforesaid access plan shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
3. To the extent such improvements are inadequate or not
in place at the time of development, the
roadway improvements will be constructed in connection
with the development of portions of the Property
directly served by such roadway improvements, as
specified:
(a} The location of the intersection of th~
northernmost access road to the Property and
Route 10 shall center approximately on the point
of extension of the existing northern boundary of
Parcel 114-5 (1)- 1 and the western boundary of
the Property, as shown on the Chesterfield County
Tax Maps. At the intersection of the
northernmost access road to the Property and
Route 10, a median break will be provided with
two exclusive left-turn lanes for southbound
traffic entering the Property and aa exclusive
left-turn lane for northbound Route 10 traffic.
A left-turn lane, a through lane, and a
right-turn lane will be provided for westbound
traffic on the northernmost access road
88-694
approaching Route lO. Further, a deceleration
lane will be provided for traffic traveling north
on Route 10 to expedite turns onto the
northernmost access road to the Property.
(h) At the intersection of the proposed Parkway,
Lewis Road and Route 10, a median break will be
provided with an exclusive left-turn lane for
traffic northbound turning left from Route
onto Lewis Road, and for a southbound traffic
turning left from Route 10 to the proposed Park-
way. Further, a deceleration lane will be
provided for traffic traveling north on Route 10
to expedite right turns onto the Parkway. At its
intersection with Route 10, the Parkway will have
an exclusive left-turn lane, through lane, and
right-turn lane (a five-lane typical section}.
The Parkway will then taper to a four lane,
divided road at its intersection with the
northernmost access road. It shall then taper to
a two-lane typical section and stub into the
northern boundary of Tract A. The developer
shall be required to build only that portion of
the Parkway necessary to serve development on the
Property.
(c) At the intersection with Edenshire Road, the
southernmost access road to the Property and
Route 10, a median break will be provided with
exclusive left-turn lanes to serve traffic
turning left from Route 10 to the Property or
Edenshire Road. At its intersection with Route
10, the southernmost access road will consist of
one entering lane and one exiting lane. Further,
a deceleration lane will be provided for traffic
traveling north On Route 10 to expedite right
turns into the Property.
(d) The developer will provide traffic signalization
(as warranted) at the following intersections;
(i) the intersection o£ th~ proposed Parkway,
Lewis Road and Route 10; and
(ii) the intersection of the northernmost access
road to the Property and Route 10.
(e) The access road to Tract H-l, north of the
Parkway, will provide a right turn in and right
turn out for traffic generated by development on
Tract H-i.
(f) In connection with development of the Property,
an additional through lane for northbound Route
10 and curb and gutter, adjacent thereto, will be
installed by the developer, phased as approved by
the Planning commission, to correspond with
development of portions of the Property adjoining
the additional through lane.
(g) In connection with the development of Tract J-2,
the developer will provide for the dedication of
a stub road, to provide eventual vehicular aooess
for Property lying south of Tract J-2, to the
southernmost access road serving the Property.
(h) Any deviation from the design criteria set forth
in this Condition 3 shall be permitted only with
the approval of the Planning Commission, at the
time of Schematic Plan or Plan of Development
Review,
86-695
Proffered Conditions Relating to Development Standards
The following proffered oondition~ shall be applicable with
respect to development of Tracts E, E-l, 9-2, J-l, J-2,
J-3, J-4, J-5, K-1 and K-2, except to the extent the
development standards contained h~r~in are modified by the
Planning Commissio~ at Plan of Development or Schematic
Plan Review:
1. Yard and Height Requirements.
(a) ~ards. The following yard requirement shall
apply to any lot or parcel, except as may be
modified by Condition 4, below:
Setbacks along major arterials. All
buildings and drives shall have a minimum
seventy-five (75) foot setback from the
proposed rights of way of major arterials as
indicated on the Chesterfield General Plan,
as amended. [Parking areas shall have a
minimum one hundred (100) foot setback from
proposed rights of way of major arterials.]
The parking area setback may be reduced to
seventy-five (75) feet when parking areas
are located to the ~ide or rear of
buildings. Within these setbacks,
landscaping shall be provided in accordance
with Condition 3, below.
(ii) Front yard. The front yard ~etback shall be
a minimum of forty {40) feet from public
rights of way other than major arterials.
(iii) Side yards. The side yard setbacks shall De
a minimum of thirty (30) feet. The minimn~
corner side yard shall be forty (40) feet.
One (1) foot shall be added to each side
yard for each three (3) feet that the
building height adjacent thereto exceeds
forty-five (45) feet or three ~torie~,
whichsver is less, subject, however, %o the
provisions of Section 21-27 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(iv) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard setback
shall be forty (40) feet. One (1} foot
shall be added to each rear yard for each
three (3) feet that the building height
adjacent thereto exceeds forty~five (45)
fast or three stories, whichever is less,
suDjeot, however, to the provisions of
Section 21-27 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Development Standards.
(a) utility lanes underground. Ail utility lines
such as electric, telephone, CATV~ or other
similar lines shall be installed underground.
This requirement shall apply to lines serving
individual sites as well as to utility lines
nscessary within the project. Ail junction and
access boxes shall be screened with appropriate
landscaping. Ail utility pad fixtures and meters
should be shown on the site plan. The necessity
for utility connections, meter boxes, ets. should
De recognized and integrated with the archi-
tectural elements of the site plan.
(b) Loadin~ areas. Sites shall be designed and
buildings should De oriented so that loading
areas are not visible from any of the project
86-696
perimeters adjoining any "A," "R," "R-TH," or
"R-MF" District or any public right of way.
(c) Architectural treatment. The exterior wall
surfaces (fronh, rear, and sides) of each
individual building visible from a public street
shall be similar in architectural treatment and
materials to the other wall surfaces of such
building. Ne block Or metal buildings shall be
visible f~em any "A," "R," "R-TH" or
District or public right of way. Ail rooftop
equipment shall be shielded and screened from
public view.
(d) Exterior !ight%ng. All exterior lights shall be
arranged and installed so that no direct light
projects into any adjacent "A," "R," "R-TN" or
"R-MF" District or public riqht of way. Lighting
standards shall be of a directional type capable
of shielding the light source from direct view.
(e) Driveways and parking, areas. Driveways and
parking areas shall be paved with concrete,
bituminous concrete, or ether similar material.
Surface treated parking areas and drives shall be
prohibited. Concrete curb and gutter shall be
installed around the perimeter of all driveways
and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so
as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic.
(f) Outside storage areas. Outdoor storage as
permitted by the underlying zoning districts,
provided that all outdoor storage areas shall be
visually screened from public streets, internal
roadways, and adjacent property. Screening shall
consist of either a solid board fence, masonry
wall, dense evergreen plant materials or such
other materials as may be approved. All such
screening shall be of sufficient height to screen
storage areas from view.
Landscapin9 Requirements.
(a) Plant Materials S~ecifications.
~i) Quality.
Ail plant materials shall be living and in a
healthy condition. Plant materials used in
conformance with the provision of these
specifications shall conform to the
standards of the most recent edition of the
"American Standard for Nursery Stock,"
published by the American Association of
Nurserymen.
~ii) Size and
(A) Small Deciduous Trees. Small deciduous
trees shall be of a Species having an
average minimum mature crown sprsad of
greater than twelve (12) £eet. A
minimum caliper of at least two and
one-half (2-1/2) inches at the time
planting shall be required.
(B) La~e Deciduous Trees. Large deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than thirty (30) feet. A
minimum caliper of at least three and
one-half (3-1/2) inches at the time of
planting shall be required.
86-697
(C) Everqreen Trees. Evergreen trees shall
have a minimum height of five {5) feet
at the time of planting.
(D) Medium Shrubs. Shrubs and hedge forms
shall have a minimum height of two (2)
feet at the time of planting.
(iii) Landscaping Design.
(A) Generally, planting required by this
section should be in an irregular line
and spaced at random.
(~) Clustering of plant and tree species
shall he required to provide a pleasing
composition and mix of Vegetation.
(C) Decorative walls and fences may be
integrated into any landscaping
program. The use of such walls or
fences, when having a minimum height of
three (3~ feet, may reduce the amount
of required plant material~ at the
discretion of the Director of Planning.
(iv) Tree Preservation.
(A) Preservation of existing trees is en-
couraged to provide continuity,
improved buffering ability, pleasing
scale and image within the Tracts
covered hereby.
(B) Any healthy existing tree may be
included for credit towards the
requirements of these conditions.
(b) Maintenance.
(i) The owner, or his agent, shall be
responsible for the malntenance~ repair, and
replacement of all landscaping materials as
may be required by the provi~ions of these
conditions.
(ii) Ail plant material shall be tended and main-
tained in a healthy growing condition and
free from refu~e and debri~ at all times.
All unhealthy, dying er dead plant materials
shall be replaced d~ring the next planting
season.
