10-22-1986 Minutes BOA~DO~ S~RVISORS
October 22, 1986
Supervisors in Attendance: Staff in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. E. Applegate
Mrs. Joan Giron~
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Eedrick
County Administrator
Mrs. Doris DeEart,
Legislative Coord.
Chief Robert Eanes, Fire
Department
Mr. Gary Fenton, Chief of
Recreation
Mr. Bradford S. Eam~mer,
Aeet. Co. Adminietrator
Mr. Robert aodder,
Building Official
Mr. William Howell, Dir.,
General Services
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., ~nv. ~ng.
Mr. Robert Masden, Asst.
Co. ~d~. for ~an
Services
Mr. Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir., News/Info.
Mr. Richard Nunnally
VPI/SU Extension Agent
Mr. William D. Peele, Act.
Dir., Planning
Budget & Accounting
Mr. Richard F. Sale, Asst.
Co. Adm. for Development
Mr. M. D. stith, Jr.,
Exec. Asst., Co. Adm.
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.~
Utilities Department
Mr. Frederick W. Willis,
Management
Mr. Dodd called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at the
Courthouse at 9:10 a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Hedriek introduced Reverend Edward Garrett, Pastor of the
Providence United Methodist Church, who gave the invocation.
A moment of silent prayer was obsarved in memory of Dr. A.
Martin, a past Board of Supervieers member for the Midlothian
District, who recently passed away.
2. PLEDGE OF ~GIANC~ ~O '£~ FLAG f~F THE ~NI'r~u STATES OF
The Pledge of Allegiance to the
America was recited.
Flag of the United States of
86-804
3. APRROVALOF~u'r~
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the minutes of October 8, 1986~ as ~mended.
Vote= Unanimous
4. COUNTY ADMINIST~ATOR'$
Mr. Hedriok introduced Mr. Frank Douglas, reporter for the Times
Dispatch, who is replacing Mr. Mike Williams.
Mr. Gary Fenton briefly explained that, in an effort to provide
an enjoyable and safe Halloween, the Parks and Recreation
Department will again sponsor its "Halloween Howler" program, in
oonjunction with the "Haunted Forest" program being presented by
the Chesterfield Jaycees and WRXL FM 102, outlined the activi-
ties to be provided and encouraged participation.
5. BOA~D CO~4I'r-r~-~- REPORTS
Mr. Mayas stated he visited the World Food Conference and
attended the Chesterfield County Business Council breakfast, at
which support of the proposed County charter was endorsed. He
stated he attended a meeting of the Chesterfield County Pollu-
tion Prevention League, at which he thought the proposed County
charter was to be discussed. He stated he was distarbed to
learn that State representatives were present discussing water
pollution problems in the County and there were no County
representatives present. He stated ha had inquired and was
informed that the County had been invited. He stated serious
concerns were expressed which disturbed him deeply. He stated
he felt some steps should be taken to find out what responsi-
bility, if any, the County has, etc. Mr. Dodd stated he, too,
had bean extended a late invitation to the Pollution Prevention
Leagues' meeting; however, he had two previous commitments which
prevented his attending this meeting.
Mr. Applegate stated the Metropolitan ~lanning Organization for
the month was cancelled; however, he attended the Long-Range
Planning Committee of Syrd International Airport and the Ground
Transportation Committee.
Mrs. Girone stated she also received a late invitation to attend
the Pollution Prevention League meeting; however, a previous
commitment prevented h~r attendance. She stated she conveyed
the necessary information· as to whom the caller should contact
if he desired to request attendance of County staff at such
meetings. Mr. Hedrick stated that part of the information to be
discussed regarding water pollution will be discussed in the
Executive Session during today's meeting.
Mrs. Girone stated she attended a meeting at which the Richmond
Regional Planning District Com/uission voted to support a phos-
phate detergent ban, as the buildup in the James River has been
identified as a point source problem. She stated if the ban
were implemented, if the General Assembly were to vote in favor
of a Statewide detergent ban, the County could expeot to save on
the cost of chemicals in the treatment plants. She stated the
RRPDC was the first in the state to endorse the ban and suggest-
ed a similar resolution be adopted by the Hoard. Mr. Daniel
stated he received a notice that the Hanover Board of Supervi-
sors has also approved such a resolution and it would be proper.
86-805
Mrs. Girone added that all the member jurisdictions at the last
meeting voted for the re~olution to support a ban at the next
session of the General Aeeembly.
Mrs. Girone stated she attended the Governor's Conference on
Infant Mortality and the Women's Roundtable discussion on
teenage pregnancy; attended the Senior Hall of Fame Awards
program and attended the laying of the cornerstone for the Human
Services Building.
Mr. Dodd stated he had attended various meetings on behalf of
the County.
Mr. Dodd introduced Lt. Marvin Starnee who preeented the Board
with a Defensive Driving Course award from the National Highway
Council at their national conference in Chicago for the best
performance by a County nationwide in this program. Mr. Dodd,
on behalf of the Board, commended Lt. Starnes and his staff for
the m~rited achievement.
6. R~QUESTS TO POST~ONE ACTION, ~ERGENCYADDITIONS OR CHM~IC~S
IN T~ ORDER OF PI~SEI~TATION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Hoard
d~l~ted Item ll.E.i.a.3., Authorization to Proceed with Condem-
nation of e Sewer Easement across the property of Richard A. and
Susan H. Alekna; added Item I1.E.4., Approval of the Purchase of
a Site for the Robious Fire Station; added to existing Item
ll.D.2., State Road Acceptance, Eairpines, Sections 1,2, and 3;
added Item ll.E.5., Utility Extension - Economic Development;
added to Item ll.G., Executive Session, consultation with legal
counsel concerning the Chester Landfill, Clapp versus Chester-
field County and Smith versus Chesterfield County, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) and (6), respectively, of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended; and adopted the agenda, as amended.
7. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
7.A. MR. LOUIS E. ALLEN UPON RETIREMENT, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Welchone introduced Mr. Allen and briefly outlined his
experience and dedicated service to the County.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Louis E. Allen will retire from the Cheeterfield
County Utilities Depar~ent on October 31, 1986; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Allen has provided 31 years o£ quality service
to the customers of the Utilities Department; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Allen was employed on April 29, 1953, with the
Water Distribution Section and later worked with the Wastewater
Collection and Wastewater Treatment Sections of the Utilities
Department; and
WNEREAS, Mr. Allen attained a Class II, Wastewater Operator
License from the State of Virginia, and kept abreast of rapidly
advancing technology in the wastewater treatment field by
attending both in-house and State sponsored training programs;
and
WHEP~EAS, Mr. Allen, as a Shift Leader, served as a source
of knowledge to fellow operators and new employees; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Allen has been truly instrumental in the
development and operation of Chesterfield County's wastewater
treatment facilities; and
86-806
WHiP--AS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mr. Allen's diligent service.
NOW, TN~09~ BE IT RESOLV~D, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Allen and extends
on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County
their appreciation of his service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution
be presented fo Mr. Allen and that this resolution be perma-
nently recorded amonq the papers of this Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimon~
Mr. Dodd presented Mr. Allen with the executed resolution and,
on behalf of the Hoard, wiehed him well upon hie retirement.
7.B. CONTRIBUTORS PARTICIPATING FINANCIALLY TO THE MAZARDOUS
WASTE DAY
Nr. Nunnally presented a brief update on the Hazardous Waste Day
p~ojeot and recognized Ms. Susan Craik and Ms. Carolyn Lohr, who
coordinated the activity, for an outstanding job. He stated 232
citizens participated in the event by bringing in their house-
hold hazardous materials and were ably assisted by various
County departments. He stated the event, in addition to being
supported by the Board of Supervisors, was partially funded
through the financial contributions of local businesses. MS.
Susan Craik recognized the following contributors and their
representatives:
~.I. DuPont de Nemours Mr. Tom Robertson
Shoosmith Brothers Mr. Dick Cobbs
Virginia Power Ms. Nancy Carmichael
Philip Morris Mr. Stu Pouliot
C & P Mr. Gene Autry
ICI Americas, ~opewell Works Mr. Wayne Hewett
Ukrop's Mr. Richard Taylor
Safeway
Johnston-Willis Hospital
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Chesterfield residents are faced with the problem
of disposing of their household hazardous wastes in a safe and
legal manner; and
WHEREAS, State and Federal regulations prohibit disposal of
these materials in landfills in Chesterfield County; and
WHEP~EAS, the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation coordinat-
ed the first Chesterfield County Household Hazardous Waste
Disposal Day on October 4, 1986; and
WI~Et~EAS, a project of this magnitude is only possible
through the joint efforts of the public and private sectors; and
WHEREAS, E. I. DnPont de Nemours, Shoosmith Brothers,
Virginia Power, Philip Morris, C & P Telephone, ICI Americas,
Inc., Hopewell Works, Ukrop's, Safeway and Johnston-Willis
Hospital made significant contributions toward the success of
this event.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R=SOLVgD, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors gratefully acknowledges the support of E.
i. DuPont de Nemours, Shoosmith Brother~, Virginia Power, Philip
Morriz, C & P Telephone, ICI kmericas, Inc., Hopewell Works,
Ukrop~s, Safeway and Johnston-Willis ~ospital; and
86-807
BE IT FURTheR RESOLVED, that the Board hereby recognizes
the continual corporate support vital to providing this worth-
while Service to County residents.
vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone presented the contributors' representatives with the
executed resolution and expressed the County's appreciation for
the cooperation and efforts of all thos~ involved in the pro-
Mr. Hedrick recognized Ns. Susan Craik for her talents in
coordinating and completing the many tasks assigned to her and
commended her for a job well done.
7.C. CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL H~IGHT$ MULTI-DISCIPLINE TEA24
Ms. Jean Smith stated the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Multi-
Discipline Team on Child Abuse truly represents the concerns and
efforts of the community and its many human service agencies,
law enforcement, schools and private citizens, has served a
vital role in the community involving children's issues and the
members have contributed greatly to more collective and coopera-
tive working relationships among all agencies. Ms. Suzanne
Flemming introduced the following members of the Multi-
Discipline Team who were present: Ms. Dot Jones, Ms. Barbara
Bennett, Ms. Barbara ~epler, Ms. Dionne Taylor, Ms. Jane Earris,
Ms. Nan McKenney, and Ms. Mary Leu Schumaker.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Multi-
Discipline Tea= on Child Abuse and Neglect has been in existence
~ince 1976, and is represented by law enforcement, public
schools, human mervice agencies, and concerned citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Multi-Discipline Team has developed many
educational materials and participated in area-wide public
awareness programs to assist the com~unlty in reporting and
preventing child abuse and neglect; and
W~R~AS, the individuals of the Team have given of their
time and talent for a common purpome and have worked in a
cooperative and coordinated manner for the well-being of
children and their families.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors recognizes the many individuals who have
contributed to the important work of the Chesterfield-Colonial
Seights Multi-Discipline Team, and expresses appreciation for
their achievement in combating child abuse and neglect.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd commended the members of the Multi-Discipline Team for
their efforts and success.
7.D. 25th ANNIVERSARY OF TH~ COUI~TY MUSEUM
Mrs. Mitchell stated that, in the 1950's, members of several
Ruritan Clubs joined together to fol~m the nucleus membership of
a museum committee, which subsequently led to the appolnt~nent of
an official Museum Committee by the Board of Supervisors in
1961, responsible for initiating the collecting, preserving and
interpreting of the County's hiEtory. She introduced Mr. Edward
Moseley, Chairman of the Museum Committee; Mrs. Lucille Moseley,
Director of the Museum; Mr. Zane Davis, Mr. Thomas B. McGuire
and Mrs. Arline McGuire, members of the Museum Committee.
