11-13-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
Novenlber 13, 1985
lpervisors in Attendance:
G. H. Applegats, Chairman
Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman
Harry G. Daniel
R. Garland Dodd
Joan Girone
r. Richard L. Hedrick
ounty Administrator
Staff in Attendance=
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mr. Tom Callahan,
Airport Manager
Mrs. Doris DeBart,
Legislative Coord.
MX. William Diggs, Real
Estate Assessor
Chief Robert ~anem, Fire
Department
Mr. william Howell,
Dir. of Gen. Services
Dr. Burr LOwe, Dir.,
Mental Health/Retard.
Mr. Robert Masd~n,
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Human Services
Mr. Richard MeElfish,
Dir. of Env. Eng.
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp, Director
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Services
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy,
Asst. Co. Admin.
for Development
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Lane Hamsey, Dir.
of Budget & Acctg.
MS. Jean Smith, Dir.
of Social Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.~
Exeo. Asst., Co. Adm.
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir.'6f Utilitiem
Mr. Frederick W. willis,
Dir. of Human
Resource Management
Mr. James Meek, Dir. of
Planning
I!Mr. Applegate calle~ the meeting to order in Room 502 of the
(EST) and not at 2:00 p.m.
Administration Building at 3:00 p.m.
I(EST) as originally scheduled.
l. WORK SESSION
Mr. Applegate stated the purpose of the work session was to
review and discuss the proposed changem to the zoning ordinance
with regard ~o the R-7 Residential ZonJng District, the
IMultifam!ly Districts, the Townhouse Districts, the Plan of
! Development and the Subdivision Process,
~.Mr. Zook.stated. staff had worked with the development community,
. local and civic 'associations and citizens and was very pleased
$5-~1~ .
with the coeperation received. Re reviewed in detail the
proposed zoning ordinance amendments, the concerns, the
comparisons with other localities, the comparison between
existing and proposed procedures~ the maps, public input, and the
recommendations. (A copy of the handouts are filed with the
papers of the Board.)
There was considerable discussion by the Board regarding frontage
requirements, effective dates, quality development, impact on
service levels, effect on land zoned, cost of housing in the
County, the opportunity to request variances, etc.
Fir. Applegate complimented staff On the thoreughness of the
presentation, for involving the public in the process and.for
incorporating their comments.
The Board recessed for dinner at the Airport Crcsswind
Restaurant.
2. INVOCATION
Mr. Dodd gave the invocation in the absence of President John
Ruckart of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
~ROVAL 9~..MXNUTES
On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the ~oard
approved the minutes of October 23, 1985, as emended.
Vote: Unanimous
4. CQ,D~,TY ADMINISTRATOR's COF~4ENTS
~r. Applegate congratulated Mr. and Mrs. Hedrick on their new
addition to their family. Mr. Hedrick announced that this past
weekend he and his wife became tbs proud parents of a baby girl,
Lauren Elizabeth.
Mr. Hed~ick introduced Ms. Jean Smith, Director of Social
Services. Ms. Smith stated that cold weather will soon be upon
us and that beginning November 1, 1985, the Department began
taking applications for the fuel assistance program and have had
an overwhelming number of applicants. She stated this signifies
that many of the residents are in need of energy assistance. She
stated this year. they are pleased to be a part of EnergyShare
sponsored by Virginia Power in that they will be the agency
determining eligibility. She introduced Mr. Tom Zincone,
Director of Customer Services of Virginia Power. Mr. Zincone
stated that EnergyShare was developed in 1983 by Dominion
Resources and its subsidiaries in Virginia--Virginia Power and
Virginia Natural Gas. Be stated it is an extension of a fuel
a~istance program which is designed to help needy people with
winter ~ergy bills--coal, oil, gas, wood or electricity. He
stated in 1984-85, Energy Share helped 11,351 people--3,000+
families, 1,800 were children under five years of age, 685 adults
over 60, .and 410 handicapped people. He stated $467,546.85 was
eollectedand distributed. ~e stated Chesterfield received
approximately $10,000 of that amount and 360 people w~r~
assisted. He stated he hoped this program COuld be expanded in
years to gome. He presented the Board with a packet of
information on BnergyShsre and expressed appreciation to the
Board for its'~support last year with a resolution and this year
with the Socia% Services ~epartment being the intake agensy. Be
presented the Board with an EnergyShare partnership certificate
for its suppdrt in ~his regard.