(iii) Ail landscaped areas shall be provided with
a readily available water supply. The
utilization of underground storage cha~ers
to collect runoff to be later used to
irrigate plant materials is encouraged.
(c) Installation and Bendln~ Requirements.
(i) All landscaping shall be installed in a
~ound, workmanship-like mannerand according
to accepted, good planting practices and
procedures. Landscaped areas shall require
protection from vehicular encroachment by
such means as, but not limited to, wheel
stops or concrete or bituminous curbs.
(ii) Where landscaping is required, no
certificate of occupancy shall be issued
until the required landscaping is completed
86-698
(e)
in accordance with the approved landscap~
plan. When the occupancy of a structure is
desired prior to the completion of the
required landscaping, a certificate of
occupancy may be issued only if the owner Or
developer provides to the County a form of
surety satisfactory to the Planning Depart-
ment in an amount equal to the costs of the
remaining plant materials, related materials
and installation costs.
(iii) Ail required landscaping shall be installed
and app~0ved by the first planting season
following issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Arterial Frontage Landscapin9.
Landscapinq shall be required along Route 10
within the required setback of any lot or parcel
and shall be provided except where driveways or
other openings may b~ necessary. The minimum
required landscaping for this setback shall be
provided as per "Perimeter Landscaping B" below.
Perimeter Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required at the outer
boundaries or in the required yards of & lot or
parcel and shall be provided except where
driveways or other openings may be required. The
minimum required landscaping for all outer
boundaries of any lot or parcel shall be provided
as per "Perimeter Landscaping A" below. There
shall be different landscaping requirements as
identified herein, which shall be provided as
follows:
(i)
(ii)
Perimeter Landscaping A.
(A) At least one small deciduous tree for
each fifty (50) lineal feet and at
least one evergreen tree for each fifty
(50) lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
(B) At least one medium shrub for each
twenty (20) lineal feet shall be
planted within the setback area.
(C) LOw shrubs and ground cover shall be
dispersed throughout.
Perimeter Landscaping B.
(A) At least one large deciduous tree for
each fifty (50) lineal feet and at
least one evergreen tree for each
thirty (30) lineal feet shall be
planted within the setback area.
(B) At least one small deciduous tree for
each ~ifty {50) lineal ieet shall be
planted within the $etback a~ea.
(C) A~ lease one medium shrub for each
fifteen (15) lineal feet shall be
planted within the setback area.
(D) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be
dispersed throughout.
OR:
86-699
(f)
(iii)
(A) A minimum four (4) foot high undulating
berm, and
(B) Perimeter Landscaping A.
PerLueter Landscaping C.
(A) At least one large deciduous tree for
each fifty (50) lineal feet and at
least one evergreen tree for each
thirty (30) lineal feet Shall be
planted within the setback area.
(B) At least one small deciduous tree ~or
each thirty (30) lineal feet shall be
planted within the setback area.
(C) At least one medium shrub for each ten
(10) lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
(D) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be
dispersed throughout.
OR:
(A) A minimum 5-6 foot high undulating
berm, and
(B) Perimeter Landscaping B.
Landscaping Standards for Parking Areas.
(i} Interior parking area landscapin9.
(A) Any parking area shall have at least
twenty (20) square feet of interior
landscaping for each space. Each
(ii)
required landscaped area shall contain
a minimum of one hundred (100) square
feet and have a minimum dimension of at
least ten (10) feet. With this
landscaping, parking space size may be
reduced te 9.5x20 or 190 square feet.
(S) The primary landscaping material, used
in parking areas shall be trees which
provide shade or are capable of
providing shads at maturity. Each
landscaped area shall include at least
one small deciduous tree. The total
number of trees shall not be less than
one for each two hundred (200) square
feet, or fraction thereof, of required
interior landscaped area. The
remaining area shall be landscaped with
shrubs and othe~ vegetative material to
complement the tree landscaping.
(C) Landscaping areas shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout and located so as
to divide and break up the expanse of
paving. The area designated as
required setbacks shall not be
calculated ae required land~caped area.
Peripheral parking area landscaping.
Peripheral landscaping shall be required
along any side o~ a parking area that abuts
land not in the right of way of a street
such that:
86-700
A landscaped strip at least ten (10)
feet in width shall be located between
the parking area and the abutting
p~operty lines, except where driveways
or other openings may be required. At
least one small deciduous tree shall be
planked in the landscaped strip for
each fifty lineal feet.
4. Permitted variations in Yard Requirements.
The required minimu~ yards £0~ any lot or parcel may
be reduced with the provision of additional
landscaping:
(a) Setbacks elcn~ major arterials. The required
setback for buildings and drives along major
arterials may be reduced to fifty (50) feet with
the provision of landscaping in accordance with
Condition 3, "Perimeter Landscaping C." The
required setback for parking areas nay be reduced
to ~i~ty (50) feet with the provlsicn of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 3,
"Perimeter Landscaping C," and when such parking
areas are located to the side and rear of
buildings.
(b) Front a~d. The required front yard setback
along public rights of way other than major
arterials may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet
with the provision of landscaping in accordance
with Condition 3, "Perimeter Landscaping C."
(c} Side yard. The required side yard may be reduced
to ten (1O) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 3,
"Perimeter Landscaping B" (except when adjacent
to residential or agricultural districts).
(d) Rear yard. The required rear yard may be reduced
to twenty (20) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 3,
"Perimeter Landscaping B" (except when adjacent
to residential or agricultural districtsl.
There was further discussion regarding the west boundary line,
the collector road, proposed improvements to Route 10~ etc.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the cresent shaped road ~rom Route 10
would remain on the plan. Mr. Peele stated there are several
hundred residential dwelling unite planned in the eastern
portion of the property and the road is one of the ways in which
ko access Route 10 back through the commercial development along
the frontage. Mr. Weir~berg stated constructing this road
is a way of acquiring access and it complies with the approved
Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan and it is
in conformity with what the people who live in this area want.
Mrs. Girone stated she cannot support the motion becaqse she
does not believe this plan conforms to the recently adopted
Cental Planning Area L~knd Uae and Transportation Plan in that it
retains the connector road which some day will create Salem
Church Road Extended.
Mr. Daniel stated this will not happen.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mr. ~ayes.
Nays: Mrs. Girone.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes.
86-701
ll.B. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RUR~IN~ OP L~AUE$
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance relating to
the burning of leaves.
Mr. Howell stated leaf burning is currently permitted in the
County between November 1 and December 1 and between March 16
and April 15, except that no burning is allowed from 12:00 Noon
on Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. He stated during leaf
burning season there is considerable public concern over the
adverse health and other impacts of smoke and many citizens have
expressed an interest in banning this practice. He stated staff
has proposed an area of the County which would be designated as
a "no burning" zone, which would encompass the most populous
areas of the County and where burning would be prohibited at all
times. He stated the "no burning" zone would be divided into
five collection zones and collections would be made in each zone
five times during the period November 3 to April 24, with a four
week interval between collections in each zone. He stated staff
also proposed to place extra trucks and crews in service during
the peak leaf season in an effort to prevent possible backlogs
on pickup service. He then presente~ a map outlining ~he
boundaries of the no burning zones. He stated the remainder of
the County, except for the portions outlined in the no burning
zones, would have the option as to whether on not they burn
leaves during the current, permitted times and the County would
continue its pickup service ae presently of£ered in the portion
of the County permitted to burn leaves. Me stated the County
proposes to publish in the newspapers the designated zone map
with the dates for scheduled pickups in the various zones and
instructions for citizens to call to schedule pickups of their
leaves.
There was discussion regarding the use of a vacuum system. Mr.
Howell stated ~taff has investigated the various alternatives
for pickup service and found that experiences with vacuum
services have not been beneficial in that the machines used are
trouble proned, there is considerable down-time in the operation
of the equipment and such equipment is more functional in areas
where there is defined curb and gutter rather than roadside
ditches. Mr. Hedrick stated that in many areas where vacuum
~ervices have been implemented wind and rain generate problems
as well as present health and safety hazards. Mr. Howell stated
the areas considered for designation as non-burning areas
were because of the density of the population.
Mr. Mayes questioned what type service will be provided to Zone
6. Mr. Howell stated, historically, the demand for leaf pickup
in the County has been heavier in the more urban areas than in
the more rural areas, as most people in the rural areas dispose
of leaves by methods other than pickup service. Ne stated staff
believes that the rural areas can be covered with the existing
truck s~rvice available.
Mr. Julian Christian {Zone 1) stated he is in favor of approval
of the ordinance to ban leaf burning but ~uggested pickup
service for each zone on a daily basis rather than on a weekly
basis.