86-808
On motion of the Beard, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, eight County Ruritan Clubs joined together to
provide the nucleus membership for a Museu~ Conm~ittse in the
late 1950's; and
WHERHAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
appointed an official Museum Con~uittee on November 8, 1961; and
WHEREAS, from that date the collection was gathered
together and displayed in exhibit cases in the Courthouse
corridors; and
WHEREAS, in 1976, as a Bicentennial project, the recon-
struction of Chesterfield County's first courthouse was begun to
house the growing collection, end after four years o~ pain-
staking research and energetic fund-raising, this building was
dedicated on July 4, 1980 as the Chesterfield County Museum; and
WHEREAS, visitation to the Museum has increased steadily
during the past five years to over 5,000 visitors in 1985, and
the collection has grown to include a professionally designed
exhibit displaying artifacts that tell the history of the County
from prehistoric times into the 20th Century; and
WHEREAS, the Museum has received national acclaim by a
grant from the Amerlean Asso¢iatlon of Museums, and statewide
recognition through a grant from the Virginia Foundation for the
Humanities; and
WHEREAS, the Museum now has two part-time staff members
supplemented by 26 dedicated volunteers who serve the public
five days each week a~ interpreters.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Hoard of Supervisors does hereby congratulate the Chesterfield
County Museum Committee and stuff for 25 years of diligent
collecting, preserving and interpreting the history of the
County~ and wishes the Museum great success as it continues to
grow and serve the expandin9 population of the County.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel requested that the Board give serious consideration
to offering the Museum Committee first prerogative for use of
the Old Courts Building for office space, etc., once it is
decommissioned as a court facility and that the facility be
incorporated into the Museum Complex. Mr. Dodd stated the
Museum is a source of pride to the County and commended the
group on their achievements and success.
7.E. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC. TO CHESTERFIELD
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Stith introduced Mr. Tom Reynolds, representing E. I. DuPont
de Nemours and Company, Inc., who presented awards to Chief
Banes honoring the County Fire Department's Dive Team, Hazardous
Incident Team and Technical Services unit for their partici-
pation in the Company's August, 1986 Job Safety Fair. Chief
Eanes expressed appreciation ~or the recognition and honor
bestowed upon the department. He recognized M~. Gordon Church
and Mr. Lynn Church, also from E. I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company, Inc., who were instrumental in assistinq the Fire
Department with various projects.
Mr. Redrick stated there were no hearings of citizens scheduled
at this time.
86-809
9. D~E~DITEMS
9 .A. CAMP BAKER MANAGEMENT BOAPJ)
Mr. Applegate stated Dr. Hunfoerto Gomez has indicated he would
be unable to serve on the Camp Baker Management Board. Ee
withdrew Dr. Gomez's nomination and indicated he would present
another name at a later date,
9.B. YOUTH SERVICES COMMIBSIOE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. M~yes, the Board
appointed Mrs. Artyn Gardner, representing Clover Hill District,
and Ms. Ki~tberly Willis, representing Matoaca District, to the
Youth Services Commission, whose terms are effective immediately
and will expire June 30, 1989 and June 30, 1990, respectively.
Vote: Unanimous
9.C. DRUG ABUSH TASK FORCE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appointed the following persons to serve on the Drug Abuse Task
Force, whose terms are effective immediately and will be at the
pleasure of the Board:
Mr. Charles Keen
Mrs. Judy Pamber
Mr. Dennis M. Stone
Mr. Michael MacNeilly
Further, the Board nominated the following persons to serve on
the Drug Abuse Task Force,
made on November 12, 1986:
Mr. Richard W. Spikes, Jr.
Mr. Thomas Park
Ms. Janice Carlisle
Vote: Unanimous
It is noted that nominations
Bermuda District
Midlothian District
Midlothian District
Clover ~itl District
will be
whose formal appointments
Matoaca District
Matoaca District
Clover Hill District
for Dale District and Bermuda
District will be made at a later date.
9.D. MUSEUM COMMITTEE
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appointed Mr. Preston ~olmes to serve on the Museum Committee,
whose term is effective immediately and will b~ at the pleasure
of the Board.
P~BLIC ~F~%RINGS
o TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF A LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN
AS TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCM
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the lease of real property to Trinity
United Methodist Church.
Mr, Micas stated the Board of Bupervisors previously approved
the purchase of the Trinity United Mathodist Church property at
Ironbridge and Krause Roads for $i72,500, the Circuit Court has
86~810
entered an order approving the sale by hhe Church membership and
the transaction is ready to be finalizsd. Be stated, as part of
the conveyance, the Church desires to lease the property from
the County until June 30, 1987 at no cost, during which period
the Church would be responsible for the payment of utilities and
insurance and the County would have nc obligation to make
repairs. M~. Micas stated, as the insurance provision of the
lease provides, the Church will purchase insurance which pro-
rides insurance and liability coverage for the County, proof of
which will be provided at closing.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary documents, at closing, once all sontingencies in the
sales contract have been satisfied, leasing property known as
Trinity United Methodist Church at Ironbridge and Krause Roads
from the County back to Trinity United Methodist Church until
June 30, 1987.
11. ~EWBUSI~ESS
ll.A. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC ~EARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
AMENDING TEE CODE OF TH= COUNTX OF CHeSTeRfIELD, 1978,
AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 6-1.1, RELATING TO
INSTALLATION OF FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
set November 26~ 1986, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to
consider adoption of an ordinance to amend the County Code by
requiring that fire suppression systems be installed and main-
tained in full operating condition in certain buildings, said
buildings being defined as those classified in the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code as Use Groups B, R-1 and R-2.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B. P~QUEST FOR NEW POSITIONS FOR ASSESSOR~ LICENSE
INSPECTOR AND COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
Mr. Hammer stated recent increases in workload resulting from
commercial and residential growth have caused staff to request
the addition of four appraisers in the Assessor's Office, one
deputy inspector in the License Inspector's Office and Qns
auditor/assessor in the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. He
stated fun~ing for these positions will come from additional
revenues generated in business license, personal property and
real estate (current and delinquent) tax revenues and the
addition of thes~ positions will aid the County in collecting
current revenues which could remain uncollected due to a short-
age of adequate staff.
Mrs. Girone cor~aended staff on the preparation of the justifica-
tion for this request and made a motion for approval of the
request. Mr. Dodd seconded the motion.
Mr. Daniel stated he thought this issue had been discussed
during the budget process, as he had specifically raised the
issue as to how the assessor positions would pay for themselves.
He stated the answer given was that we would generate the
revenue to pay for ths assessors but the Board collectively
voted to leave the assessors out. He stated he would like
additional information about the costs to hire these indivi-
duals, how much more money than that is the County treasury
~oing to return, etc. Ne stated concern about amending the
86-811
budget, etc. end ~uggested the issue be deferred for further
input.
Mr. Bedrick ~tated, during the budget p~oce$~ this item was
discussed; however, the Board neither acted positively or
negatively On the issue.
Mr. Mayes moved to defer the matter for thirty days so that Mr.
Daniel's concerns could be further studied. Mr. Daniel seconded
the substitute motion.
Mrs. Girone stated the County has an obligation to perform these
tasks efficiently, the statistics indicate the positions will
pay for themselves and the additional revenue generated will
benefit the County. Mr. Daniel stated there has been no docu-
mentation indicating that money is being lost over existing
organizational structures.
Mr. Hammer stated the revenues currently being collected, in
terms of the volume~ of transactions needed to enter into the
assessment systems, strongly indicate that the staff is neces-
sary just to keep up with the current transactions and if such
staff is denied, a backlog will occur and revenues will not be
collected, On a timely basis, that are needed to meet the
current projection~ or exceed p~ojectiens as expected if staff
is added. He stated if the additional staff is not added at
this time staff will be a year behind in training effective
people to keep up with growth alone. Mr. Eedrick stated staff
fully expects that the positions will pay for themselves many
times over, however, it is not possible to predict how much in
additional revenues the positions will generate.
Mr. Daniel stated every year, after the budget is approved,
requests for more and more people are submitted. He stated he
would like staff to bring back information indicating how much
it is costing the County by not having the additional staff and
how much the County will gain in revenues when such staff ie on
board.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Hr. Daniel, the Board
deferred the request for new positions and related costs for the
Assessor, License Inspector and Commissioner of Revenue Offices
until November 26, 1986, at 9:00 a.m.
ll.C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
ll.C.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approv-
ed the street light installation cost for the intersection of
Mineola Drive and Centralia Road, in the amount of $853.00,
which funds are to be expended from the Bermuda District Street
Light Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
With respect to the status of street light in~tallation~ on
Temple Avenue, Mr. McElfish stated the requests have been
submitted to Virginia POwer fief processing.
11.C.2. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approv-
ed the request for a street light on Lake Hill Road, with the
funds to be expended from the Dale District Street Liqht Funds;
and further the Board denied the requests for street lights on
North Spruce Avenue and at the end of Heather Stone Drive in
86-812
Bermuda District because they did not meet established criteria.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd requested that Mr. McElfish respond to the individuals
requesting street light installations on North Spruce Avenue and
at the end of Heather Stone Drive as to the reasons why these
requests do not meet the criteria.
11.C.3. TRAFFIC CONTROL AT FIVE FORKS
Mr. McCracken stated on May 21, 1986~ the Police Department, at
the Board's request, began directing traffic at the Courthouse
Road/Five Forks intersection from 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00
p.m. each weekday. He stated since the initiation of that
action the volume of traffic at the intersection has signifi-
cantly increased and long delays to motorists on Courthouse Road
have occurred, with backups occasionally exbending as far north
on Courthouse Road as Qualla Road in the morning and as far
south as the prison in the evening. He stated staff feels that
if the hours of active traffic control were reduced to 7:00-8:00
a.m. and 4:45-5:45 p.m., the delays to Courthouse Road traffic
could be reduced while still providing police assistance to
approximately 65% of ths side street traffic. He stated the
Police Department has expressed concern regarding the safety of
its officers directing traffic through the upcoming months since
it will be dark during the hours of traffic control and has
requested a street light be installed at the intersection to
help improve visibility. Me stated he had contacted Mrs.
Little, of the Pocahontas Pioneers, and discussed the problem
with the traffic congestion on Courthouse Road; however, she
still felt that traffic control is needed at the intersection.
He stated she indicated they could support the reduction in the
active traffic control hours as long as the Police are available
on a standby basis.
Mr. Mayes expressed concern regarding the safety factor in this
area should the Board reduce the hours of active traffic con-
trol, with standby assistance provided for the remainder of the
period.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt the hours of active traffic control
could be reduced in the morning with no problems.
Mr. Mayes stated the primary reason for having the police direct
traffic at this intersection was the safety factor and this
action will negate that purpose.
Mr. Applegate stated numerous constituents have called him
complaining about the traffic backups on Courthouse Road caused
by delays from the traffic control. Be stated staff's proposal
to reduce the hours of active traffic control will accomplish
the Board's original goal of providing a safety factor without
having the police officer actively direct traffic for two hours
in the morning and the evening.
Mr. Mayes stated he could not support the concept that the
police directing traffic cn Courthouse Roa~ is causing backups
or that the hour~ of active eraffic control should be red,ced.
On motion Of Hr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved a reduction in the hours of active traffic control to
7:00-8:00 a.m. and 4:45-5:45 p.m. each weekday with standby
assistance to be provided for the remainder of the 7:00-9:00
a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. period at the Courthouse Road/Five Forks
intersection; directed staff to monitor the revised traffic
control plan and prepare a report for the Board; and directed
staff to pursue the installation of a street light at the
Courthouse Road/Five Forks intersection through normal channels.
86-813
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. ~ayes.