Mr. Applegate stated the Board is fully aware of the BnergyShare
program and the incredible job that Virginia Power is doing in
providing assistance in this arpa. He stated there was a right
of way conveyed to Virginia Power this fall and he was assured
that the wood removed was used in this endeavor. He
congratulated Virginia Power on their efforts.
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. James P. Zook, who recently was named
Director of Planning, and briefly outlined his employment
experience with the County.
Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Mr. Frederick willis,
recently employed Director of Human Resource Management, and
briefly outlined his professional experience.
Mr. Nedrick introduced and welcomed Mr. Mike Williams, reporter
with the Richmond Times Dispatch, who will be covering
Chesterfield County in the future.
5. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Dodd ~tated he had attended a Capital Region Airport
Commission meeting which dealt mainly with personnel matters in
Executive session.
Mr. Mayes stated the Matoaca Advisory Committee met on October
28th and November 4th to reconfirm its support of the overpass in
~ttrick and to urge the Highway Department to stay on schedule.
He stated he also attended the Virginia Association of Counties
annual meeting along with the other Board members at the
Homestead.
Nrs. Girone stated she attended the opening/gr0undbreaking them
ceremony of the Koger Center and the County is proud to have
here. She stated she went to Wintergreen with the Virginia
Assembly to reflect on the environmental section of the
Governor's report on the future of the Commonwealth which was
very interesting. She stated there was a meeting on the Ben Air
Plan with about 100 people present to review the first report.
She stated she met with five civic associations. She stated she
went to the General Assembly building to a meeting on the United
States Constitution which is the shortest constitution and most
copied in th~ world at which Mr. Cardwell Butler was the keynote
speaker. She stated that he stated when he met with the
committee reviewing the Watergate situation, the Constitution was
all that was needed to deal with the issue.
M_rs. Givens stated the Transportation Committee of the Virginia
Association of Counties on which she serves brought forth a
resolution asking the General Asse~bly to find more money for
roads in Virginia to enhance the quality of life here as well as
the economic development of the Commonwealth. She stated they
were talking about $500,000,000-$700,000,000; however, the
resolution was broad and addressed a bond referendum as well as
other sources of revenue. She stated when they met in the summer
in Charlottesville, Delegate Bagley, Chairman of the House
Appropriations Coum~ittee, told them that there would have to be
multiple source~ for funding roads. She stated there was
outstanding support from the 96 counties and now they are going
to wait to see who will bring legislation forward and what it
will be..
Mrs. Girone stated VACO voted to change the by-laws to be more in
line with the National Association of Counties. She explained
that up'to now the counties were divided into regions and there
was one vote per county. She stated now we are going to an
apportionment, by population and for every 50,000 Or any portion
thereef~ each jurisdiction is entitled to one vote. She stated
Chesterfield will have four votes which is one of only ten urban
counties having that voting strength, She stated the dues Will
e~aln the same; however, Fairfa× will be paying five or six
imes the dues paid in the past because there was a cap which has
ow been removed. She stated VACQ will have more money and
:hesterfield will have greater voting strength.
[rs. Girone stated Chesterfield County received a lot of
,ttention with the overwhelming support of the 1985 bond
'eferendum. She stated people were commenting all over the state
~nd inquiring how it was handled, what was in it, how we informed
!he public, etc.
~r. Appl~gat~ stated there will be a meeting of the Richmond
~gional Planning District Commission, the MPO and M~DC tomorrow
~nd the Capital Region Airport Cormmiesion later this month. Mrs.
~irone stated there will be a meeting of Contouras well
{r. Daniel stated that he had also attended the Virginia
~ssooiation of Counties meeting at the Homestead.