Mr. Jim Farrar {Zone 4) expressed concerns regarding why
consideration is being given to prohibiting leaf burning, why
developers are permitted to burn off property for two to three
weeks consecutively in preparation for construction and should
not something be done about this process since it is also a
health hazard, who will furnish the leaf bags for gathering the
86-702
leaves for disposition, etc. Mrs. Girone stated the reason for
consideration of the ban is because the smoke from the burning
is a health problem, however, the State issues burning permits
to developers for such purposes.
Mr. Dodd inquired if burning o£f of a garden comes under the
jurisdiction of the loaf burning ordinance. Mr. Micas stated
this process is governed by agricultural burning which is
handled by the Extension Agent.
Ms. Alice Waskey (Zone 3) stated she would like consideration
given to the expense o£ £requent hospitalizations that people
experience during the loaf burning season and the inconvenience
of restricting a child's outside activities because neighbors
are burning leaves. She stated the inconvenience of stuffing
leaves in a bag i~ small compared to the expens~ and
inconvenience of the health problems that result from loaf
burning.
Mr. John Ray (Zone 4) stated he did not enjoy smelling smoke or
burning leaves any more than the next person, however, he did
feel that the County should provide some type of vacuum service
for leaf pickup along side the roads as citizens should not be
required to bag leaves.
Mr. John Sherrer (Zone 5) stated last year he collected and
disposed of 511 bushels of shredded leaves and pine tags~ as his
property is heavily wooded. He questioned if the County
landfills could maintain such capacities. He stated he is not
insensitive to those persons whose health problems are affected
by leaf burning, however, he knows that dry leaves can be burned
with very little smoke and inconvenience to others. He
requested that the Board reconsider' this issue in his area and
continue to allow the burning of dry leaves. He stated that if
the ban were to be approved ~e felt that citizens would be
entitled to vacuum pickup service.
Mr. A1 Putze (Zone'l) stated he feels that leaf burning should
be banned in that it produces very dense smoke and the area in
which he lives is particularly a££ected by this smoke when leaf
burning season is in effect. Ho stated he supports the leaf
burning ban.
Mr. Daniel Patron stated the process of burning leaves in the
County originated forty-five (45) years ago and has been a
common practice since then. He stated he enjoys burning hi~
leaves and does not support the leaf burning ban in his area.
Dr. Kevin Cooper (Zone 1) stated that in his experience leaf
burning is detrimental to people, as 10% of County residents
suffer from respiratory ailments which are further aggravated by
leaf and wood smoke. He stated air pollution is a difficult
matter to deal with in general because people have a right to
pursue their own activities and goals and it is difficult %o
pams laws that prevent people from exercising these rights. He
stated, however, consideration must be given to the effect of
leaf burning on the quality of air as we all breathe the same
air. He stated leaf burning is a matter of convenience and
pleasure £o~ those who enjoy it, whereas it is a matter of not
being able to breathe for those who are suffering and the taws,
on a national scale that pertain to air pollution, are designed
to protect susceptible individuals who do not want the air to
get bad enough so that the average healthy person is bothered by
the quality of the air. He stated the zoning idea is very qood
one because the air pollution problem is not that the entire
County has polluted air, it is a very local problem, and the
densely populated areas should have a complete ban on burning.
Mr. Moo Donaldson (Zone 1) stated he supports a ban on leaf
burning, even though he owns a heavily wooded lot, because he
feels that his health and the health of others is more
86-703
important. 5e stated consideration should be given to the
safety hazards which could evolve from burning, as people burn
leaves within fifty (50) feet of woods and cars and leave the
fires unattended.
Mr. Marvin Boots (Zone 1) stated he supports the program of
anti-leaf burning and feels that the funding of $165,000
allocated for bagged leaf pickup service is insufficient and
should be reviewed to ensure that the service san be
accomplished in the most e£fioient, effective manner. He then
presented a letter of support for the leaf burning ban to the
Board from Dr. and Mrs. William Banks who suffer from allergies
and whose conditions are hfghty irritated by leaf burning.
Mr. Warren Dieterich stated he suffers from emphysema and voiced
support for the ban on leaf burning in his area. ~e stated he
felt the ban should be extended to encompass the entire County.
Ms. Martha Smith (Zone 1) stated she supports the ban on leaf
burning but expressed concerns regarding the excessive amounts
o~ time that would be involved in bagging leaves, that it would
be a physical impossibility for persons with large lots to
collect and dispose of leaves, that leaves may be left piled on
lawns for long periods of time while waiting for County trucks
to pick them up and that the County should provide a vacuum
servloe to accommodate citizens in the non-burn areas.
Mr. Bill Meadows (Zone 1) stated he exerts much energy toward
keeping his property cleared of leaves and expressed concern
of the time required to hal all the leaves from his property.
He stated if the County adopts the Ordinance, as proposed, to
ban loaf burning in the designated areas, then it should provide
relief to the affected citizens through a vaeuum or pickup
service.
Mr. Gordon Hayes (Zone I) stated that in the maintenance of his
property he has encountered the problem of disposing of non-leaf
items such as dead,ails, shrubbery trimmings, ets. and has found
that he cannot accomplish his cleanup task without burning these
items. He inquired ii the leaf burning ban also includez a ban
on the burning of non-leaf trash of the type from properties
that can be burned in a fireplace (i.e., split logs, etc.), if
he has to hire a truck to have such items transported to the
landfills, or if he has to apply for a developer's burning
permit to be able to dispose of them. He stated he did not
think the proposed vacuum service would be beneficial or
practical in disposing of the deadfalls in his efforts to keep
his property clean. Be stated the limitations to the permitted
burning periods designated throughout the County only compound
the problem as the majority of people are all burninq leaves at
the s~me time.
Ms. Eileen Rice (Zone l) stated enduring smoke from adjacent
properties is an invasion of privacy of her home and
detrimentally affects individuals who suffer from respiratory
ailments. She stated she considers leaf burning a health,
safety, pollution and disability issue and voiced her support
for the ban.
Ms. Eula Lucy (Zone ~) voiced opposition to the ban and
expressed concern that the County should not arbitrarily
prohibit the burning without providing a service that will
effectively, efficiently dispose of the leaves and other similar
materials. She stated she felt the highly populated areas
(Zones 1-5) should have the more frequently scheduled pickup
service rather than Zone 6.
Ms. JoAnn Eisen stated she has a five (5) year old asthmatic
child and urged the Board to ban leaf burning as it is a health
hazard and places a tremendous strain on the welfare of those
who suffer with respiratory ailments, particularly the elderly
and children,
86-704
Ms. Marty ~ines (Zone 1) cited statistics as to the present
consensus toward the leaf burning issue, listed the pros and
cons of leaf burning and urged the Board to approve the ban on
leaf burning.
Mr. John smith stated he felt that leaves should be disposed of
in a manner that does not cause harm to other people. He stated
there should be some form of protection frcu~ the effects of leaf
burning afforded to the public schools Idenial of burning within
a 1000 foot radius of each facility) in an effort to prevent
children from being exposed tO such concentrations of smoke. He
suggested that the densities of population be used to determine
the appropriateness of burning.
Mr. Eloff (Zone 2) stated he supported the proposed ban on leaf
burning and requested the proposal be expanded to include
garbage burning. He also requested stricter enforcement of the
Ms. Barbara Andress (Zone 1), on behalf of the American Lung
Association, voiced support for the ban on leaf burning.
Mr. Howard Watson (Zone 4) stated he supported the ban on leaf
burning and suggested that something should be done about the
effects of wood burning stoves also.
Mr. George Rainwater (Zone 4) stated he supports the ban on leaf
burning primarily because it is a health hazard which is
devastating to those who suffer from respiratory ailments.
Ms. Ma~sha Germaine (Zone 1) voiced her opposition to leaf
burning and volunteered to assist the Board, or any
organizations, with the problem in any way possible.
Ms. Jan Murray (Zone 3) mtated she supported the ban on leaf
burning and expressed concern with the plans for collection and
disposal of leaves and suggested a possible solution to this
problem would be the purchase of a new landfill utilized
strictly for the disposal of leaves.
Ms. Grady Culberth (Zone 1) stated the leaf burning season
presents many health problems for persons who wear contact lens.
Mr. Chris Elmore (Zone 1) stated he bags leaves from his yard
because he does not like burning leaves in densely populated
areas as he £eels it is a health and safety hazard. He voiced
support for both the leaf b~rning ban and the pickup services.
Mr. Otis Patton (Zone 3) stated he felt much of the smoke
problem that comes from leaf burning originates from attempts to
burn wet leaves. ~e stated he sees nothing wrong with burning
leaves if it i~ done properly. 5e suggested that perhaps it
would be beneficial to repeal the leaf burning ordinance for a
year and conduct studies to determine how many trucks, staff
members, landfills, etc. would be needed to efficiently and
effectively dispose of leaves and other similar materials and
then permit the citizens of the County to vote on the issue. Be
stated the cost factor will be a tremendous issue and the
$165,000 presently allocated for this project will not be
sufficient to handle the problem.