11.C.4. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
~UPP~M~NTAL ALLOCAT~0N HEARING
Mr. McCracken stated the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation will conduct a public hearing at the Richmond
District Office, at 9:00 a.m., on November 5, 1986, relative to
supplemental construction funds that will be available for the
Richmond District primary, interstate and urban highway systems
as a result of the legislation passed in the 1986 special
session o~ the General Assembly. Re stated several primary
projects are of vital concern to the County and should be
addressed at the public hearing.
Mr. Mayes requested that discussion of this item be delayed
until such time as the Board has had an opportunity to ~ead the
revised statement which is to be presented at the allocation
hearing. Mr. Dodd stated the item would be heard at a later
time during the meeting.
ll.D. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.D.1. FY87 PJ~VITALIZ%N~ VOCATIONAL ~U%DA~CE GP~kNT FOR SCHOOL
$¥$TE~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the ~oa~d
increased the School Board Grant Fund by $7,000 for receipts and
expenditures which will cover a grant recently received from the
State, entitled "Expanding Vocational Guidance Services to
Assist Students in Career and Job Exploration," to expand
vocational guidance services. It is noted that no County funds
are involved.
ll.D.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writin~ upon his
exaraination of Fairpines Road, Fairpine~ Court, South Jessup
Road, East Banes Court, West Banes Court~ East Denny Court~ West
Denny Court, Brambleton Road, Berryridge Terrace and Meterie
Court in Fairpines, Sections 1, 2 and 3, Clover Rill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Falrpines Road,
Fairplnes Court, South Jessup Road, East Banes Court, West Banes
Court, East Denny Court, West Denny Court, Brambleton Road,
Berryridge Terrace and Meterie Court in Fairpines, Section 1, 2
and 3, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established
as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, he and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Fairpines Road, beqinning at the
eastern end of existing Fai~pines Road, State Route 21~0, and
running easterly 0.25 mils to the intersection with South Jessup
Road, then continuing easterly 0.05 mile to the intersection
with Fairpines Court, then continuing easterly 0.04 mile to end
in a dead end; Pairpines Court, beginning at the intersection
with Fairpin~s Road and running southerly 0.06 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac; South Jessup Road, beginning at the intersection
with Falrpines Road and running southerly 0.07 mile to end in a
temporary turnaround. Again, South Jessup Road, beginning at
the intersection with Eairpines Road and ~unning northerly 0.08
mile to the intersection with East and West Banes Court, then
continuing northerly 0.05 mile to the intersection with East and
86-814
West Denny Court, then continuing northerly 0.07 mile to the
intersection with Brambleton Road, then continuing northerly
0.08 mile to the intersection with ~eterle Court, then continu-
ing northerly 0.14 mile to the intersection with Hallmark Drive,
State Route 3165; ~ast Banes Court, beginning at the intersec-
tion with South Jessup Road and running easterly 0.06 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; West Banes Court, beginning at the inter-
section with South Jessup Road and running westerly 0.09 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; East Denny Court, beginning at the inter-
section with South Jessup Road and running easterly 0.05 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; West Denny Court, beginning at the inter-
section with South Jessup Road and running westerly 0.19 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; Brambleton Road, beginning at the inter~
section with South Jessup Road and running westerly 0.08 mile to
the intersection with Berryridge Terrace, then continuing
westerly 0.01 mile to end in a dead end; Berryridge Terrace,
beginning at the intersection with Brambleton Road and running
northerly 0.01 mile to end in a dead end; and ~eterie Court,
beginning at the intersection with South Jessup Road and running
northeasterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage ease-
ments.
These roads serve 150 tots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of+way for all of these roads except Fairpines Court, ~ast
and West Banes Court, and East Denny Court which have a 40'
right-of-way, and south Jessup Road and a portion of Fairpines
Road which have a 60' right-of-way.
These sections of Fairpines are recorded as follows:
Section 1. Plat Book 42, Pages 81 & 82, April 7, 1983.
Section 2. Plat Book 44, Pages 69 & 70, December 1, 1983.
Section 3. Plat Book 46, Page 8, June 1, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination o~ Hilltop Farms Drive, Hilltop Farms Terrace and
Farm Field Drive in Hilltop Farms, Sections A and B, Bermuda
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved, that Hilltop Farms
Drive, Hilltop Farms Terrace and Farm Field Drive in Hilltop
Farms, Sections A and B, Bermuda District, be and they hereby
are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department oi
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Hilltop Farms Drive, beginning
at the intersection with Old Centralia Road, State Route 145,
and running northerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with ~illtop
Farms Terrace, then continuing northerly 0.10 mile to the
intersection with Farm Field Drive; ailltop Farms Terrace,
beginning at the intersection with Hilltop Farms Drive and
running westerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again,
Hilltop Farms Terrace, beginning at the intersection with
Hilltop Farms Drive, and running easterly 0.04 mile to end in a
dead end; and Farm Field Drive, beginning at the intersection
with Hilltop Farms Drive and running westerly 0.05 mile to end
in a cul-de-sac. Again, Farm Field Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Hilltop Farms Drive and running easterly 0.07
mile to end in a dead end.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
86-815
and designated virginia Department of Highways drainage ease-
These roads serve 31 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
~uarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads except Hilltop Farms Drive
which has a variable 50' to 80' right-of-way.
These sections of Hilltop Farms are recorded a~ follows:
Section A. Plat Hook 49, Page 40, May 13, 1985.
Section B. Plat Book 52, Page 1, January 10, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
direotions from this Hoard, made report in writing upon his
examination of Oak River Drive in Oak Hill Estates, Matoaca
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion Of Mr. Applegat~,
seconded by ~rs. Girone, it is resolved that Oak River Drive in
Oak Hill Estates, Matoaca District, be and it hereby is estab-
lished as a public road.
And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Oak River Drive, beginning at
the intersection with River Road, State Route 602, and running
southerly 0.23 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of ~ighways drainage ease-
This road serves 23 lots.
And be it further resolved,
guarantees to the Virginia
right-of-way for this road.
Oak Hill Estates is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 39, Page 25, August 3, 1981.
that the Board of Supervisors
Department of Highways a 50'
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Alverser Drive, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Alverser Drive,
Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as a publio
road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Alverser Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Midlothian Turnpike, U. S. Route 60, and going
0.32 mile northeasterly to the intersection with Old Buckingham
Road, State Route 677.
Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways dralnag~ ease-
This road Serves as a connector road.
86-816
And be it ~urther resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a variable
width ~0' to 80' right-of-way for this road.
Alverser Drive is recorded aa £ollows:
Alverser Drive Extended. Plat Book 49, Page 21, April 26, 1985.
Alverser West. Plat Book 50, Pages 91 & 92, September 23, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D.3. RESOLUTION AND BYLAWS OF YOUTH SERVICES C05~4ISSION
COMPLYING WIT~ DEPARTmeNT CE COnFeCTIOnS' VIRGINIA
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND YOUTH DEVEL0~MENT ACT GRANT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, it is the philosophy of the Department of Correc-
tions that delinquency prevention i~ a proces~ of community
development and the Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development
Act provides funds for the operation of community-based delin-
quency prevention programs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the Youth
Services Commission and the youth of Chesterfield County, has
accepted the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Develop-
ment Act Grant to establish an Office on Youth; and
WHEREAS, thie grant carries specific rule~ and regulations
and minimu~ standards with r~gards to the structure and rela-
tionship of the YOuth Services Commission to the Office on
Youth; and
WHEREAS, the grant set~ minimum standard~ regarding the
establishment, composition, responsibilltiea, minimum and
maximum lenqth of each term of office for the Youth Services
Commission; and
WHEREAS, one of the main respon~ibilitie~ of the Commission
is to annually prepare a comprehensive plan based on an objec-
tive assessment of the community's needs and resources for
developing, coordinating and evaluating youth services; and
WN~RRAS, the Youth Services Commission has been established
since 1978, and to date has representation from each magisterial
district in the form of two adult members and a youth member
from each high school in that district; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the need for
an effective and active Commission to address youth issues; and
WHZRZAS, the Youth Services Commission is an advisory group
and has responsibility for programs and policies affecting youth
development.
NOW, TKER~FOHE SE IT RESOLVED, that the Youth Services
Commission shall continue to have two adult member~ from each
magisterial district, appointed by the supervisor of that
district, whose term of appointment should be no less than three
years and no more tllan five year~, with the te~m of appointment
for youth commissioners being one year in length. All members
shall begin their term of office on July I and end the term on
June 30 of the year of expiration or as soon thereafter as
practical. No person, title or agency shall be appointed to a
permanent member position on the Youth Services Commission and
no individual may serve mouc than two consecutive terms, or a
total of ten years.
~ IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Youth Services Commission
86-817
shall elect its own officers, establish its own by-laws, shall
address and resolve any conditions which keep the Conumission and
Office on Youth from being in compliance with the minimum
standards of the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth
Development Act Grant.
Vote: Unanimous
(A copy of the by-laws is filed with the papers of this Board.)
ll.D.4. REQUESTS FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PERMITS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the requests for raffle permits for the Dale Youth
Soccer Club, 5rd. and the Midlothian High School Band Boosters
for calendar year 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E. UTILITY DEPARTMENT ITEMS
I1.E.1. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
ll.E.l.a. CHESTNUT HILLS SEWER EASEMENT
ll.E.l.a.1. C~ARLES AND SRARON TAYLOR
On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation pro-
ceedings against the following property owners if the amount as
set opposite their na~es is not acceptable. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on October 23, 1986, of the County's
intention ~o 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 immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
Charles Henry Jr. and
Sharon E. Taylor Chestnut Hills $ 2,497.00
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.l.a.2. STEPHEN AND PATRICIA GOOLSBY
On motion Of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
authorised the County Attorney to institute condemnation pre-
ceedinqs against the following property owners if the smonnt as
set opposite their names is not acceptable. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on October 23, 1986, of th~ 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 immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
Stephen W. and Patricia D. Goelsby Chestnut Hills $ 751.00
Vote: Unanimous
1.E.l.a.4. CHARLES AND MARy JONES
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation pro-
ceedings against the following property owners if the amount as
~et opposite their names is not acceptable. And be it further
86-818
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on October 23, 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 immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
virginia.
Charles C. Jr. and
Mary S. Jones Chestnut Hills $ 3,647.00
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.l.b. IRONBRIDGE TRUNK SEWER - JO~ AND JANET FVAI~S
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. kpplegate, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation pro-
caedings against the following property owners if the amount as
set opposite their names is not acceptable. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mall on October 23, 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 immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
John R. and Janet B. Evans
Ironbridge $ 1,100.00
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.2. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.E.2.a. CONTRACT FOR SHERBOURNE ROAD AND WESTWOOD ROAD WATER
LINES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and autherised the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents awarding contract W@6-16C for replacement of
water lines on Sherbourne Road and contract W86-20C for replace-
ment of water lines on Westwood Road to the low bidder Gerald K.
Moody, Inc., in the amount of $48,280, which funds were appro-
priated under the 1985-86 Capital Improvement Sudget.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.2.b. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINES FOR MAYFAIR ESTATES~
SECTION D
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegata, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary document~ for the following water contract:
Water Contract No. W86-192CD, Mayfair Estates, Section D
Developer: Irvin G. Horner
Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $33,989.50
Total Estimated County Cost: $ 8,268.90
(Refund Through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost: $25,720.60
NO. of Connections: 20 by Developer, 10 by County
Code: 5B-2511-997
Vote: Unanimous
86-819
ll.E.2.C. CONTRACT FOR SEWER INSTALLATION FOR HILTON PAPJ{,
SECTION B/KIN-REY AREA
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary document~ awarding contract S86-40C/7(8)64OR for the
cOnStruction of sanitary sewer lines to serve Hylton Park,
Seotion B/Kin-Rey Area, in the amount of $220,841, to the low
bidder, Roanoke Construction Co., Inc.; and further approved the
additional appropriation of $54,000 to be transferred from the
1986-87 sewer extensions fund 5P-5035-900R to 5P-5835-64OR.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.2.d. CONTRACT FOR SEWER INSTALLATION FOR NYLTOM PARK,
SECTION A
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents awarding contract S86-88C/7(8)688R for the
construction of sanitary sewer lines to serve Hylton Park,
Section A Area, in the amount of $188,130, to the low bidder, G.