~. REQUESTS TO POSTPON~ ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES
IN THH ORDER OF PRESENTATION
4r. Daniel stated Mr. A. Lee Hanbury had submitted his
uesignation from the Citizens committee for Consideration of a
2barter due to hnsiness reasons. He stated he would like to
~uspend the rules to allow this issue to be brought before the
3card as well as Make a nomination and appointment simultaneously
at the appropriate time.
9n motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board added
Item 11.I.4., Appointments, citizens Committee for Consideration
~f a Charter, and suspended its rule~ and regulations to allow
Eot the nomination and appointment to be handled simultaneously;
~eferred item 9.A., Public ~earing on an Amendment to the Eastern
~ea Comprehensive Plan until December 11, 1985 at 7:00 p.m.: and
further the Board approved the agenda as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
7. ~SOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
7.A. DISAPPROVAL OF APARTHEID
Mr. Stith ~tated Mr. Mayes had requested the proposed resolution
be considered opposing the policy of apartheid in general and in
South Africa, specifically. On motion of the Board, the
following resolution was a~opted:
WHEREAS, Thc foundation of human dignity and individual
freedom is guaranteed by The Constitution of the Unite~ States of
A~erica (The Constitution}; and
WH=R~AS, Each elected official in the United States takes
an oath to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and
W~{ERHAS, Any United States foreign policy for South Africa
must conform to The Constitution; and
WHEREAS, The national policy of South Africa is racial
discrimination, commonly known as apartheid, which violates the
human rights of the black citizens, and others; and
W~EREAS, Any United States' policy which propitiates
apartheid in South Africa, or any where else in the world,
violates the United States Constitution; and
· ', 85-814
WHEREAS, It is the position cf this Board that human
freedom is not bought, sold, or given; but that those who possess
freedom are ready and willing to lay down their lives and their
eanred fortunes to hold and to maintain it for themselves, and to
share it with others.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board strongly
abhors apartheid, in any form, in South Africa, and anywhere else
in the world, and ~rqes the United States Government to review
its present South African polisy, and to establish policy which
will work to bring a peaceful and timely end to apartheid in
South Africa.
AND, BE IT PURTEER RESOLVED that this resolution be made a
part of the records of this Board for future references.
Vote: Unanimous
7.E. "CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DAY" AT VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY
M~. Stith stated on November 2, 1985, Dr. Wi]bert Greenfield,
President of Virginia State University, declared "Chesterfield
County Day" at Virginia State University at which he, Mr. Mayes,
Mr. Dodd and Chief Eanes were present. He stated Dr. Greenfield
did so because of the special relationship involving management,
education and exchanging of resources between the University and
the County Government. Mr. Stith presented the Board with the
proclamation. Mr. Applegate accepted the proclamation on behalf
of the Board and expressed appreciation to Dr. Greenfield and the
University for this recognition and their cooperation and
assistance. Mr. Mayes stated there is the possibility that the
address for the University would be changed from Petersburg to
Ettrick.
7.C. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR VIRGINIA AREA AGENCY ON AGING
Mr. Masden stated the Capital Area Agency on Aging is regulated
by federal law which requires that coverage for all the counties
for services to the aging population be handled through this type
of agency. He stated historically the funding had been 75%
federal, 20% state and 5% local but the federal government is
beginning to reduce their funding by a substantial amount. He
stated the Board of the Capital Area Agency on Aging has
requested that the localities eeek the funding percentage which
has been provided in the past.