Mr. Don Unmu~ig stated he did not support leaf burning, but
ielt the issue must be viewed realistically. He stated the
pre~ent proposal is inadequate to meet the needs Of the progra~
and suggested that e study be conducted fo come up with
alternatives. He also expressed concern about the elderly and
handicapped who are not capable of raking and bagging leaves.
Mr. Tom Van A~ken (Zone 1) voiced support ior the leaf burning
ban as he felt that leaf burning is a health and safety hazard.
Approximately seventy-five (75) persons stood in support of the
86-705
leaf burning ban; approximately twenty (20) persons stood in
opposition to the ban.
Mr. Dodd closed the public input On the matter.
Mr, Daniel stated he has a son who suficrs from a respiratory
ailment and lives in an environment where this issue has a
tremendous day to day impact on their personal lives. He stated
if the Board is to move in this direction regarding leaf burning
then the Board should have the tools to fight the battle such as
defining more frequent pickups in the ~oncs, as there is ne way
all the leave~ can be collected with the infrequency of the
presently planned schedule and that a more suitable cleanup
~ystem, whether it be vacuum or something else, that is an
alternative to the tremendous amount of bagging that will be
required. He stated private collection is not the answer as it
is very expensive, q~estioned how much more enforcement will be
necessary to issue the sun, ohs for violations of the ordinance,
what is the status on wood stove burning and should it be
included in the ordinance and questioned the feasibility of
attempting to attract economic development into the County when
leaf burning season is in effect. He stated he supported
banning leaf burning in the County but also want~ it to be
accomplished in an objective manner which provides the tools by
which the County is able to collect and dispose of leaves in an
efficient, clean manner. Be stated it is back tO the
fundamental question of legislation - do you legielate to the
wishes of the majority, as the most recent public opinion survey
compiled by an independent organization at VCU, indicatd that
across all the diztriot~ more than 50% of the population (in
some areas 70%) support the statement of keeping the policy as
it is, while on the otherhand those that are supporting banning
it ranges from a low of 25% to a high of 40% in other
magisterial districts. He sta~ed if the wishes of the majority
rule, the the issue would not be dealt with. He stated on the
otherhand the health, safety and welfare of the citizens that
impacted by this issue need to be considered. He stated perhaps
more time getting facts together on how it will be financed and
implemented is needed between now and November 1 i~ order to
eztablizh zuch a plan.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt there ls time between now and
November 1 to develop a satisfactory plan. She stated the
primary issue is that leaf burning is a health problem and that
~itizens and physicians have voiced their concerns regarding the
issue. She stated ~/nat it is unfair to permit burning and
impose polluted air on other people and it is not in the best
interest of the health of the citizens of the County. She
stated the Board is charged, by law, with the responsibility of
protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and
leaf burning is a health, safety and welfare issue.
Mr. Mayes stated he would like to s~ th~ proposal amended so
some areas could remove themselves from the prohibition and
oth~r sections, outside the prohibition, could have themselves
included. He stated he felt this issue was only a small part of
an overall larger problem. He stated he felt it would be unfair
to ban burning and then provide no relief for those who have to
deal with the leaves and it would be unfair as well not to
provide some type of relief for those people who suffer the
impacts of burning.
Mr. Applegate stated he supported the ban on leaf burning,
however, expressed concern for those individuals on fixed
incomes and those who do not have the physiual capacity for
coping with this problem. Be ~tated he felt the Board needs to
come up with some type oi plan as to how to deal with the
situation regarding the elderly and those persons physically
handicapped.
Mr. Daniel stated that the Board will have to resolve these
types of issues as well as the limited amount of funds which are
available for these services.
86-706
Mr. Midas stated that if the Board were to adopt the ordinance
the specific limitations for the no-burning areas would be
incorporated into the ordinance, but others could not be added
at this time.
Mr. Dodd stated his district is rapidly changing from rural to
urban and he represents a larqe constituency which does not have
the capabilities for dealing with the disposition of leaves. 5e
expressed concern that there are problems with the present
proposal in that the pickup schedule is not practical or
financially adequate for funding the project, that the landfills
are not sufficiently voluminous to handle substantial increases
in their capacities, and that there needs to be an innovatfve
method for handling this problem. He stated he cannot support
the present proposal but would be willing to support a £uture
paper that is fair. Be stated he believes there is a commitment
from the majority of the members of the Board to try to
accomplish a legitimate action which will not burden the
taxpayer and the elderly who have no alternatives. Be stated he
would like to see a real hard look at an innovative process.
Mrs. Girone stated the citizens have indicated they wan= the ban
as proposed in the designated sones. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
be it resolved that the following ordinance be adopted,
effective November 1, 1986, with the proviso that staff develop
an expanded pickup process with minimum pickup being as that
described in the proposal and that staff make a recommendation
as to what can be done regarding the handicapped and elderly:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE CODE
DE THE COUNTY Or CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
BY AMENDING SECTION 10-24t ARTICLE IV,
R~LATTNG TO BURNING OF LEAVES
BM IT 0RDAIN~D by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
Sec. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 Of the Code of the
County of Chesterffeld, 1978, as 8mended, is amended and
reenacted as follows:
Article Iv. .Burnin~ of Leaves
Sec. 10-22. When prohibited. (No Change)
It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the
open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31
o5 any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and
ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84).
Sec. 10-23. When permitted. (No Change)
(a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on
property where they reside during the period beginning March 16
and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this
period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 noon on
Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. Tt is further provided that
during this period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs
within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland, unless
it takes place between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midniqht
(1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84).
Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-u~ service available.
(a) Within the bounds of any area designated by the board
of supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an area in
which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the
board during the periods when leaf burning under section 10-23
above would be otherwise permitted, it shall be unlawful to burn
leaves at any timE.
(b) In the event the beard of supervisors shall choose to
make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above
available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing
86-707
such area by reference to commonly recognized roads,
subdivisions and landmarks in a notice published once a week for
two (2) successive weeks in a newspaper having general
circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least
five (5) public places within the area so designated.
Sec. 10-25. Penalties. (No Change)
Any person violating any provision of this article shall,
upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable
to a iine of not more than five hundred dollars for each
violation.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the Board should deal with the problem
of how to dispose of the refuse of the County and that the time
to do so is now. He stated he felt this problem is just as
serious and warrants as much consideration as making sure that
constituents get clean water. He stated he would like to see a
comprehensive program to deal with refuse including the leaves.
Mrs. Girone stated the issue before the Board is leaf burning
and the other aspects of the refuse issue would have to be
addressed at another time.
~r. Daniel stated he pledged his commitment to this issue in the
form of a resolution that he will vote for some form of a leaf
banning burning ordinance prior to November 1, 1986, and
suggested that the issue be deferred until the next meeting so
that more Consideration can be given to the specific issues
brought up in the previous discussion.
Mrs. Girone stated her motion provides for an adjustment to
allow consideration of these specific issues. She stated
additional funding could be provided from the General Contigency
Fund if necessary.
Mr. Daniel reiterated his position es to opposition to leaf
burning in high density areas and the insurance that other
reasonable viewpoints are given consideration before a final
decision is made.
Mr. Dodd expressed concern that implementation of a total
overall leaf collection service will cost approximately
$500-600,000. He stated he is concerned that nothing innovative
is being accomplished and research on the issue is not complete
and therefore, he cannot support the motion.
Mrs. Girone stated the motion is open-ended and as such will
allow coverage for the entire spectrum of needs.
Mr. Applegate inquired how long it would take staff to address
the questions that have arisen through this discussion. Mr.
Hedrick stated staff has numerous reports addressing this issue
and staff could respond within two weeks.
In response to a question by Mr. Mayes, Mr. Hedrick stated the
total problem has been discussed by the Board on several
occasions, th~ last of which was during the last budget
sessions, and the decision, at that time, was to provide
$165,000 funding to expand the leaf collection program beyond
what was currently funded.
Mr. Applegate seconded Mrs. Girone's motion.
Mr. Mayes submitted a substitute motion for consideration.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, be it resolved that the ordinance be
adopted, with the understanding that the sones be extended in
any other area where people are offended:
AN ORDINANC~ TO AMEND THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTEI~FIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
86-708
BY ~24ENDING SECTION 10-24, ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO BURNING OF LEAVES
B~ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
Sac. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and
reenacted as follows:
Article IV. Burning oi Leaves
Sec. 10-22. When prohibited. (No Change)
It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the
open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31
of any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and
ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84).
Sec. 10-23. When permitted. (No Change)
(a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on
property where they reside during the period beginning March 16
and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this
period, it shall bs unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 nOOn on
Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. It ie further provided that
during this period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs
within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland, unles~
it takes place between the hour~ of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight
(1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84).
Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-up service available.