K. Moody, Inc., T/A Southern Construction; and further approved
the additional appropriation of $73,400 to be transferred from
the 19~6-87 sewer extensions £und 5P-5535-900R to 5P-5835-688R.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.20e. AGREEMENT WIT~ CSX TPJ%NSP0~TA~ION, INC. FOR WATER
LINE CROSSING ON CURTIS STREET
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Be it remolved by the Board of Supervimorm of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, in regular meeting assembled that the
Chairman of maid Board of Supervimorm, be, and he hereby im,
authorized to enter into an aqreement with CSX TRANSPORTATION,
INC., and to sign same on behalf of said County whereby said
CSXT grentm unto said County the right or license to inmtall and
maintain a 16.66-inch water main across the right of way under
tracks of said CSXT at Chester, Virginia, as particularly
described in said agreement, whioh agreement is dated September
17, 1986, a copy of which aqreement is filed with this ~oard of
Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E.2.f. VACATION OF PORTION OF DRAINAGE AND SEWER EASEMENT
WITHIN PROPOSED A~BO~TUM DEVELOPMBN~
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to execute a quit olaim deed to vacate a portion
of a 16' drainage easement and a 16' sewer easement within
proposed Arboretum Development.
Vote: Unanimous
11.E.2.9. VACATION OF PORTION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN
PROPOSED CANDLEWICK SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
A~ulnistrator to execute a quit claim deed to vaoate a portion
efa 16' drainage easement within proposed Candlewiok Subdivi-
sion.
86-820
ll.E.2.h. AGREEMENT WITH VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION FOR COUNTY PARTICIPATION OF SEWER
EXTENSION ALONG TURNER ROAD AB IF RELATES FO ROAD
WIDENING PROJECT
On motion of Mrs. Cirone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the Utilities Department to negotiate an
agreement with the Highway Department to participate in sewer
extension along Turner Road as it relates to the road widening
p~ojeet; approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and
the Counhy Administrator to execute said agreement; and further
the Board transferred $100,000 from 5P-5835-900R to
5P-583S-6F2M.
REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
ll.E.4. APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF A SITE FQR THE ~OBIOUS
FIRE STATION
On motion of Mrs. Girene, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary contract and accept the deed on behalf of the County
for the purchase of a parcel on the east side of Eobious Cross-
ing, adjacent to ~o~ious Junior High School, containing three
acres more or less for $25,000 per acre, for the Robious Fire
Station, which purchase shall be funded from the bond funds
allocated for the construction of the Robious Fire Station.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F. REPORTS
Mr. Medrlck presented the Board with status reports on the
General Fnnd Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road
Reserve Funds and District Road and Street Light Funds.
UTILITIES EXTENSION - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Micas briefly explained the policy relating to the extension
of utility lines which promote the economic development of the
County as such policy r~lates to the ordinance.
Mr. Sale stated under the current policy utility extensions are
provided for purposes of economic development that result in
tangible and definable economic development within the County.
Ne stated staff has attempted to articulate and define what that
word "tangible" would be and basically has tried to couch it in
terms wh~re the tax revenue that was generated f~em the economic
development would offset the cost of the installation within a
three year period of time.
Mr. Nedrick stated basically this policy still leaves this to
the Beard's discretion on a project By project basis. He stated
there are proposed guidelines as to how staff would look at it
in making its recommendations to the Board, with the most
notable point being in Item D where it states the eligible
economic development users include all use~ permitted in M~i,
M-2 and M-3 zoning, with the exception of mobile homes and
professional offices.
86-821
Mr. Daniel stated the heart of economic development is not in
the manufacturing eector but in the public service sector
ranging everywhere from insurance to banking to data processing
and to compete in the M-i, M-2 and M-3 alone probably is not
where the strength of economic development for the County is
concerned. He stated to exclude professional offices, where the
County's biggest economic boom has been, particularly in the far
westerly parts of the County, would not be appropriate.
Mr. Sale stated basically staff wants to identify the interest
on the part Of the developer to consummate the development, that
utility lines are not being extended just on a land speculation
basis - that in fact the development would take place.
Mr. Daniel stated we may have the greatest project in the world
that could recover itself in a year and it would be very appro-
priate not to use the three to one rule. He stated it would be
more appropriate to have the company sign a bond and then move
forward with the project. He stated he would hope that the
first priority is that whatever the investment is that it would
be recovered in three years; the second priority is that we
would hope there would be participation and if there is no
participation that the money could be recovered within two
years.
Mr. Mayas questioned the three year limit proposal. He stated
the point he was trying to make is that the development of
public utilities is a 10ng range investment on the part of the
C~unty and it may not come back in three years but the fact is
that is a ~apltal investment for the County. He stated he would
assume that utilities would not be provided where you do not
expect it to be utilized and the purpose behind this is to start
looking toward how we want the County to look and where we want
the development to take place.
Mr. Dodd stated he agreed with Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. He
stated maybe it would be more beneficial to bring this paper
back on the next agenda in two weeks am he has problems with a
$3 to $1 ratio and the professional offices. He stated there
are a couple of really large developments looking at Chester-
field County right now and it is essential that this policy be
firm because we do not want to go through another delayed
negotiation. He stated professional offices is a mix of uses
and these planned developed types of planned develouments have a
mix of professional offices. Ee suggested a deferral of this
matter.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas stated they felt this issue would
require a work session.
It was generally agreed to defer the issue until November 26,
1986, and to schedule a work session.
11.C.4. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPQRTATIQN
SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATION HEARING
Mr. Mayes stated he was satisfied with the revised statement
that is to be presented by the Chairman of the Board at the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's Supplement-
al Primary Allocation Hearing.
Mr. Applegate questioned how the priorities were determined.
Mr. McCracken explained the first eleven priorities were ones
that the Board had previously acted on as a priority list in the
past.
Mr. Applegate expressed concern that Five Forks and Route 10 and
the northern Route 288/Powhite Extended were discussed in the
past and were not on the priority lief.
86-822
Mr. McCracken stated the extension of Courthouse Road from Route
360 to Five Forks was one that staff had recommended be added to
the list; Courthouse Road from Route 60 to Route 360 was on the
previous list. He stated, with respect to the Route 288 pro-
jeer, when the Board approved the list previously, staff had
recommended four lanes for Route 288 completely and staff had a
footnote on this priority list that the interchanges be includ-
ed.
Mr. Applegate inquired how much is visualized out e~ the $6
million for the Ettrick overpass. Mr. MeCracken stated the
estimate for the project is approximately $5 million. Mr.
Applegate stated if $2.5 million more is set aside for the
overpass then only $3.5 million would be left to deal with the
entire project list. Mr. McCracken reiterated that the $6
million will be for the entire Richmond District and there is no
assurance that the County will get any of that $6 million. He
stated staff is recommending that the Board approve this prior-
ity list and submit it to the Eighway Department so they will
know the order of the priorities of County projects.
Mr. Daniel stated it was his impression, at the Lexington
meeting, that the purpose of these public hearings was to
address those item~ where the State could begin to spend the
money on highways projects beginning next year, some of them
already being designed and ready to go. He stated the second
issue is that the list deals only with primary roads and there
are secondary road projects already designed and ready to go
that money could bs spent on. He stated we want to deal with
strictly continuing a discussion of th~ items on the list there
are a couple of them that have probably have slipped through the
cracks - one being, Chippenham Parkway to six lanes. He stated
it is very difficult to gst on Chippenham Parkway some mornings
at the Hopkins Road interchange and traffic is backed up no
matter where you try to get on. He stated sight and sound
barriers, which are now on the list, should be discussed
certainly Chippenham Parkway has several areas wher~ peopl~ have
been asking for years that a method of noise control be required
and the issue need~ to be addressed more on a County-wide basis,
rather than on a one or two road basis.
There was considerable discussion regarding projects on the
list, funding, changing priorities, etc.
Mr. Dodd statsd the Board does not want to send a change in
priorities to the Highway Department.
Mr. Daniel statsd the item he understood to be made clear in
Lexington was thaf the public hearings were to discuss the
priority lists.
There was discussion of Route 288, Route 60, interchanges, etc.
Mr. Mayas inquired as to whether or not the priorities set at
Brandermill have been changed. Mr. Applegate stated he thought
that is what is before the Board but there is not sufficient
money to complete the priorities that are established and to
allocated to other projects. Mr. McCracken stated that is
correct. Mr. Dodd stated th~ priority list before the Board is
what was agreed upon at BranderT~ill three years ago. Mr. Mayas
stated Mr. Applegate is re,erring to the $2.5 million required
for the Ettrick overpass. Mr. Appleqate stated the $2.5 million
for the overpass has been allocated. Mr. Maye~ stated VDH&T
advised the County Of the cost of the overpass and the County
set aside that money in the bank in 1984; somehow, reasons are
being found whereby that project is being stalled.
After a lengthy discussion, it was generally agreed that a work
86-823
session should be scheduled on Monday,' October 27, 1986, at 3:00
p.m., in Roam 582 of the Administration Building to further
discuss the specifics of this izsue, as well as the Utility
Extension/Economic Development issue.
ll.G. EX=CUTIVE $~$$ION AND LUNCE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
went into Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel
pertaining to potential litigation with respect to a Freedom of
Information Act Request, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6} of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and to discuss legal
matters relating to the Chester Landfill, Clapp v~rsus the
County and Smith versus the County, pursuant to Section 2.1-344
(a} (2) and (6), respectively, of the Code of virginia, 1950, as
amended.
Reconvening:
ll.J. CHESTER LANDFILL GROUNDWATER PROGRAM
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
suspended the rules and added Item ll.J., Chester Landfill
Groundwater Program to the agenda for discussion.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedriek stated the Board members are aware the County has a
series of monitoring wells around the Chester Landfill. Be
stated it appears that ~wo of the monitoring wells are beginning
to indicate signs of contaminants in the water that may be from
the landfill. He stated this information is not ¢cn£irmed at
this point. He stated there is no evidence of any contaminants
in wells, beyond the initial monitoring wells, that are bored
immediately adjacen~ to the County landfill. He stated, how-
ever, it is important to take action that is preventive to be
certain there are no problems as a result of the leachate at the
County landfill.
Mr. E~mmer briefly listed the staff actions proposed to ensure
that there will be no health hazard to citizens in the area.
Mr. Hedrick reiterated the fact that there is nO evidence of any
contamination in domestic wells, only in monitoring wells.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard
approved and authorized the County Administrator to:
1. Require mandatory hook-up to County water for citizens in
the i~muediate area to the north and east; authorize staff
to explore financial options to assist affected citizens
with payment of connection fees;
2. Continue to test existing monitoring wells in order to
provide data on the quantity and quality of leachate
production;
3. Engage a consultant to conduct a geohydrological study to
determine the extent of the contamination, appropriate
remedial action required and complete the design for
correction of any problems;
86-824
4. Schedule an information session to brief interested
citizens on the status of the Chester Landfill;' and
5. Appropriate $60,000 initially from the General Fund Balance
to fund the testing and hydrological study.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.H. REQUEST FOR MOB~L~ ~0M~ P~RM~T
86SR143
In Bermuda Magisterial Bistrict, CLYDE AND MARGARET REAMS
requested renewal of Mobile ~ome Permit 8iS130 to park a mobile
home on preperty fronting the north line of Kingsland Road,
approximately 400 feet west of Chester Road, and better known as
2924 Kingsland Road. Tax Map 81-3 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 23).
The first permit was issued on October 28, 1981.