On motion of the Hoard, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The elderly population uf Virginia continues to
increase, and includes a substantial proportion poor, as well as
frail and disabled in need of special services; and
WH~RMAS, A network of 25 area agencies on aging has been
established throughout the Commonwealth to administer a
comprehensive, coordinated system of service~ to older
Virginians; and
WHEREAS, Each local area ex~eriences different, critical
anticipate an expanding demand for life sustaining services and a
marked decrease in federal funding under the Older Americans Act
in the upcoming biennium; and
W~ER~AS, The Code of Virginia (2.1-373.4) states, "The
General Assembly declares that it is ~he policy of the
Commonwealth to support the davelopment of community-based
resources to avoid inappropriate institutionalization of the
impaired elderly;" and
WHEREAS, The General Assembly's Joint Subcommittee on Hunger
and Malnutrition has already recommended a substantial increase
85-815
in the state's support of nutrition and supportive services for
the elderly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors urges the Virginia General Assembly to
authorize and appropriate $8.2 million dollars for the 1986-88
biennium to the Virginia Department for the Aging for
distribution to area agencies on aging to maintain a range of
locally determined li£~ sustaining services to be provided t0
frail and disadvantaged cider individuals.
Vote: Unanimous
7.D. WORLD CLASS "A" SOFT-BALL TOURNAMENT IN PETERSBURG
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, at
this time, wishes to take the cppurtuni=y to congratulate the
United States Bio-Pitch Softball Association; and
~H=R~A$, The Board of Supervisors doe~ ~o a~ it recognizes
the major contribution made by USSSA to Petersburg and other
surrounding jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, The USSSA has brought to Petersburg quality sports
activities in the fo~m of tournaments and sanctioned softball
leagues; and
W~EREAS, USSSA has chosen Petersburg as its international
headquarters and home for its Hall of Fame; and
WHEREAS, Such activity has not only enriched the standard
of living of thoee citizens who participate in USSSA events, but
also gives a tremendous boost to the economy of surrounding
jurisdictions as a result of the infusion of ten to twenty
thousand avid supporters of USSSA coming to the City throughout
the season.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County that it hereby gives its enthusiastic
support to the United States Slo-Pitch Softball Association and
thanks U~$SA for its community involvement and service and
further encourages the UBSSA to continue its activities in
Petersburg.
Vote: Unanimous
HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTEP~ OR CLAIMS
Mr. Hedrick stated the County had received a claim from Mr.
Gordon White, owner of an airplane hangared at the County
Airport. Mr. Dodd stated he felt a letter of apology should also
be written.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the claim of Mr. Gordon White in the amount of $252.78
for damages sustained to his aircraft by Police investigators
while searching for drugs and further authorized a letter of
apology be forwarded to Mr. White on behalf of the County for any
inconvenience and embarrassment caused by this incident.
Vote: Unanimous
9. DEFERRED ITEMS
9,B, 1989-86 RURAL ADDITION PROJECTS
Mr. McCracken stated consideration of the 1985-86 rural addition
projects had been deferred from the previous meeting. He stated
staff is recommending that Warbro Road. be selected as the
85-816
rural addition project for thi~ year. Mr. Mayas stated that last
year he was told it would be best to relinquish Matoaca
District's portion of the $150,000 of rural addition money for
other projects which were necessary. He stated he agreed to that
and now there are some projects, especially along Claypoint Road
that we know about, where the residents need some improvements.
He inquired if the Board approves the Warbro Road project,
there a plan to give the Clearpoint residents some relief. Mr.
McCracken stated the Boute 288 project will substantially build
the rural addition project that had been discussed with the
residents on Claypoint as it would be included as part of that
project. Mr. Mayas inquired what could be done to make the road
satisfactory until the time as the Route 288 project is
constructed. Far. McCracken stated the County in previous years
has provided stone through the District 3¢ ROad Funds to help it
through the winter. Mr. Mayas stated something should be done to
assist the 14 families as this type of situation does not exist
in any other area of the County.
Mr. Dodd inquired if the Warbro Read improvements would affect
the 0aklawn Street project since the County has put quite a lot
of revenue sharing money into that project. Mr. McCracken stated
staff is requesting that they b~ authorized to proceed at this
time with the Warbro Road project and if the Board wanted staff
to pursue the Oaklawn project, they would proceed with the right
of way acquisition. Mrs. Girone inquired if a letter should be
written to the Claypoint residents. Mr. Mayas stated there has
been a very good working relationship between the County and the
residents and he was certain the ~oard's action would be relayed
to them.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the remaining $55,000 could be carried
forward. Mr. McCracken stated it could. Mr. Mayas inquired if
the funds could be used to improve Claypoint Road temporarily.