(a) Within the hounds of any area designated by the board
of supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an area in
which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the
board during the periods when leaf burning under section 10-23
above would be otherwise permitted, it shall be unlawful to burn
leaves at any time.
(b) In the event the board of supervisors shall choose to
make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above
available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing
such area by reference to commonly recognized reads,
subdivisions and landmarks in a notice published once a week for
two (2) successive weeks in a newspaper having general
circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least
five (5) public places within the area sc designated.
Sec. 10-25. Penalties. (No Change)
Any person violating any provision of this article shall,
upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and ~hall be liable
to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each
violation.
Mr. Hedrick stated he believed to accomplieh this action would
require that staff, as those areas are identified, would have to
come back to the Board and hold subsequent public hearings and
go through the Ordinance amendment process each time.
Mr. Micas stated the action of the substitute motion could not
be addressed at this time because the Ordinance presently
requires that to expand or contract the area it has to be
advertised for a public hearing.
Mr. Mayee withdrew his substitute motion.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the existing motion could be amended to
include areas of concentrated density which are presently being
omitted from the ban, if it is determined they should be
included in the next two tO three years. Mrs. Girone stated she
would agree to that amend/~ent.
86-709
Mr. Mayes stated there may be some areas in the Zones 1-5 where
there are no problems and the people should he given relief from
the restrictions; and in Zone 6, where there is an option to
burn leaves, there may appear an area where the ban sheuld be
imposed. He crated the ordinance should include a means whereby
such issues can be addressed and relief provided for ~ueh
situations.
Mrs. Girone inquired if perhaps expanding the designated ne-burn
sones every six (6) months would be acceptable if it were
determined that expansion of the boundaries were necessary.
Mr. Mayes stated he would like the expansion to be able to
occur, if an offense occurs prior to the next meetin~ within
the next two week timeframe so the Eoard could adjust the
boundary lines at its next meeting.
Mr. Dodd inquired if it i~ possible %o remove Bermuda District
from the burnin~ district. Mr. Micas stated such action is
pe~missable. Mr. Dodd stated he would like to remove Bermuda
District from Zone 5. Mr. Mayes suggested removing Matoaca
District as well from the area net allowed to burn.
Mr. Daniel moved that action be deferred for two w~eks.
Mre. Gircne inquired if there could be a statement that the
Board intends to ban leaf burning. Mr. Daniel stated there was
a statement from each board member of their intent. Mrs. Girone
suggested that staff be instructed to develop an additional
pickup process and also some means of aiding the handicapped and
the elderly. Mr. Daniel stated the public knows that the
majority of the Board feels the banning of some form of leaf
burning in the very high density areas is appropriate.
Mrs. Girone stated she would rather defer the issue, with a
statement ef intent to ban burning in designated areas and to
develop an expanded pickup process with a recommendation as to
how the elderly and handicapped will be served.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
deferred coneideration of the leaf burning ban until September
24, 1986, to allow staff time to address iesues raised.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Mica~ clarified that the Board has deferred final action on
the ordinance for two weeks but has closed the public hearing.
It was generally agreed the Board would reCesS for ~ive minu~es.
ll.C. PUBLIC ~EARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERF~LD~ 1978, AS AMENDED,
BY AMENDING SECTION 20-1.31, RELATING TO WATER
CONNECTIONS FEES
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an amendment to Chapter 28 of the
County Code relating to water connection £ees.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Appl~gate, the Board
adopted the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TME COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS A1KENDED~ BY AMENDING SECTION 20-1.31,
RELATIN~ TO WATER CONNECTION FEES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
20-1.31 ExtenSions to serve developed areas,
(a) All extensions of water lines to serve developed areas
shall be paid for by those persons desiring such
extension, unless (1) such extension project has been
formally added as a part of the utility capital
improvement program by the Board of Supervisors or (2)
the Board cf Supervisors approves an extension after
70% of the homeowners in an existing subdivision sign
contracts to connect to the extended water lines
serving their subdivision. Prior to approval Of any
such project, the health department must certify that
a significant portion of the homes have failing well
systems and that it is economically impractical to
repair existing well systems.
(b) When the Board of Supervisors approves an extension
funded through the Federal Community Development Block
Grant Program, administered by the Commonwealth of
Virginia, connection fees may be reduced by up to 90%.
(c) If the total project cost of an extension to a
developed area is fully paid for by the consumers
served by such extension, each conneetlon fee for such
participating consumers who hook Up to the county
water system within 30 days of availability shall be
reduced by up to 90%, provided that the cumulative
reduction in connection fees shall not exceed the
construction costs of the extension. If the
cumulative reduction in connection fees exceeds the
construction cost of the extension, the amount of each
connection fee reduction available to each
participating consumer shall be reduced by an equal
amount until the cumulative reduction in connection
fees is equal to or less than the construction costs
of the extension.
(d) In those limited circumstances where the extension of
a water line using county funds will promote the
economic development of the county and where it is not
practical for the properties to be served to fund all
or a portion of such extension costs, the county may
agree to fund ~uch extensions upon terms and
conditions.
ll.D. CONSIDER PROHIBITION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC
SMOKETP~EE DRIVE
Mr. Bedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider prohibition of through truck traffic,
on Smok~tr~ Drive from Courthouse Road to Durrington Drive and
Lucks Lane from Courthouse Road to Coalfield Road.
Mr. Kussell Gulley, President of the Smoketree Association,
briefly explained the issue and spoke in favor of the
prohibition of through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive £rom
Courthouse Road to Durrington Drive and Lucks Lane from
Courthouse Road to Coalfield Road and submitted copies of a
petition with approximately 250 signatures. He stated he did
not feel the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation's denial of the request to prohibit this through
truck traffic was justified.
Mr. John Smith voiced opposition to the prohibition Of throuqh
truck traffic as it will have an adverse impact on the
businesses in the area.
86-711
Mr. ~cCracken req~asted that transcripts from previous hearings
on this issue be included as part of the public record.
Mr. Dod~ excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Jimmy Crockett stated he supported the ban on through truck
traffic, however, he agreed that truck transportation is the
lifeblood of our nation. Re stated overloaded, oversized trucks
should not travel through densely populated areas such as the
Smoketree ~ubdivision.
Ms. Cathy Venable expressed concern for the safety of the
children in the Smoketree Subdivision and voiced support for the
prohibition of through truck traffic. She stated there are
alternate routes available to truck drivers that would not cause
inconvenience to them and make these roads safer.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
Mr. Otis Patton stated he is a professional tractor-trailer
driver and feels that truck drivers should not be denied the
right to travel the public roads as they~ too, pay taxes which
help pay for the roads. He stated such actions as this place
unnecessary burdens on the drivers.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
W~REAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
received requests from citizens to restrict through truck
traffic on Smoketree Drive (Route 2770) between Courthouse Road
(Route 653) and Durrington Drive (Route 2566) and on Lucks Lane
(Route 720) between Courthouse Road (Route 653) and Coalfield
Road (Route 754] by any truck oX truck and trailer or
semi-trailer combination except pickup or panel trucks; and
WI{B~EAS, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the
question.
MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ~oa~d of
Supervisors requests that the Virginia Department of Righways
and Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on
Smoketree Drive between Courthous~ Road and Durrington Drive and
on Lucks Lane between Courthouse Road and Coalfield Road.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate noted that Smoketree South, Sachems Head,
Mansfield Crossing, We~gewood, and Evergreen are included in
this action. He stated a truck attempting to travel from Spirea
Road to Courthouse Road, considering the condition of Lucks
Lane, would have a great deal of difficulty in getting to its
destination.
ll.E. CONSIDER CON%~yANCE OF OLD UTILITIES DEPARTMENT STORAGE
YARD AT 5025 WALMSLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF RIC~LMOND
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised £ez a
publle hearing to consider conveyance of the old Utilities
Department etorage yard at 5025 Walmsley Boulevard in the City
of Richmond.
Mr. Welchcns was present.
There wae no one present to address the matter.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the sale of 5.55 acres with improvements located at
5025 walmsley Boulevard to David B. Allen, Inc. for $50,000.00,
the sale being contingent upon the purchaser being able to
obtain approval by the City of Richmond for 16 building lots on
the property; and authorized the County Administrator to sign
86-712
the contract and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County
Administrator to execute the deed on behalf of the County upon
approval of the final document by the County Attorney.
ll.F. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 12-FOOT
ALLEY WITHIN THE VILLAG~ 0F BENSLEM
Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider adoption of an ordlnance te vacate a
12-foot alley within the village of Bensley.
No one came forward to address the issue.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 12 foot alley within The Village
of Bensley, Bermuda Magisterial District Chesterfield
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 3, at page 192 through 195.