Mr. Peele stated sta~ recommended approval of the request.
Mr. Reams came forward to present the request.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dcdd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request for a period of five (5) years, subject to
the following standard conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a
mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for
rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel.
3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
resldenc~.
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available,
they shall be used.
6. Upon being granted a Mobile Eome Permit, the applicant
shall then obtain the necessary permits f~om the Office of
the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
ll.I. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
86S108
In Bermuda Magisterial District, PIONEER FINANCIAL CORPORATION
requested amendments to a previously granted Conditional Use
Planned Development (Case 80S129) to modify Conditions 11 and 12
relative to road improvements. This request lies in Residential
(R-i$) and Office Business (O) Districts on a parcel fronting
approximately 1,000 feet on the south line of Osborne Road
86-825
across from Oak Road. Tax Map 98-13 (1) Parcels 8 and 31 (Sheet
32).
Mr. Peele stated the applicant requested withdrawal of this
request.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, the Board accepted
the applicant's request for withdrawal.
Vote: Unanimous
86Sl15 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ROCKWOOD PARK ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Office Business (0)
to Community Business (B-2) plus Conditional Use Planned Deve-
lopment on a 5.02 acre parcel plus proffered conditions on 1.83
acres presently zoned General Business (B-3). This request
fronts approximately 515 feet on the east line of Courthouse
Road and approximately 200 feet On the north line of Hull Street
Road. Tax Map 49-8 (1) Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and Part
of Parcel 8 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Peele stated the applicants have requested a thirty (30) day
deferral of this request.
Mr. Applegate stated, at his request, the applicants asked for a
thirty (30) day deferral as there axe some traffic problems at
the intersection of Courthouse Road/Route 360 that need to be
resolved. He stated he felt these problems can be resolved
within that timeframe.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Hoard
deferred consideration of this request until November 28, 1988.
86S118
In Matoace Magisterial District, GLEBE POINT WEST CORPORATION
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15)
on a 140.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 2,800 feet on the
east line of Bradley Bridge Road, approximately 200 feet south
of Glebe Point Road. Tax Map 131-14 (1) Part of Parcel 1 and
Tax Map 147-3 (1) Part of Parcel i (Sheet 40) .
Mr. Peele stated the Plannin9 Commission recommended denial of
thi~ request; however, in the Request Analysis, staff reco~end-
ed a sixty (60) day deferral. He stated staff now recommends a
ninety (90) day deferral to allow sufficient time to address
amending the Zoning Ordinance, which presently does not provide
a zoning classification that reflects rural density of 2+ acre
lot sizes, and to allow the developer to provide an alternative
Mr. Jeff Collins stated a ninety (90) day deferral would not be
acceptable to the applicants and would like for the case to be
heard.
Mr. Mayes suggested the case be heard since ~taff'~ r~commenda-
tion was unacceptable to the applicants. Mr. Dodd stated the
case would be heard in its proper sequence on the agenda.
86s114
In Midlothian Magisterial District, H. LOUIS SALAMONSKY AND
WHITTEN REALTY, A VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP requested rez0n-
lng from Agricultural (A) to Residential-Multifamily (R-MF)
86-826
of 15.0 acres, and to Cormuunity Business (B-2) of 15.8 acres,
plus Conditional Use Planned Development on a total of 30.0
acres fronting approximately 1,065 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,000 feet east of Farnham
Drive. Tax Map 16-6 (1) Parcel 7 and Tax Map 16-11 (I) Part of
Parcel 9 (sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated Mr. Jay Weinberg, representing the applicants,
requested that this case be deferred until the November 12,
1986, Board meeting.
Mrs. Girone stated this request is one of unusual circumstance
and requested that it be deferred for the two week period.
There was ne opposition to the deferral.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until November 12~ 19@~.
Vote: Unanimous
85S105
In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHARLES E. BAILEY, INC. re-
guested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on
a 25.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 680 feet on the south
line of Centralia Road, approximately 150 feet west of Molly-
berry Drive. Tax Map 96-10 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission reco~ended approval of
this request subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffered
condition relative to lot sizes.
Mr. Bailey stated the recommendation, with the pzoffered condi-
tion relative to let size, is acceptable and indicated he would
be willing to limit this project to fifty-four (54) lots. He
stated all lots adjoining Mollberry Mills Subdivision and all
lots adjoining Mr. Taylor's property would be a minimum of
15,000 square feet, with the remainder o~ lets in the project
being a minim%L~ of 12,000 equate feet.
There was no opposition pre~ent.
Mr. Micas stated it would net bs appropriate for the Soard to
accept the applicant's proffer relative to the reduction of the
number of lots, as the proffer had not been received in writing
prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting.
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission approved the appli-
cant's subdivision request which included only fifty-one lots.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Boa~d
approved this request and accepted the following proffered
condition;
All lots abutting Hollyberry Hills Subdivision will be
15,000 square feet or greater.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel expressed his appreciation fox the diligent efforts
and cooperation of all thc~e involved in this request.
865110
In Bermuda Maglstsrial District, ROW~ ASSOCIATES, LTD., re-
guested rezoning from Residential (R-40) to Residential (R-12)
on a 23 acre parcel fronting approximately 450 feet on the east
line of Chester Roa~, approximately 2,400 feet south of
Centralia Road. Tax Map 97-10 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet 32).
86-827
Mr. Ponte stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request eubject to acceptance of certain proffered condi-
tions.
Mr. Rowe stated the recontm~ndation, with the proffered condi-
tions, is acceptable.
There was no Opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request and accepted the following proffered conditions:
1. Minimum square footages for homes:
Ranchers - 1,400 square feet finished;
Cape Cods - Tri-Levels - 1,600 square feet finished;
Two Stories - 1,800 square feet finished.
2. All foundations and chimneys to be brick or stone.
3. Restrictive Covenants
a, No noxious or offensive activity ehsll be carried on
upon any portion of any lot, nor shall anything be
done thereon that may be er become a nuisance or
annoyance to the neighborhood.
b. No buildings, outbuildings, garages, retaining walls,
andwalls, fences or other structures shall be erected,
placed or altered, nor shall a building permit for
such improvement be applied for on any lot until the
proposed plans, specifications, exterior color Or
finish, plot plan (showing the proposed location of
such building or structure, drive and parking areas
and the removal of live trees if any) and construction
schedul~ shall have been approved by the architectural
control committee in writing. Approval shall be
granted or denied by the architectural control co. it-
tee based upon compliance with the provisions of this
Declaration, the quality of materials, harmony of
external design with surrounding structures, location
cf improvements with respect to topography and finish-
ed grade elevation, the effect of the construction on
the outlook from surrounding property and lots, and
all other factors which in the opinion of the archi-
t~ctural control connnlttee will affect the desir-
ability or suitability of the construction. Any
written application for architectural approval addres-
sed and mailed by certified or registered mail to any
committee member to which no written response is
received within thirty (30) days shall be deemed ap-
proved for the purposes hereof. The architectural
control committee shall be composed of: William J.
Rowe, Jr., 401 Twin Ridge Lane, Richmond, Virginia
23235~ Halford I. Hayes and J. Randolph Smith, Suite
340, 1001 Chinaberry Boulevard, Richmond, Virginia
23225. A majority of the committee may designate a
representative to act for it. ID the event of death
or resignation of any membe~ of the committee, the
remaining members shall have full authority to desig-
nate a successor. Neither the members of the commit-
tee, nor its designated representative shall be
entitled to any compensation for services performed
pursuant to this covenant. At any time after comple-
tion of construction of residences on all lots in
****** subdivision, at any time thereafter, the then
record owners of 80% of the lots in the subdivision
shall have the power through a duly recorded written
instrument to create a committee consisting of not
less than three {3) persons to assume the powers and
duties hereby placed upon the initial architectural
control committee or to withdraw from the committee or
86-828
restore to it any of its powers and duties.
c. All lots shall be used for residential single-family
purposes exclusively. The architectural control
committee shall he charged with the responsibility of
enforcing the "residential single-family" concept.
The committee shall be charged with not allowing any
"residential homes" wherein persons~ unrelated to each
other, are living under the supervision of another
person or other persons, No lot shall be subdivided.
The use of a minor portion of a dwelling on a lot as
an office by the owner or tenant thereof shall be con-
sidered a residential use if such use does not create
customer or client traffic to and from the lot and is
not open and obvious to the public and is further
approved by the architectnrat control committee. No
structure shall be erected, altered, placed or per-
mitted to remain on any lot other than one (1) detach-
ed single-family dwelling.
d. No animals, livestock Or poultry of any kind shall be
raised, bred or kept on the property, except that
dogs, cats end other household pets may be kept in
reasonable numbers provided they are not raised, bred
or kept for commercial purposes and provided further
there shall be no private dog kennels allowed even
though not used for commercial purposes.
e. No lot shall be used in whole or in part for storage
of rubbish of any character whatsoever, nor for the
storage of any property or thing that will cause such
lot tO appear in an unclean or untidy condition or
that will be obnoxious to the eye; nor shall any sub-
stance, thing or material be kept upon any lot that
will emit foul or obnoxious odors, or that will cause
any noise that will or might disturb the peace and
quiet of the occupants of surrounding property. No
trash, rubbish, stored materials, wrecked cr inopera-
ble vehicles, vehicles with expired inspection stic-
kers or license tags, school buses, delivery trucks,
recreational vehicles, or other similar unsightly
items shall be allowed to remain on any lot outside an
enclosed structure. However, the foregoing shall not
be construed to prohibit temporary deposits of trash,
rubbish and other such debris for pickup by trash
removal service units. No garbage inolnerators shall
be permitted.
£. No sign of any kind ~hall be displayed to the public
view on any lot except (a) one temporary sign not
larger than nine square feet for the purpose of
advertising the property for sale or rent; and (b)
signs used by a builder or realtor to advertise the
property during the construction and sales period.
g. Easements are reserved as shown on recorded subdivi-
sion plat.
h. No exterior radio or television transmission or
receiving antennas exposed to public view shall be
erected, placed, or maintained on any lot.
i. No mobile home trailer (other than for active con-
struction by developer or builders), tent, barn,
shack, or other similar outbuilding or structure shall
be plaeed on any lot at any time, either temporarily
or permanently. Boats, boat trailers, campers, recre-
ational vehicles, or utility trailers may be maintain-
ed on a lot, but Only within an enclosed or screened
86~829
area such that they are not generally visible from
adjacent properties.
NO swimming pools shall be placed or constructed on
any lot unless the pool i~ at ground level.
These covenants are to ~un with the land and shall be
binding on all parties owning lots in ******, and all
persons claiming under them for a period of thirty
(30} years from the date these covenants are recorded,
after which time such covenants shall be automatically
extended for successive period of tan years unless an
instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of
the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change or
eliminate such covenants in whole or in part.
Invalidation of any of these covenants by judgment or
court order shall in no way affect any of the remain-
inq covenants or conditions which shall remain in full
force and effect. Any person violating or attempting
to violate these covenants, shall be notified, in
writing, of such violation or attempted violation. If
no cure is accomplished within the ten (10) days,
legal remedies set forth in these restrictions may
begin and the notified person shall he responsible for
damages and all costs of enforcing these restrictions,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.
It shall be lawful for any person, firm or corporation
in addition to ROWE A$$0CIAT~S, LTD. owning any of the
lots in to prosecute any proceed-
ings at law or in equity against the person or persons
violating or attempting to violate any such covenant
and either to prevent such violation, or to recover
damages Or other appropriate relief for such viola-
tion, and any failure on the part of ROWE ASSOCIATES,
LTD., or any owner or owners of such lots to do sc
shall not be considered as a waiver of any rights at
law or in equity that any such property may have for
past or future violations of these covenants.