Mr. MeCracken stated they could not be used for that purpose,
only for construction.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-229 cf the Code of Virginia, as
amended, allows counties to establish new roads which may become
a part of the Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation have determined that Warbro Road
qualifies for acceptance into the State Secondary System under
Section.33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WB~R~AS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
desires that Warbro Road from the end of state mainte~ahce on
Warbro Road (Route 907) northward for an approximate distance of
0.46 mile to Genito Road (Route 604) be added To the secondary
System in accordance with Section 33.1-229 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended.
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, the Chesterfield County Beard of
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Righways and
Transportation to accept Warbro Road a length of 0.46 mile into
the State Secondary System in accordance with Section 33.1-229 of
the Code of Virginia, as amended, the cost to construct Warbro
Road to the Depa:tment's ~inimum standards to be financed from
the Department's Rural Addition Fund for Chesterfield County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Chesterfield County Board of
Supervisors does guarantee to the Commonwealth of Virginia a 60
foot unrestricted right-of-way on this road with the necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage. This right-of-way is
recorded as follows:
Deed Bock 1514, Page 782, November 18, 1980.
Deed Book 1623, Page 1241, September 1, 1983.
Deed Book 1623, Page 1248, February 26, 1981.
Deed Book 1574, Page 1314, March 2, 1981.
85-817
Deed Book 1552, Page 489, June 24, 1981.
Deed Book 1544, Page 97, March, 17, 1981.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone requested that Mr. McCracken advise her of what is
necessary for Silbyrd Drive. Mr. McCracken stated he would check
into the matter.
Mr. Mayes stated Treely Road was also listed in the document and
inquired why it would take $125,000 to correct the existing
situation. Mr. McCraeken stated Trecly Road is long and ties
into the existing end of Treely Road in a subdivision and would
extend all the wayiover to Branders Bridge Road. He stated the
improvement would al~o involve some utilities adjustments. Mr.
Mayes inquired if that amount would bring the road to State
Standards. Mr. McCracken stated that was the estimate by the
Highway Department and there would probably still be some costs
by the County for utility adjustments and right of way
requirements as well.
9.C. REPEAL R~STRICT~QN OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON WAR~HO ROAD
Mr. McCracken stated consideration of the repeal of the
restriction of through truck traffic on a portion of Warbro Road
was deferred from the previous meeting. He stated staff
recommends approval of the repeal. Mr. Applegate stated the area
is being developed c0~mercial/induatrial and it is the main
thoroughfare into the County landfill. He stated currently
trucks are having to enter and exit on Route 360 which is a
hazardous intersection.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board hereby
repeals Section 14.1-21.1 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended which repeals the restriction of
through truck traffic on Warbro Road.
Vote: Unanimous
9.D. CONDITIONS OP AUSTIN ROAD IN PRESTWOULD FARMS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the Condition of
Austin Road in Prestwould Farms. Mr. MoRlfish briefly stated the
developer surfaced~the road with tar and gravsl approximately 10
days age which should hold it through the winter. Be stated the
developer does have other problems with road side ditches,
private drives, etc. He ~tated the developer intends to plant
mix the road before winter but he doubts that he could do it
because of weather~ Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation to staff and
requested that the item be taken off the agenda but that staff
monitor the situation and keep him informed.
10. PUBLIC ~EARINGS
Mr. Zeok stated there are five major ordinance changes regarding
residential development recommended for adoption. He stated for
those who were not present this afternoon there was a lengthy
work session on the proposed changes. ~e stated the involvement
with the public--the development community as well as the citizen
groups--and the Planning Commission ha~ been remarkable and as a
result there is a well balanced recommendation. Re stated in
general, this will:improve the q~ality and process for
residential development in Chesterfield. He stated one proposal
deals with the R-7 single family residential classification which
presently allows a minimum lot siza of 7,000 square feet. He
stated the proposed new standards for undeveloped R-7 properties
that are unplatted amd without an active tentative subdivision
would require a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet.