WHEREAS, Florence G. Gagne has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 12'
alley within The Village cf Bensley, Bermuda 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 3, paqe~ 192 through 195, made by
Paul King, C.E., dated May 1920. The right of way petitioned to
be vacated is more fully described as follows:
A 12 foot alley within The Village of Bensley, the location
of which is more fully ~hown, shaded in red on a plat made
by Paul King, C.E., dated May 1920, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and
WBEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the Drainage Easement sought to be vacated except as hereinafter
outlined.
NOW THeReFORe, ~ IT ORDAINED BY TB~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.i-452(b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid right of way 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 0rdinanae,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section
15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee
simple title to the centerline of the alley hereby vacated in
the property owners 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 Florence G.
Gagne, widow; Christine C. Weymouth; Kathleen B. Newland, widow;
Mark and Nancy K. Middleton, husband and wife; William C. and
Mary Ellen Bowman, husband and wife; Kathleen O. Jackson, widow;
Hermank and Carrol Ann Cooke, husband and wife; Lawerence J. and
86-713
Frances F. Klebert, husband and wife; Linwood Gordon Jr. and
Linda S. Bennett, husband and wife; Dorothy Fanley Bennett,
widow; Wilbur J. Ford et al; Jimmy R. and Hazel J. Medlin,
husband and wife$ Hugh V. and Anna S. winston, husband and wife;
Leon D. Johnson III or their successors in title, as grantee.
Vote: Unanimous
12.
12.A. FINAL APPROVAL OF SITE FOR GROUP HOME SERVING FIVE
MENTALLY RETARDED INDIVIDUALS
Dr. Lowe stated that an acceptable site has been located for the
housing of five mentally retarded individuals which meets legal
and VHDA requirements. He stated this property will be
purchased with a loan from VEDA and loan payments as well as
utility costs are covered through VHDA Section 8 rent subsidie~
and other operating costs will be covered with existing MH/MR
funds.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, in accordance
with virginia Code Section 36-55.39(B), the Board hereby
certifies approval to the Virginia Housing Development Authority
of the project for a group home site at 4105 and 4107 Stella
Court (Dale District) for five mentally retarded pereons and
hereby authorizes the Chairman to execute any necessary
certifications to this effect.
12.B. INCREASED COMPENSATION TO VOLUNTEER FIP~MEN RESPONDING
TO CALLS
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved increased compensation to volunteer fireman from $1.00
per call to $3.00 per call, total funding in the amount of
$29,000 to be expended from the General Fund, to be effective
December 1, 1986, whlsh begins the next payment cycle for the
volunteer payment.
12.C. SHORT-TE~d4 OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR NORTHERN AREA
LANDFILL
Mr. Micas stated that, although the Board authorized the award
of the new contract for the Northern Area Landfill to the lowest
responsible bidder, Walter C. Link, Inc., on February 12, 1986,
the County delayed the actual execution of the new five-year
contract because of pending litigation from S.G.S. Construction
Company, Inc. and its owner Mr. Robert L. Snow. He added Mr.
Snow has until September 25, 1986, to appeal the Court's
decision, and staff reeormmends delaying the execution of the
Link contract until September 26, 1986. He added, however, the
present contract expires September 14, 1986, and staff
recemmend~ that an operations contract for the period of
September 15 to September 25 be awarded on an emergency basis as
an extension of the old landfill contract, with payment to be
made on a per diem basis based on the new contract amount until
the new five-year contract could be executed with Mr. Link on
September 26, 19S6. He stated Mr. Link's attorney indicated
that this arrangement is acceptable.
Mr. Link indicated he was not in agreement with Mr. Micas'
statement that this arrangement is acceptable to him.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt it was the duty of staff to award this
contract to Mr. Link, ae the award of the contract had nothing
86-714
to do with whether or not the case was going to be appealed.
Mr. Micas stated the Board, in its action on February 12, 1986,
approved the award of %he bid~ not the form of the contract. He
stated what the Beard presently has before it is an attempt to
bridge a two week period between the expiration of the current
contract and the end of the appeal date on the existing lawsuit.
He stated the contraot has not been awarded as there is concern
that there remains during the appeal period the risk that the
case would be appealed and ultimately there might be an award in
favor of Mr. Snow which would leave the County in a position of
having to pay two operation contracts. He stated this action is
an effort to protect both the interest of the bidder and the
interest of the taxpayer. He stated the award of the operations
contract, On an emergency basis, covering the period of
September 15 to September 25, contains a proviso which ensures
Mr. Link's protection, in that he will be paid $4,000 to cover
the cost of a performance bond in the event the new five-year
Mr. Hedrick stated that when the Board authorised the award of
the new landfill contract to the lowest responsible bidder,
Walter C. Link, Inc., the County entered into negotiations and
there was a point of contention involving a clause that the
County was attempting to negotiate to protect the County's
interest in the event the County was net suCCeSsful in defending
the lawsuit. He stated adding this clause was not unfair to Mr.
Link because the County's recommendation, should it not have
been successful in satifactorily negotiating that clause, would
have been rebidding.
Mrs. Girone stated it was her understanding that the Board would
approve the contract, waive the need for a bond until Mr. Link
could achieve a bond and that th~ County Attorney would provide
him documentation that the Board had so voted on the issue.
Mrs. Girone moved that the Board approve and authorize the
County Administrator to execute an agreement with Walter C.
Link, Inc. for the extension of the existing landfill contract
until September 25, 1986, with an added provision that subject
to certain conditions the County will pay Mr. Link $4,000 to
cover the cost o£ his performance bond in the event the new
five-year contract is never executed.
Mr. Hedrick stated in the event Mr. Link does net sign the
agreement he would reoe~m~end that the County enter into an
emergency contract for emergency services to operate the
landfill with a vendor that will provide the service and that
the contract would be rebid.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the County has not handled this
situation well and that if the County authorized the bid to be
awarded to Mr. Link it should have been awarded to him. He
stated ii the County had a problem after that it should have
faced the problem and not placed a burden on Mr. Link.
Mr. Hedriek stated he felt that there were no improprieties in
the manner in which this case had been handled and that staff
had followed proper procedures.
Mr. Dodd stated the Board would pass over this item for the
present time and instructed the Clerk to the Board to bring the
minutes from the previous meeting, at which this issue was
discussed, in order to clarify the situation. The Board
proceeded to the next item on the agenda.
I2.D. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Sheriff Wingo explained this request is to approve the concept
for relocating the Magistrates Office from the courtroom area to
the jail, hiring additional deputies and building a 2,200 square
foot addition to the Jail, the purposes of which are to minimize
86-715
)otential contact between the public and prisoners, provide
additional space at the Jail to house the Magistrates as well as
)rovide additional lobby and administrative space for the
)ublic, and permit the Sheriff's Office to assume the
responsibilities of booking and administering breathalyzer
tests.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the concept of moving the Magistrate, hiring additional
deputies, and adding 2,200 square feet extension to the Jail and
inetructed staff to conduct a coat-benefit analysis of the
proposed changes and bring a report to the Board, which item
shall be included in the Capital Improvements Program which is
currently being developed.
Vote: Unanimous
12.P. APPOINTMENTS - METROPOLITAN PLANNING 0RGANIMATION AND
APPOMATTOX RIIrER WATER AUTEORITY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
nominated Mr. John McCracken and Mr. Richard Sale to serve as
alternates to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, whose
formal appointment will be made on September 24, 1986; the Board
also nominated Mr. Richard Sale to serve as an alternate to the
Appomattox River Water Authority, whose formal appointment will
be made on September 24, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
12.F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITPMS
12.F.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALL~TION COST APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. Appleqate, meoonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred c0n~ideration of street light installation coat
approvals for the intersection of Cadillac Trail and Claybar
Trail in the Clover Hill District and the intersection of
Edgemere Boulevard and Falstone Road and Vauxhall Road and
Vauxhall Court in the Dale District until September 24, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
12.F.2. STP~ET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved the installation of street lights at the following
locations with funds to be expended from the District Street
Light Funds as indicated, except for Dale District which
estimates on each item to be brought back to the Board for
consideration:
1. Intersection
District;
2. Intersection
3. Intersection
District;
4. Intersection
5. Intersection
District;
6. Intersection
7. Intersection
District;
Intersection
District;
9. Intersection
District;
10. Intersection
11. Intersection
of Malibu Steer and Wood Dale Road, Bermuda
of Seti Court and Cogbill Road, Dale District;
of Canasta Drive and Old Zion Hill Road, Dale
of Omo Road and Cyrus Street, Dale District;
of Dorlus Drive and Cyrus Street, Dale
of Omo Road and Canute Drive, Dale District;
of Cyrus Street and Phobus Drive, Dale
Of Cyrus Street and Amasis Court, Dale
of Cyrus Street and McBeth Court, Dale
of Omo Road and Lothaire Court, Dale District;
cf Necho Court and Omo Road, Dale District;
86-716
12. Intersection of Canute Drive and Leopold Circle, Dele
District;
13. Intersection of Phobus Drive and Phobus Court, Dale
District;
14. Intersection of Totila Court and Omo Road, Dale District;
15. Branders Bridge Road and Temple Avenue, Matoaca District;
16. Temple Avenue and Veranda Lane, Matoaca District; and
17. Colonnade Drive and Temple Avenue, Matoaca District.
Vote:
12.C. SHORT-TERM OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT POR NORTHERN AREA
LANDFILL
Mr. Link stated he cannot obtain a periormance bond without a
contract, however, if the Board were to waive the performance
bond, provide him with documentation that would certify he had a
commitment for a bond to extend his two weeks of operation and
agree to pay $30 or $40 for the costs of the performance bond,
the agreement would be acceptable to him.