VOte: Unanimous
86Sl16
In Bermuda Magisterial District, EOFFMAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use
(radio towers and broadcasting studio) and bulk exceptions
(tower height) in an Agricultural (A) District on a 20.0 acre
parcel lying at the southern termini of Brandywine and Bright-
wood Avenues. Tax Map 98-5 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this rsqusst, subject to certain conditions. Be explained that
the Board previously deferred this request to allow amendment to
the application to increase the tower height.
Mr. Paul Dulifant stated the recommended conditions were accept-
able.
Mrs. Daniels expressed concern that area residents have experi-
enced frequency interference on televisions and telephones f~0m
the existing tower.
Mr. Bulifant stated the applicant is required by the Federal
Communications Commission to take care of any radio frequency
interference complaints within a one millivolt radius of the
tower site, or more specifically within a three mile radius of
the tower location. He assured the Board that, once a complaint
86-830
is received, engineers would be dispatched to rectify any such
problems.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approvsd
this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan and
Textual Statement submitted with the application shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. The towers shall not exceed a height of 455 feet above mean
sea level. (P)
3. The towers shall be enclosed by a fence which shall be of a
sufficient height to preclude trespassing. (~)
4. Prior to obtaining a building permit, documentation o£ FAA
approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
5. A fifty (50) foot natural buffer, exclusive of utility and
drainage easements, shall be maintained along the northern
and western property lines. Except for utilities, which
may be permitted generally perpendicular throngh the buffer
and tower guys, there shall be nc other facilities permit-
ted within the buffers. Prior to any clearing or grading,
the buffers shall be flagged and the Planning Department
notified to inspect the buffers. Within thirty (30) days
of rough clearing and qrading, the Planning Department
shall be contacted to inspect the buffers. If existing
vegstation is not sufficient to adequately screen the
proposed building and parking area, additional landscaping
shall be accomplished. Within fifteen (15) days of buffer
inspection, a landscaping plan for supplemental planting
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review
and approval. (P)
(Note: This condition precludes access to the request site
through Central Park Subdivision. Access would be required
from the east via a drive to ~efferson Davis Highway.)
6. The proposed building shall employ decorative facades which
give the appearance of a residential structure. Ele-
vations/renderings depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval, in
conjunction with site plan review. This condition may be
modified by the Planning Department at the time of site
plan review, provided the building is located such that it
is not visible to the adjacent single family residential
neiqhborhood to the north. (P&CPC)
7. Parking areas shall be located to the south and/or east of
the proposed building such that the parking areas are
screened from view of adjacent properties to the north and
west. (P)
8. 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.
9. A single sign identifying this use shall be permitted. The
sign may be either building-mounted er freestanding. The
sign shall not exceed an aggregate area of twenty-five (25)
square feet. The freestanding sign shall not exceed a
height of ten (10) feet. The sign may be externally
lighted, but may be internally lighted provided the sign-
field is opaque with translucent letters. The sign shall
be placed such that it is not visible to adjacent property
to the north or west. (P)
10. Outdoor lighting shall be low level and positioned so as
11.
12.
not to project into adjacent properties to the north and
Tower liqhting shall he designed such that it is d~flected
upward and does not project into area residential property.
~n conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan, subject to the conditions stated herein.
Vote: Unanimous
86S102
In Matoaca ~agisterial District, J.T. S~OOSMIT~ requested
rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Light Industrial (M-l) with s
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and hulk
exceptions on an 8.65 acre parcel fronting approximately 520
feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 500
feet north of Landfill Drive. Tax Map 114-1 (1) Parcel 1 (Shsst
31).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recoramended approval of
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr. stated the conditions as recommended by
the Planning Commission were acceptable.
Ms. Terry Tingent inquired as to the proposed use for the
property. Mr. Peele outlined the boundaries of the property and
briefly explained the uses which would be permitted if the
current application were approved as requested. Ms. Tingent
questioned if the property is to be used for expanding the
existing ~hoosmith landfill facility. Mr. Peele stated ~he
proposed use does not include expansion of the landfill.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Austin Brockenbrough and Associates shall be considered
the Master Plan. (P)
2. The use~ permitted ~hall be 1Lmited to those allowed in the
Light Industrial (M-l) District plus a maximu~ of 30% of
the gross floor area may be used for Convenience Business
(B-l) uses. (CPC)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance will require that parking be
based On a combination of B-1 and M-1 uses.)
3. Yard and Height Requirements.
(a) Yards. The following yard requirement shall apply:
(1) Setbacks alon~ major arterials. All buildings
and drives shall have a minimum seventy-five foot
setback from the proposed rights-of-way of major
arterials as indicated on the Chesterfield
General Plan, as amended. Parking areas shall
hsve a minimum one hundred foot setback from pro-
posed rights-of-way of major artsrials. The
parking area setback may be reduced to Seventy-
five feet when parking areas are located to the
side or rear of buildings. Within these set-
backs, landscaping shall be provided in accor-
dance with Condition 11.
(2) Front yard. The £ront yard setback for build-
86-832
ings, drives, and parking areas shall be a
minimum of forty feet from public rights-of-way
other than major arterials.
(3) Side yards. The side yard setbacks for build-
ings, drives, and parking areas shall be a
minimum of thirty feet. The minimum corner side
yard shall be forty feet. One foot shall be
added to each side yard for each three feet that
the building height adjacent thereto exceeds
forty-five feet or three stories, whichever is
less, subject, however, to the provisions of
Section 21-27 of the Soning Ordinance.
(4) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard setback for
buildings, drives, and parking araa~ ~hall be
forty feet. One foot shall be added to each rear
yard for each three feet that the building height
adjacent t~uereto exceeds forty-fiv~ feet or three
stories, whichever is less, subject, however, to
the provieion~ of Section 21-27 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(b) Height re~ulrements.
The maximum height of all buildings as permitted by
Section 21-38 cf the ~oning Ordinance for ~-1 Dis-
tricte. Special height restrictions may apply because
of Airport height restrictions.
Permitted Variations in Yard Requirements.
The required minimum yards may be reduced with the pro-
vision of additional landscaping:
(1) Setbacks along major arterials. The required setback
far buildings and drives along major arterials may be
reduced to fifty (50) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Condition 11, "Perime~
tar Landscaping C." The required setback for parking
area~ may be reduced to fifty (50) feet with the
provision of landscaping in accordance with Condition
12 "Perimeter Landscaping C," and when such parking
areas are located to the side and rear of buildings.
(2) Front ~ard. 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 11, "Peri-
meter Landscaping C."
(3) side a~. The required side yard may be reduced to
ten (10) feet with the provision Of landscaping in
accordance with Condition 11, "Perimeter Landscaping
B" (except when adjacent to any "A", "R", "R-TH" or
"R-MF" District).
(4) Rear yard. The r~quired rear yard may be reduced to
twenty (20] feet with the provision of landscaping in
accordance with Condition 11, "Perimeter Landscaping
B" (except when adjacent to any "A", "R", "R-T~" or
"R-MF" District).
(5) In conjunction with the approval of this request, an
exception to the I00 foot setback requirement from "R"
Districts shall be granted. (PI
Utility lines underground. Ail utility lines such as
electric, telephone, CATV, or other similar lines shall be
installed underground. This requirement shall apply to
lines serving individual ~ites as well as to utility lines
86-833
necessary within the project. All 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,
etc., should be recognized and integrated with the archi-
tectural elements of the site plan. (P)
6. Loading areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings shall
be oriented so that loading areas are not visible from any
of the project perimeters adjoining any "A", "R", "R-T~" or
"R-~F" District or any public right-of-way. (P)
7. Architectural treatment. The exterior wall surfaces
(front, rear and sides) of each individual building visible
from a public street shall be similar in architectural
treatment and materials. Except for the adjacent R-7
properties to the west and sonth, no block or metal build-
ings shall be visible from any "A", "R", "R-TH" or
District or public right-of-way. Ail rooftop equipment
shall be shielded and screened from public view. (P)
8. Exterior li~htin9. Ail exterior lights shall be arranged
and installed eo that no direct light projects into adja-
cent parcels or public rights-of-way. Lighting standards
shall not exceed twenty feet in height and shall be of a
directional type capable of shielding the light source from
direct view. (P)
9. Driveways and parking areas. Driveways and parking areas
ehall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or other
similar material. Surface treated parking areas and drives
shall be prohibited. Concrete curb and gutter shall be
installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking
areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere
with pedestrian traffic.
10. Outside storage areas. Outdoor storage shall be permitted,
provided that all outdoor storage areas shall be visually
screened from public streets, internal roadways, and
adjacent property. Screening shall consist of either a
solid board fence, masonry wall, dense evergreen plant
materials or such other materials as may be approved. All
such screening shall be of sufficient height to screen
storage areas from view. Outdoor storage shall include the
parking of all company owned and operated vehicles, with
the exception of passenger vehicles.
11. Landscaping Requirements.
(a) Purpose and Intent.
Landscaping shall be provided for the visual enhance-
ment of the Corridor; and to protect and promote the
appearance, character, and economic values of land
along the corridor and SUrrOunding neighborhoods. The
purpose and intent of ~uch landscaping requirements is
also to reduce the visibility of paved areas from
adjacent properties and streets, moderate ¢limatlc
facts, minimize noise and glare, and enhance public
safety by defining spaces to influence traffic move-
ment. Landscaping will reduce the amount of storm
water runoff and provide transition between neigh-
boring properties.
(b) Landscaping Plan and Planting Requirements.
(1) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for ap-
proval in conjunction with site plan review.
(2) Such landscaping plan shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and di~tance~, and clearly
delineate all existing and proposed parking
Spaces or other vehicle areas, access aislest
86-834
driveways, and the location, size and description
of all landscaping materials.
(c) Plant Materials Specifications.
(1) Quality.
All plant materials shall be living and in a
healthy condition. Plant materials used in
conformance with the provision of these speci-
fications ~hall conform to the standards of the
most recent edition of the "American Standard for
Nursery Stock," published by the American Asso-
ciation of Nurserymen.
(2) Size and T.vDe.
(a) Small Deciduous Trees. Small deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than twelve (12) feet. A minimum
caliper of at least two and one-half (2 1/2)
inches at the time of planting shall be
required.
(b) Large Deciduous Trees. Large deciduous
trees shall be of a specie~ 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 b~
required.
(c) Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall have
a minimum height of five (5) feet at the
time of planting.
(d) Medium shrubs. Shrubs and hedge forms ehell
have a minimum height of two (2) feet at the
time of planting.
(3) Landscaping Design.
(a) Generally, planting required by this section
should be in an irregular line and spaced at
(b) Clustering of plant and tree species shall
be required to provide a pleaeiuq eompoei-
tion and mix of vegetation.
(c) Decorative walls and fences may be inte-
grated into any landscaping program. The
use of such walls or fences, when having a
minimum height of three (3) feet, may reduce
the amount of required plant materials at
the discretion of the Director.
(4) Tree Preservation.
(a) Preservation of existing trees is encouraged
to provide continuity, improved buffering
ability, pleasing scale and image along the
Corridor.
(b) Any healthy existing tree may be included
for credit towards the requirements of this
Condition.
(d) Maintenance.
(i) The owner, or his agent, shall be responsible for
the maintenance, repair, and replacement of all
86-$35
landscaping materials as may be required.
(2) All plant material shall be tended and maintained
in a healthy growing condition and free from
refuse and debris at all times. Ail unhealthy,
dying or d~ad plant materials shall be replaced
during the next planting season.
(3) Ail landscaped areas shall be provided with a
readily available water supply. The utilization
of underground storage chambers to collect runoff
to be later used to irrigate plant materials is
encouraged.