85-81~
He stated the County's proposed amendment to thc subdivision
ordinance would allow the Planning Commission to deal with
compatibility of lot sizes within existing subdivisions sc that
they cannot be resubdivided to create smaller lots within an
existing subdivision than currently the average 1ct size of that
subdivision would permit. Me stated in addition to those items,
there are proposed standards for residential townhouse
development and multi-family development. He stated the
multifamily issue was reviewed and specific standards have been
proposed to guide the development of apartment projects in the
County. He stated further a plan of development process has been
proposed which will allow the Planning Commission to review
townhouse and multifamily developments. He noted that this
process was similar to schematic plan approval for commercial
projects and tentative plan approval for reaidential projects.
It was generally agreed that the Board would consider comments on
each issue separately and then vote on the ordinances at one
ti~.
10.A. ORDINANCE RELATING TO RESUBDIVISION PROCESS
Mr. Applegate stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the
resubdivision process. Mr. Zook stated that the effect of this
ordinance is to require the resubdivisien of existing lots in
subdivisions that are already platted and ior the most part
already developed to conform to the average lot width and area of
existing lots within the same block for compatibility. He stated
the front, back and side yards as well as the setbacks would be
the same.
Mr. Bob Leipertz, Presidant of the Richmond Homebuilders
Association, stated they were in agreement with this proposal.
Mr. David Sauer, representing the Enon Civic Association and the
Bermuda Messenger Service, stated they were in agreement with the
proposal. Me stated this is very important and especially in the
Chester area as presently there is no protection against this and
a very incompatible situation can result.
10.B. ORDINANCE RELATING TO R-7 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
Mr. Applegate stated this date and time had bean advertised for a
)uhlie hearing to consider an ordinance relating to R-7
Residential zoning districts.
Mr. David Sauer stated they had spent considerable time working
with staff and the Planning Commission, etc. and they agree with
these changes mere than they oppose.
Mr. BOb Leipert= stated they appreciated staff'a assistance and
that of the citizens in the review of the ordinance. He stated
they are more in support of the ordinance as proposed than
opposed. Me Stated basically R-7 has not been granted within
Chesterfield County for some time so it is something that they
really have not had access to. He stated their concern is more
with the philosophical effects.
Mr. Applegate stated Mr. Jay Weinberg had been present earlier
today but could not be present tonight. He stated Mr. Weinberg
indicated he would submit his co~ents in writing and it would be
included in the record.
Mr. Bob Carter, engineer for the Kings Forest Subdivision, stated
that they are currently developing this subdivision under
the R-7 ordinance and have been doing so for eight years. He
stated there are about 300-400 undeveloped lots zoned R-7
remaining~ they have kept their tentative plan in effect for
eight years, they did not renew the tentative plan last year so
it has expired, and as he reads the ordinance they will no longer
be able to develop R-7. He stated that this property cannot be
developed for some time due to lack of sewer and rather than
renew the tentative for years and years at a rather expensive
cost, they let it expire. He stated there are already 400 houses
which have been built. He stated the Board has granted them a
permit to build a pump station but they would rather contribute
$125,000 toward the cost of a sewer extension which is estimated
to be approximately $500,000. Be stated they basically feel the
ordinance is good but it will place a hardship on them in this
10.C. ORDINANCE RELATING TO MULTIPAMILY DISTRICTS
Mr. Applegets stated this date and time had been scheduled for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to multifamily
districts. Mr. Jim Theobald, representing the Richmond Apartment
Council, stated they wish to express appreciation to the Board
for allowing them to attend the work session this afternoon.