Mr. Mayes c~ented that Mrs. Girone's motion covered these
conditions. Mr. Micas stated the only condition, to which Mr.
Link referred, is that if ultimately Mr. Link is awarded the
long term five year contract the County would not he required to
pay the performance bond costs. Mr. Micas stated that, assumin9
no appeal is filed, the County is committed to entering into the
contract with Mr. Link effective September 26, 1986; if an
appeal is filed, the issue must be brought back before the Board
for a decision. Mr. Link stated this would be agreeable to him.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an
agreement with Walter C. Link, Inc. for the extension of the
existing landfill contract until September 25, 1986, with an
added provision that subject to certain conditions the County
will pay Mr. Link $4,000 to cover the cost of his performance
bond in the event the new five-year contract is never executed.
Vote: Unanimous
12.F.3. CONSIDER RESTRICTION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON OLD
STAGE ROAD
Mr. Dodd stated no one is living on Old Stage Road and inquired
as to why there is a request to reetrict through truck traffic.
Mr. McCracken stated the residents living along Old Stage Road,
Lanter Laner Bermuda Place Drive and 01d Bermuda Hundred Road
have petitioned for a restriction of through truck traffic on
Old Stage Road from Wa~e Bottom Sp~ing Road to 01d Bermuda
Hundred Road. Mr. Dedd stated he could not eupport thi~ regue~t
and would reco~end denial as there are no appropriate alternate
routes. After a b~ef diSCussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board table
consideration of prohibiting through truck traffic on Old Stage
Road.
12.F.4. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COUNTY CODE BY ADDING PERMIT
FEES FOR ELEVATORS, ESCALATORS~ DUMBWAITERS AND
MANLIFTS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Maye$, the Hoard set
October 8, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider
adoption of an ordinance to amend the County Code by adding
permit fees for elevators, escalators, dumbwaiters and manlifts.
Vote: Unanimous
86-717
12.F.5. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE P~MA
EXPRESSWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Daniel stated he could not support the proposed resolution
regarding the RMA Expressway a~ written and suggested
modifications. It was generally agreed the modifications would
be acceptable.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, citizens of Chesterfield County use the Richmond
Expressway System to commute from Chesterfield County to the
City of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, the Richmond Expressway System is currently
experiencing some capacity problems at toll plazas, access
ramps, and mainline sections during peak hours; and
WHEREAS, the RMA has initiated a study to consider
improvements to the Expressway System to relieve this
congestion.
NOW, THEREFOP~, B~ IT RESOLVED, that the Hoard of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County supports RMA's efforts to
provide relief for the congestion on the Expressway System; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hoard urges the RMA Hoard
of Directors to consider all means of financing the necessary
improvements ~o that a toll increase will be avoided.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER JOHNSTON-W%LLIS
FINANCING
Mr. Hedrick atated Johnston-Willis Hospital is seeking financing
for a wellness facility to be constructed in the Roger Centerl
South, which project will result in better health facilities for!
citizens of Chesterfield County and will lower the cost of
health care, and be in the public interest. ~e ~tated
Johnston-Willis wishes to use approximately $2,000,000 of the
proceeds of bonds issued in 1985 by the Industrial Development
Authority of Henrico County, principally for the benefit of
non-profit hospitals throughout virginia. Ee stated State law,
as well as the financing documents, require the approval of the
Board of Supervisors in any County where proceeds are to be
spent.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
set October 8, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., for e public hearing to
consider Johnston Willis Financing, subject to legal
requirements that a public hearing is necessary.
Vote: Unanimous
12.G. CONSENT ITEMS
12.G.1. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICER
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
hereby respectfully requests that the Circuit Court Judger
appoint Mr. Richard A. Normando as a Police officer for
Chesterfield County, effective September 15, 1'986.
Vote: Unanimous
12.G.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wit~
86-718
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Candlelamp Lane in Candlelamp ~ast, Matuaca
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Candlelamp Lane
in Candlelamp East, Matoaca District, he and it hereby is
established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that %he Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Candlelamp Lane, beginning at
the intersection with Spring Run Road, State Route 654, and
going 0.10 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department o~ Highways drainage
This road serves 9 lots.
And be it further resolved,
guarantees to the Virginia
right-of-way for this road.
Candlelamp East is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 45, Page 100, May 29, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
that the Board of Supervisors
Department 0£ Kighway$ a 50'
RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUP~RVIS0RS AUTHORIZING T~
REPLACEMENT O~ A COUPON FOR CHESTEF~FIELD COUNTY BONDS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized Central Fidelity Bank to pay Frank
Cherry for lost coupon ~7 of the 1982 Chesterfield County Public
Improvement Issue, valued at $237.50 and due December 15, I985,
based on his affidavit of loss and insurance policy indemnifying
the County sgainst double payment.
Vote: Unanimous
12.G.4. REQUEST FOR BINGO/~PLE PERMIT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Apptegate~ the Board
approved the request for a raffle permit for the Ettriek Youth
Sports Association for calendar year 1986.
V~te: Unanimous
12.H. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS
12.N.1. RIGKT OF WAY ISSUES
12.H.l.a. CONDEMNAT~0N OF WATER EASEMENTS FOR WOODS EDGE ROAD
12.K.l.a.1. ~EIRS 0P JO~N JEFFR%ES
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners i£ the amount
as set opposite their name~ is not accepted. And b~ it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on September 11, 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 i~tmediate
fish= of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
86-719
The Heirs of John Jsf£rie~
John Anthony Jefferson
Michael Jefferson
Mitchell Jefferson
Shela Christine Jefferson
Yvonne Michelle Jefferson
Vote= Unanimous
Woods Edge Road $85.00
12.H.l.a.2. HEIRS OF HEZEKIAK AND EARRY JONES
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded hy Mr. Applegate, the Board
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 September 11, 1986, of the County's
intention to enter upon and tak~ the property which is to be the
subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an
emergency basis and the County intendm to exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
The Heirs of Hezekiak and ~arry Jones Woods Edge Road $640.00
~ezekiak Jr. and Barbara Jones
Stanley and Queen Jones
Ruth Jones
Ruby Jones
Theda Stepp
Judith ~velyn Jones
Robert Jones
William Jones
Vote: Unanimous
12.H.l.b. REQUEST FROM VIRGINIA LANDMARK CORPORATION FOR AID
IN ACQUIRING SEWER EASEMENTS FOR IRON BRIDGE TRUNK
SEWER
On motion of Mr. Mayes, secended by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorize the Right of Way Manager to aid Virginia Landmark
Corporation in acquiring two sewer easements across the property
of Ernest P. Webb and property owned by James L. Reynold~ and
David T. Evans along Great Branch for the Iron Bridge Trunk
Sewer, provided the developer executes a contract with the
County agreeing tO pay for the costs involved.
Vote: Unanimous
12.H.l.c. QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR PORTION OF WATER AND SEWER
EASEMENT ALONG ROUTE 1/301
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he owns property which will
be served by this sewer extension and he has entered into a
private agreement with East Coast regarding this project,
declared a conflict of interest, pursuant to the Virginia
Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from
the meeting.
On motion of Mr. Mayee, seconded by ~rs. Girone, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to
execute a quit claim deed for the western 10 fact of a 20 foot
wide water and sewer easement and a 10 foot construction
easement to East Coast Oil Corporation along Route 1 and 301 at
Route 10; and further the Board authorized the Right of Way
Manager to exchange the quit claim deed with East Coast 0il
Corporation for the new easements.
Ayes= Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
86-720
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
12.H.2. CONSENT ITEMS
i2.H.2.a. CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF STEEL GATES AT FALSIN~
CREEK DA3{
On motion of Mrs. ~irene, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard
approved and authorized the County Administrator tO execute the
necessary documentm to award Contract Ne. W86-104B for the
replacement of ~teel gates at Fallin~ Creek Dam to the low
bidder, RECO, in the amount of $97,110.00, which funds were
previously appropriated in the 1986-87 Capital Improvement
Budget.