(e) Installation and Bonding Requirements.
All landscaping shall be installed in a sound,
workmanship-like manner and according to accep-
ted, good planting praetioe~ and procedures.
Landscaped areas shall require protection from
vehicular encroachment by such means as, but not
limited to~ wheel stops or concrete or bituminous
curbs.
(2) Where landscaping is required, no certificate of
occupancy shall be issued until the ~equired
landscaping is completed in accordance with the
approved landsoape 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 ~lanning Department in an
amount equal to the costs of the remaining plant
materials, related materials and installation
(3) All required landseaplng shall be installed and
approved by the first planting season following
issuance o£ a certificate of occupancy or the
bond shall be forfeited to the County.
(~) Arterial Frontage Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required along Route 10 within
the required setback of any lot or parcel and shall be
provided except where driveways or other openings may
be necessary. The minimum required landscaping for
this setback shall he provided as per "~erimeter
Landscaping B" below.
(q} Perimeter Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be required at the outer boundaries
or in the required yards of a lot or parcel and shall
be provided except where driveways or other openings
may be required. The mini~t~a 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:
(1) Perimeter Landscaping A.
(a) At least one small deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
for each fifty lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
(b) At least one medium shrub for each twenty
lineal feet shall be planted within the
86-836
(h)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(c) LOw shrubs and ground cover shall be
sonably dispersed throuqhout.
Perimeter 5andsca~i~ B.
(a) At least one large deciduous tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
for each thirty lineal feet shall be planted
within the setback area.
At least one small deciduous tree for each
~ifty lineal feet shall be planted within
the setback area.
At least one medium shrub for each fifteen
setback area.
Low shrubs and ~round cover shall be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout.
OR:
(a) A minimum three (3) foot high undulating
berm, and
(b) Perimeter Landscaping A.
Perimeter Landscaping C.
(a) At least one large deciduous
tree for each
fifty lineal feet and at least one evergreen
tree ~or each thirty lineal ~eet shall be
planted within the setback area.
(b) At least one small deciduous tree for each
thirty lineal feet shall be planted within
the setback area.
(c) At least one medium shrub for each ten
lineal feet shall be planted within the
setback area.
(d) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be rea-
sonably dispersed %~hroughout.
OR:
(a) A minimum four (4) foot high
berm, and
(b) Perimeter Landscaping B.
Landsoa~in~ Standards for Parkinq Areas.
(1) Interior ~arkin~ area landscapinq.
undulating
(a) Any parking area shall have at least twenty
(20) square feet of interior landscaping for
each space. Each required landscaped area
shall contain a minimum of 100 square ~eet
and have a minimum dimension of at least ten
feet. With the provision of this landscap-
ing, parking space size may be reduced to
9.5 X 20 or 190 square feet.
(b) The primary landscaping material used in
parking areas ~hall be trees which provide
shade or are capable of providing shade at
maturity. Each landscaped area shall
include at lea~t one small tree, as outlined
in this section. The total number of tree~
86-837
12.
13.
14.
15.
shall not be less than one for each 200
square feet, or fraction thereof, of requir-
ed interior landscaped area. The remaining
area shall be landscaped with shrubs and
other vegetative material fo complement the
tree landscaping.
(c) Landscaping areas shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout, located so as to
divide and break up the expanse of paving.
The area designated as required setbacks
shall not be calculated as required land-
scaped area.
(2) Peripheral parking area landscaping.
(a) Peripheral landscaping shall be required
along any side of a parking area that abuts
land not in the right of way ef e street
such that:
A landscaped strip at l~ast ten feet in
width shall be located between the parking
area and the abutting property lines, except
where driveways or other openings may be
required. Continuous hedge forms or at
least one small tree, as outlined in this
Section, shall be planted in the landscaped
strip for each fifty lineal feet.
Signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for
Special Sign Districts. Landscaping shall be provided
around all freestanding signs. A landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
At such time that public sewer is within 500 feet of the
property, the owner/developer'shall be required to extend
the sewer line to serve the entire 8.65 acre tract.
Maximum permissible release rates on the existing permanent
basin shall be restricted to the capacity of the existing
channel downstream. (EE)
An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be
constructed along Route 10 for the entire property front-
age. A deceleration lane with curb and gutter shall be
constructed north of the property. (T)
Prior to issuance of a building permit, 100 feet of right
of way, measured from the centerline of Route 10 shall be
dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted. (T)
Vote: Unanimous
86Sl18
In Matoaca Magisterial District, GLEBE POINT WEST CORPORATION
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15)
on a 140.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 2,800 feet on the
east line of Bradley Eridge Road, approximately 200 feet south
of Glebe Point Road. Tax Map 131-14 (1) Part of Parcel 1 and
Tax Map 147-3 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 40).
Mr. Peele stated the ~lanning Conumission recommended denial of
this request; however, in the Request Analysis, staff r~commend-
ed a sixty (60) day deferral. Ne ~tated a ninety (90) day
deferral i~ now recommended to allow staff sufficient time to
prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which presently
does not have a zoning classification that reflects rural
density of 2+ acre lot sizes, and to allow the developer fo
86-838
~xplore alternative accesses. He stated if the applicant were
to proffer a condition with minimum lot size~ of 2 acres the
Board could grant zoning on the property for residential use,
consistent with the land use densities proposed by the Southern
Area Plan. He stated, however, absent the proffer, staff would
recommend deferral. He stated the application was filed prior
to the approval of the ~.t~srn Ptannin~ Area Land U~e and
T~ion Plan. Mr. Mayes inquired if the Southern Area
Plan has a~lmpact on whether or not this request is considered.
Mr. Micas stated the Board has the discretion to determine
whether or not the Southern Area Plan should be adhered to.
Mr. Mayee stated he felt the plan should be strictly adhered to.
Mr. Micas stated the Ordinance is the law of the County but the
Plan, as part of the Ordinance, is a guide to be used in making
zoning decisions. Mr. Mayes stated if the land use and trans-
portation plans are guides then the developers' plans should
conform to the guide.
Mrs. Girone stated when a specific case is submitted the Board
must USe its judgment in determining the outcome of the case,
bearing in mind what the Plan states, the public opinion either
for or against the case, the details of the case, etc. Mr.
Maye~ stated, in his opinion, the land use plan is an ordinance
and should not be violated.
Mr. Daniel stated generally when an application is filed prior
to adoption of a Plan, such as in this instance, the ca~e could
either be decided by using the approved land use plan or using
the plan by which the request wa~ submitted.
Mr. Jeff Collins presented a brief suntmary of the request. Ee
stated the applicant has made significant concession~ relative
to density and access and has proffered conditions in an effort
to address the concerns of area residents. Ms stated this will
be a quality development.
Mr. Michael Thompson stated area residents are concerned that
the proposal violates the guideline~ set forth in the Southern
Planning Area Land U~e and Transportation Plan. He expressed
concerns relative to road stripping, lot sizes, gravel drive-
ways, culverts, lack of communication between the developer and
area residents, violations of the County building ordinances,
etc. Ne requested that this case be deferred for ninety (90)
days until an R-90 zoning classification can be established.
Mrs. Kay Robertson stated that area residents want the neighbor-
hood to remain as originally intended (large lots, tranquil
settings, 1ow density development). She stated they do not wish
Matoaca to become another Midlothian and requested that the
Board deny the R-15 zoning and implement an R-88, R-89 or R-90
zoning classification.
Ms. Mary Jackson raised concerns dealing with access to this
site and requested that the rezoning be denied until issues of
construction traffic, access, safety factors are received.
Mr. Gene Corrigan stated originally he had objected to this
project; however, after recent discussions with the developer,
he felt the proposed development will be compatible with or
better than some of the existing development. He stated he
would prefer that the present applicant develop the property
rather than someone else who may not consider the concerns of
area residents or may not develop as nice a project.
Mr. Sen Winebarger expressed concern relative to access into the
subdivision and stated he feels that a boulevard type entrance
would adversely affect the safety of his family unless a cross-
over is provided to allow him access into his driveway.
Mr. Jerry Journigan stated that he, and other area residents,
86-839
concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial
and feel that a suitable zoning classification should be estab-
lished for rural density residential as reconnuended in the
Southern Planning ArEa Land Use and Transportation Plan. He
stated the discussions that transpired during the public hear-
ings on the Southern Area Plan did not address the term
"averaging," rather one house per two acres was the discussion
regarding the definition of rural density residential.
Mr. Thompson stated, in reviewing the application for the
subdivison, he found that there are five lots along Glebe Point
Road which have been created and building permits applied for.
He stated the permits were granted by the County after July 23,
1986, after adoption of the Southern Area Plan on July 9, 1986.
He stated the release of the building permits violated the
guidelines and standards set forth in the Plan.
Mr. Collins stated 26% of the lots in existing glebe Point
8ubdivsion are less than 2 acres, 15% of the lots are less than
1 acre, and only 3% of the lots are larger than 5 acres. He
stated with respect to clearing of trees on lots, Glebe Point
Subdivision is on drainfields and these areas must be cleared to
aeeo~u~odate the drainfields. He stated a builder, On a particu-
lar lot, did clear more than he should have, and the builder has
been advised and warned to ensure that such action does not
recur. He stated, if the County permits the developer to
construct a crossover, one will be provided for the Mr. Wein-
barger. He stated, with respect to rural density, he does not
consider the Glebe Point Subdivision area to be rural and yet
there are other remote areas in the Southern Area Plan that show
higher density land uses than that proposed for this site. He
stated the road front lots were created in accordance with the
current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and the developer is
building quality homes on those parcels.
Mrs. Girone stated the character of the land and the developer
has a lot to do with the development standards and the quality
of the projects.
Mr. Mayes stated the purchase of a home is one of the most
significant decisions one makes in his lifetime. He stated the
concerns of residents are of primary importance. He stated he
also understands the free enterprise system in which we live
where profit is very important and the very basis of the free
enterprise system. He stated when there is a conflict, a choice
between whether one considers the desires of the residents or
the developer's desires/ one must look at the consideration for
those people who own the land, live there and pay taxes. He
stated he would therefore make a motion to defer this request
for sixty days to give the developers and area residents an
opportunity to negotiate. Me stated if the situation can be
worked out to a satisfactory agreement, he will support the
proposal; if not, he will recommend denial.
Mr. Collins stated he fel= the situation could be resolved.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt the situation was close to being
resolved and asked if Mr. Mayes would modify his motion to a
thirty day deferral. Mr. Mayas stated he would modify his
motion to thirty days. Mr. Daniel seconded the modified motion.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt the existing property owners deserve the
primary consideration and protection. He stated the amended
request is close to being in conformity with the area Plan,
there are reputable builders involved and he felt the motion for
deferral of the request, in order to permit further discussions,
is commendable.
Mr. Mayes stated the spirit and intent of the Southern Plannin~
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan is to mai~ the family,
farm motif and minimttm density in the Matoaca Magisterial
District.
86-840
Hr. Currin stated he is developing a good product and that som~
area residents, at one time er another, have agreed. Mr. Mayes
stated there iz no question about the product; the only question
is the proposed density, which appears to be contrary to the
adopted Plan. Re stated he would be glad to attend the meeting
with the developer and area residents.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until November 26, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
86S119
Tn Bermuda Magisterial District, CEESTER ASSOCIATES requested
rezoninq from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 20.63
acre parcel fronting in two (2) locations on the east line o£
Chester Road, for a total of approximately 620 feet, approxi-
mately 1,160 feet north oi Wood Dale Road. Tax Map 97-14 (1)
Parcel 40 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of
this request; however, staff recommended approval of R-15 zoning
and denial of R-9 with acceptance of the applicant's proffered
conditions.