Vote: Unanimous
12.N.2.b. DEED OF DEDICATION OFF 0TTERDALE ROAD EXTENDED FROM
$O~DtERVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORTATION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized th~ County Administrator, on behalf of
the County, to execute a deed of dedication accepting the
conveyance of a 60' and variable width strip of land off
Otterdale Read Extended from $ommerville Development
Corporation. (A copy of the plat Ks filed with the papers of
this ~eard.)
Vote: Unanlmeus
12.H.2.c. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG HUGUENOT ROAD FROM HUGUENOT
FOREST ASSOCIATES
On motion cf Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator, on behalf of
the County, to execute a deed of dedication accepting the
conveyance of a 20' strip of land along Huguenot Read from
Huguenot Forest Associates. (A copy of the plat if filed with
the papers of this Beard.)
Vote: Unanimou~
12.H.2.d. DEEDS 0F DEDICATION CONVEYING SUttPLU$ PROPERTY FROM
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
Un motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator, en behalf of
the County, to execute two deeds from the Chesterfield County
School Beard accepting the conveyance of five surplus parcels.
(Copies of the tax ~aps are filed with the papers of this
Boards).
Vote; Unanimous
12.H.2.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG JEFFERSON DAVIS EIGRSqAY AND
WILLIS ROAD FROM SOUTHLAND CORPORATION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator, on behalf of
the County, to execute a deed of dedication accepting the
conveyance of a 5' strip of land along Jefferson Davis Highway
and a 15' strip of land along Willis Road from Southland
Corporation. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of
this Eeard.)
Vote: Unanimous
86-721
12.H.2.i. VACATION OF PORTION OF 16' WATER EASemENT WITHIN
BEAUPONT MALL SHOPPING CENTER
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Hz. Daniel, the Beard
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to execute a quit claim deed to vacate a portion
of a 16' water easement within Beaufont Mall Shopping Center.
(A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board-)
Vote: Unanimous
12.H.2.9. AGRMMMMWT WITH VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILIT±~$ ON
ROUTE 288
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an
agreement, on behalf of the County, subject to approval oi the
County Attorney, with Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, Project 0288-020-102, C501, for adjustment of
utilitiee on proposed construction of Route 288 from Route 10 to
Route 1 and 301, the project being responsible for bearing 100%
of the cost for both water and sewer adjustments.
Vote: Unanimous
12.H.2.h. AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR UTILITY
RELOCATION ON CENTRALIA ROAD AT HOPKINS ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an
agreement, on behalf of the County, subject to approval o~ the
County Attorney, between the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, Baldwin and Gregg, Ltd. and the County of
Chesterfield to employ Baldwin and Gregg, Ltd. to design the
relocation o~ the County water facilities on project
0145-020-101, RW201, the engineering services covered under this
agreement being 58% State cost and 42% County cost. Funds for
the County share of engineering were appropriated in the 1986-87
Capital Improvement Budget.
12,H.3. REPORTS
Mr. Welchone presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
12.I. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Contingency Account, General ~und Balance, Road
Reserve Funds and District Road and Street Light Fund~.
Mr. Hedrick stated the Virginia Department o£ Highways and
Transportation has formally notified the County of the
acceptance of the following street~ into the State Secondary
System:
Additions Length
Salisbury Heathland - Section B
Route 902 (Salisbury Read West) - ~rom 0.30 mile
southwest of Route 714 to Route 1338 0.23 mi.
Route 1338 (Chepstow Road) - From 0.03 mile west ci
Route 3382 to Route 902 0.27 ~i.
86-722
Additions Length
Route 3384 (Chepstow Terrace)
a northwest cul-de-sac
Route 3385 (Tunsher9 Terrace)
southeast cul-de-sac
- From Route 1338 to
- From Route 902 to a
0.16 mi.
0.1~ mi.
Heatheridge - Sections 1, 2, & 3
Route 3275 (Clivedor Court) - From Route 1421 to a
southeast c~l-de-sac 0.09 mi.
Route 3276 (North Vickilee Road) - From Route 1421
to 0.04 mile southeast of Route 1421 0.04 mi.
Route 3277 (Battenburg Place) - From Route 1421 to
a northeast cul-de-sac 0.08 mi.
Route 3278 (Battenburg Court) - From Route 3277 to
a southeast cul-de-sac 0,09 mi.
Tinsberry Trace - Section 5
Route 1264 (Silvertree Lane) - From 0.03 mile north
of Route 1273 to 0.10 mil~ north of Route 3234 0.19 mi.
Route 3234 ($ilvertree Court) - Prom Route 1264 to a
north cul-de-sac 0.15 mi.
P~nnwood - Section 4
Route 3162 (Pennbrook Drive) - From Route 2181 to
0.05 mile south of Route 3163 0.21 mi.
Route 3163 (Pennbrook Court) - From Route 3162 to
a southeast cul-de-sac 0.10 mi.
86-723
Mansfield LandinG
Route 3340 (Smoketree South Parkway) - Fzom 0.01 mile
southeast of Route 3349 to Route 3341 0.15 mi.
Route 3332 (Mansfield Lending) - From Route 3340 to
a southwest cul-de-sac 0.11 mi.
Route 3333 (Mansfield Terrace) - From Route 3332 to
a southeast eul-de-sac 0.12 mi.
Route 3334 (Mansfield Circle) - From Route 3333 to
a southeast cul-de-sac 0.03 mi.
Cabin Creek - Sections C-I & C-2
Route 2245 (Boones Trail Road) - F:om 0.02 mile west
of Route 3253 to 0.03 mite southwest of Route 3257 0.22 mi.
Route 3254 (Conestoga Place) - From Route 2245 to a
south cul-de-sac 0.15 mi.
Route 3255 (Long Tom Lane) - F~om Route 2245 to 0.07
mile south of Route 3256 0.15 mi.
Route 3255 (Long TOm Lane) - From Route 3255 to a
southwest cul-de-sac 0.06 mi.
Route 3257 (Boone~ Trail Court) - From Route 2245
to a south cul-de-sac 0.04 mi.
Additions
Route 832
Route 832 (Robious Crossing Drive)
to 0.60 mile north of Route 711
- From Route 711
Inge Wood Acres
Route 2842 (Inge Wood Circle) - From Route 632 to
a WeSt cul-de-sa~
Iron,ate - Sections 2 & 3
Route 3024 (Turngate Road) - From Route 3025 to
Route 3029
Route 3029 (Gateline Drive) - From Route 3025 to
Route 3029
Route 3029 (Graymoss Road) - From Route 3028 to a
Route 3026 (Sandrock DriVe) - From Route 3025 to a
north cul-de-sac
Route 3028 (Gateline Drive) - From Route 3025 to
0.08 mile north of Route 3031
Route 3030 (Turnway Lane) - From Route 3025 to 0.05
mile north of Route 3031
Route 3031 (Bryanbell Drive) - From Route 3030 to
0.04 mile east of Route 3028
Route 3032 (Ironside Drive) - From Route 3031 to
0.03 mile north of Route 3031
Rid~efield
Route 3321 (Moorwood Ridge Drive) - From Route 647
to a north cul-de-sac
Route 3322 (Moorwood Ridge Terrace) - F~om Route
3321 to a we~t cul-de-sac
Route 3323 (MOOrwood Ridge Court} - From Route
3321 to a west cul-de-sac
Route 3324 (Meorwood Ridge Circle) - From Route
3321 to a northeast cul-de-sac
Great Oaks - Section 4
Route 3090 (~rookridge Road) - From Route 3092 to
0.08 mile southwest of Route 3160
Route 3159 (~rookridge Way) - From Route 3090 to
a southeast cul-de-sac
Route 3060 {Brookridge Place) - From Route 3090
to a south cul-de-sac
Hilmar - Section B
Route 1972 (Autur~nleaf Drive) - From 0.03 mile west
of Route 3191 to Route 1973 - West
86-724
Length
0.60 mi.
0.17 mi.
0.10 mi.
0.10 mi.
0.14 mi.
0.07 mi.
0.25 mi.
0.14 mi.
0.16 mi.
0.03 mi.
0.19 mi.
0.04 mi.
0.04 mi.
0.03 mi.
0.36 mi.
0.04 mi.
0.03 mi.
0.27 mi.
Route 1973 (Winte~leaf Drive) - From 0.03 mile west
of Route 3192 to 0.02 mile west of Route 3191 to
0.02 mile west of Route 1972 0.11 mi.
Route 3297 (~lmleaf Court) - From Route 1972 to a
southwest cul-de-sac 0.06 mi.
Route 3298 (Grapeleaf Drive) - From Route 1972 - North
to Route 1972 South 0.19 mi.
1~. ~DJO~
On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seoonded by Mr. Applegate, %he Board
adjourned at 12:15 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. on September 24, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
~ich~
County Administrator
R. Ga~an~ Dodd ~
Chairman ~
86-725