Mr. Jeff Collins stated the applicant intends to develop a
project with public mewed, public water and curb and gutter. Be
stated the proffered conditions will control the type and size
of the houses constructed, as well as the maximum number of lots
to be developed which could be developed under the R-9 xoning.
Re stated a tentative layout, which reflects the R-9 request,
has been submitted showing that the average lot size will be in
excess of 12,200 square feet. He stated the proffers are
consistent with those of Glen Oaks Subdivision and will ensure
the compatibility with area development trends. He stated the
total number of lots would be limited to sixty (60).
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd stated the request should be approved because the
railroad right of way provides a buffer between this project and
Castlebury; the zoning and land use conform to the General Plan
2000 and the proposed Central Plannin~ Area Land U~e and Trane-
~ortation Plan; the proffered conditions are consistent with
conditions pro~fered with other area developments (lot sizes,
curb and gutter, County water and sewer provided, etc.); and the
development will be of a quality compatible and consistent with
existing area development.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request and accepted of the following proffered
conditions:
1. County sewer and water will be used for all development.
2. Minimum square footage for homes as follows:
a. Ranchers - 1,400 square feet finished
b. Cape Cods and Tri-levels ~ 1,600 square feet finished
c. Two stories - 1,800 square feet finished
3. The following shall be incorporated into the Declaration of
Restrictions and recorded with the subdivision plat:
A. No lot shall be used other than for residential
purposes. Only one residence may be constructed on
each platted lot, as recorded, nor shall said platted
lots be subdivided or resubdivided.
B. Exclusive of the main dwelling, no building, struc-
86~841
tuts, outbuilding, playhouse, fence or wall shall be
erected, placed Or altered on any lot until the
construction plans and specifications and a plan
showing the location of the same have been filed with
and approved by the Architectural Control Committee as
to square footage, quality of workmanship and materi-
als, harmony of exterior design and/or color with
existing structureS, and aS to location with respect
to topography and finished grade elevation.
C. The Committee's approval or disapproval, as required
in these proposed restrictions, shall be in writing.
In the event the Committee or its designated rep-
resentative iails to approve or disapprove within 30
days after plans and specifications have been submit-
ted to it or, in any event, if no suit to enjoin the
construction or alteration, after notice in writing of
said construction has been received by said Committee,
approval will not be required and the related cove-
nants shall be deemed to have been fully complied
with.
D. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public
view on any lot, except that one ~iqn of not more than
seven square feet advertising the property for sale or
rent may be displayed; two signs used by a builder to
advertise the property during construction and sales
period may also be displayed; also, one sign may bs
displayed at the entrance of subdivision of not more
than twenty-four square feet.
E. No trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn or other out-
building erected on any lot shall, at any time, be
used as a r~sidence, temporarily or permanently, nor
shall any s~ructure of a temporary character be used
as a residence; provided, however, this clause shall
not be construed to prevent domestic held quarters
being installed Over a detached garage or other
outbuilding.
NO homeowner's trailer shall be parked over 12 hours
in any one week on any lot or driveway so as to be
visible from the street.
G. NO live stock, cattle, hogs, or goats, any dog kennel
as defined by the Chesterfield County Code in exis-
tence as of the date of the recordation of these
restrictions shall be allowed on any lot, nor shall
any noxious or offensive trade or activity be carried
on thereon, nor shall anything be done thereon which
shall be or become an annoyance or nuisance to a good
residential neighborhood.
H. No lots shall be used or maintained as a dumping
ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste
shall be kept in sanitary containers. All incinera-
tors or other equipment for the storage or disposal of
such materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary
condition in rear yards only. Trash to be picked up
by public or private service shall be kept outside the
bounds of any road in the subdivision and kept wholly
on the individual lots.
I. No horse or pony shall be stabled or pastured on any
lot or parcel of land.
J. No unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked on any lot
herein for more than 60 days unless it is parked in an
enclosed garage.
No trees measuring six inches or more in diameter at a
point two feet above ground level may be removed
86-842
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Vote:
without the written approval of the Architectural
Control Committee. Approval for the removal of trees
located within fifteen feet of the main dwelling or
accessory buildings will be granted unless such
removal will substantially increase the beauty of the
property. This shall not apply to clearing of right
of ways, and/or easements, for construction of road-
ways, drainage and utilitiest or for garden or trailer
space.
L. The following are prohibited until it has been ap-
proved by the Architectural Control Committee:
1. No fence shall be erected, placed, cr altered on
any lot.
2. No antenna other than a television antenna shall
be installed.
3. NO swimming pool shall be constructed above
ground.
4. No single-story main structure shall be of slab
construction.
5. No masonry other than brick or stone shall be
left exposed on any structure.
M. Restrictive Covenants requiring exterior finish
materials to be one of the following:
1. Beaded hardboard siding
2. Woodsman siding
3. Wood siding
4. Brick veneer
N. All utilities are to be underground.
O. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be
binding cn all parties and all persons claiming under
them for a period of twenty (20) years for the date
these covenants are recorded, after which time said
covenants shall be automatically extended for an addi-
tional period of ten (10) years unless an instrument
signed by a majority cf the then owners of the lots
has been recorded, agreeing to change said covenant~
in whole or in part.
Curb and gutter shall be used.
Double-wide boulevard entrance with subdivision identi-
fication ~ign and landscaping.
Maximum number of lots not to exceed 60.
All exposed chimneys will be brick,
All utilities shall be underground.
No sateltit~ dish~s allowed.
Unanimous
86S123
In Bermuda Magisterial District, TEE LITCHFIELD COMPANY request-
ed a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk excep-
tions in a CC~mmunity Business (B-2) District on a 3.7 acre
parcel fronting approximately 500 feet on the east line of
Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 325 feet on
the south line of Weir Road, and located in the southeast quad-
86-843
rant of the interse0tion of these roads. Tax Map 116-11 (1)
Parcels 10 and 40 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Charles Ralston stated the recommended conditions are
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Hoard
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. Th~ following conditions notwithstanding, tbs plan prepared
by Hiller and Hiller Architects, dated 6/20/06, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (R)
2. A twenty-five (25) foot exception to th~ fifty (50) foot
setback requirements for driveways and parking areas along
Jefferson Davis Highway shall be granted. In addition, a
five (5) foot exception to the fifteen (15) foot setback
requirements for parking areas along Weir Road shall be
granted. {P)
3. Perimeter landscaping shall be provided along Jefferson
Davis Highway and Weir Road. Minimum landscaping within
the setback area shall consist of a minimum of: one (1)
large deciduous tree for each fifty (50) lineal feet; one
(1) evergreen tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet; one
{1) small deciduous tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet;
one (I) medium shrub for each ten (10) lineal feet; and Iow
shrubs and ground cover reasonably dispersed throughout. A
detailed landscaping plan depicting the~e requirement~
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
within thirty (30) days of the approval of this request.
(P)
4. The interior of the parking area shall be tand~caped with
at least twenty (20) square feet of interior landscaping
for each space. Each ~equired landscaped area shall
contain a minimum of 100 square feet and have a minimum
dimension of at least ten (10) feet. With the provision of
this landscaping, parking ~pacs size, except "handicapped"
spaces, may be reduced to 9.5x20, or 190 square feet.
The primary landscaping material used in parking areas
shall be trees whish provide shade, or are capable of
providing shade at matnfity. Each landscaped area shall
include at least one (1) small tree. The total number of
trees shall not he legs than one (1) for each 200 square
feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped
area. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs
and ether vegetative material to complement the tree
landscaping.
Landscaped 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 as required landscaped area. A detailed
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval within
thirty (30) days of the approval of this request. (P)
5. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Comraission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
86-844
86S126
In Matoaca Magisterial District, CECIL L. WILLIAMS requested
rezoning from Agricultural {A! to Residential (R-15) on a 101.0
acre parcel fronting approximately 770 feet on the south llne of
River Road, across from Fanes Road. Tax Map 179-13 (1) Parcel
5; Tax Map 179-14 (1) Parcels 8, 9, and Part of Parcel 13; Tax
Map 185-1 (1) Parcel 1; and Tax Map 185-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet
52).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Coramission recentmended approval of
this request, subject to acceptance of certain proffered condi-
tions.
Mr. Collins stated the recommendation, with the proffered
conditions, are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Foster stated he did not object to the development, however,
he expressed concerns relative to lot size.
Mr. Collins stated the lot sizes north and east of Mr. Foster's
property would be 1 acre or more in size. Mr. Foster stated
this would be acceptable as he does not want small homes adja-
cent to his property. Mr. Dodd stated ~r. Foster's concerns
will be addressed at subdivision review and staff san notify him
of the appropriate date and time when these issues will be
addressed.
Mr. Collins stated the developer of this particular parcel
intends to create an entrance at the end of the R-12 parcel by
reserving some open space for landscaping.
In response to a question by Mr. Applegate, Mr. Peele stated
this particular request complies with the adopted Southern
Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which suggests
one and one-half dwelling units per acre.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved thi~ request and accepted the following proffered
1. The road and drainage plans shall show the location of home
sites and septic tank drainfield sites for all lots adja-
cent to the lake and the tributaries o~ the lake. An
erosion control design must be submitted on the road and
drainage plans for these lots and must encompass the
primary drainfield.
2. A 10O foot wide buffer strip shall be provided adjacent to
the limits of the A.R.W.A. property (Lake Chesdin). No
trees six (6) inches or greater in diameter shall be
removed unless the tree is diseased or dead. This shall
not be intended to prevent the clearing of underbrush nor
the sowing of seed within the buffer area.
3. A fifty (50) foot wide bu~er shall be centered on the
channels of tributaries draining into the lake. Drainage
improvement shall be allowed in this buffer, as approved by
Enviror=mental Engineering.
4. No homesite shall be established on slopes steeper than 15%
without prior written approval of Environmental Engineer-
ing.
5. No septic lines can be installed within the 100 foot buffer
along the lake.
6. Any development that uses fertilization on a continuous
basis, such as a recreation area, shall submit a fertiliza-
tion plan that includes application rates and mixtures to
86-845
Vote:
Environmental Engineering ior review by County Extension
personnel.
The typical road cross-section shall be such that the hard
surface will be at the minlmnm allowable width with the
shoulders being grass with a minimum width of six (6) feet.
The gross density shall not exceed one (1) unit/acre.
NO lot shall contain less than 30,000 square feet of area.
Unanimous
86S137
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MAMIE P. TURNER requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a mobile home in
Residential (R-15) District on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting
approximately 220 feet on the south line of Bailey Bridge Road,
approximately 2,800 feet southwest of Quailwood Road. Tax Map
76-6 (1) Part of Parcel 18 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Coau~ission recoimmended approval of
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board Mrs. Turner had purchased her
mobile home from him, declared a potential conflict of interest,
pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act,
and excused himself from the meeting.
Mrs. Turner stated the recommended conditions are acceptable;
however, she requested clarification of the term "planned
development." Mr. Daniel explained this term is the technical
term for the process.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submit-
ted with the application shall be considered the Master
Plan. (P)
2. Occupancy of the mobile home shall be restricted solely to
the applicant's parent(s). At such time that the mobile
home is no longer occupied by the applicant's parents, it
shall be removed from the property. (P)
3. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted
to and for Mamie P. Turner's parent(s} and shall not be
transferable, nor run with the land. (P)
4. The mobile home shall be set back a minimum ul twenty (20)
~eet from the existing residence located on the site. (P)
5. There shall be no permanent additions to the mobile home.
The mobile home ~hatl be skirted, but shall not be placed
on a permanent £oundation. (P)
6. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan.
(Note: A building permit must be obtained by the appli-
cant.)
86-846
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Appteqate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
~bsen~: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd r~turned to the meeting.
12.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adjourned at 3:50 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. on October 27, 1986.
RicWar6rL. Hedrick~
County Administrator
Chairman
86-847