stated they have been working with the staff and Planning
Commission to effect changes in the multifamily ordinance that
will benefit the County, ~.ts citizens and the development
community. He stated they support the proposal except for
Section 21-200 of the ordinance whieh limits apartment
development te 10 units per acre which they feel is unduly
restrictive. He requested that this be emended to 12% units
per acre because the present ordinance allows 12% which has been
successful, Henrico County permits between 14%-19% units per acre
which is substantially more lenient and produces outstanding
communities which are spacious and of high quality such as
Kingscroseing, English Hills, Marble Hills, etc. He stated the
proposal is 20% less than all six jurisdictions used as a
comparison. He stated to permit enly 10 units is to render all
developments legally built to 12% units as nonconforming uses
which would make any refinancing extremely difficult and would
mean that ii the buildings were destroyed as a casualty loss they
could not be reconstructed to the same density as a matter o~
right. He stated this is too harsh a restriction on land, making
it economically unfeasible to develop projects in many instances
and would deny the County the kind of quality and varied
residential accommodations which it needs to attract quality
offices and industrial development. He stated they do not feel
that 10 units per acre is justified or desirable because the
chart used by staff to justify its position clearly indicates
that 10 units per acre not only results in mn immediate 20% cut
from the existing ordinance but also reflects a 30-50% below six
other jurisdictions used in the comparison. He stated
County excludes ~lood plains from their density calculations and
Chesterfield does net and they would prefer to have the flood
plain excluded and permit the 12% units per acre in density.
stated they recognize the Conditional Use Planned Development
would remain a viable alternative in ruquesting greater density;
however, it was their understanding that one of the objectives in
proposing the multifamily ordinance was to reduce the number oi
occasions the Conditional Use Planned Development would be
necessary thus decreasing the number of times the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors would have to custom craft
ordinances and apply case by case development standards. He
stated by setting the standards to the most restrictive of
comparable jurisdictions, you are insuring your continued
involvement in Conditional Use Planned Development
considerations. He stated that with 12% units per acre, most of
the developers could avail themselves of the revised ordinance
and not be r~qnired to seek the Conditional Use Planned
Development.
85-820
Mr. David Saner stated Menrico County has a 30% industry base and
a 70% residential base and they.are not running bond issues to
build roads and the reason Chesterfield is, is because we have
too great a residential density for our industrial base, Me
Stated if we had a 30-70% mix he would be happy to say increase
the residential density but we are building roads as fast as we
can afford to as residential is e~p~nsive and we have to ask
taxpayers to pass bond referendums. Me stated we are at the
15/85% and we do not need a great deal more high density and he
felt 10 units per acre is plenty. He stated we should not try to
match Menrico in density until we match them in th~ tax base and
the flood plain is important and you cannot mix two figures
together, Me stated all of the problems are coming from our
great predominance of residential in relation to industrial base
and this is what must be addressed because of the cost of the
services.
10.D. ORDINANC~ RELATING TO TOWNHOUSE DISTRICTS
Mr. Applegate stated this date and time had been scheduled for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to townhouse
districts. Mr. Bob Leipertz stated as mentioned earlier, Mr.
Weighers could not be present and he ie Secondarily trying to
represent him also. Re stated Mr. Weinberg has been working with
the Momebuilders Association and the staff with regard to
reviewing the proposal. Me stated they are not opposed to the
development of an ordinance to address a townhouse development
and would applaud that effort as it would put the requirements in
print in the early stages for a developer. He stated they did
have concerns which he outlined briefly regarding:
1. The density permitting 8 units per acre as they would
prefer 10.
2. The requirement that the minimum acreage bs 10 acres because
they question that acreage has nothing to do with success,
failure, quality, etc. He stated they felt in-fill projects
are valuable and this would limit that availability.
3. The interior landscaping for parking areas requirement as it
relates to a minimum dimension of 10 feet to 5 feet and no
more than one landscaped area per 15 parking spaces.
4. The attached units be 10 rather than 6.
5. Permit one and a half acres of recreational area to be
included with the 20% gross acreage which must be devoted to
common area. He stated these two requirements for
recreational and common area are the same.
Mr. Zook stated the width of required landscaped areas are
reeummended to be 10 it. wide rather than 5 ft. in order to allow
sufficient area for the vegetation to grow. He stated the
requirements do not dictate a direct relationship between
landscaped islands and the number of parking spaces. Me stated
that the proposal has been changed to reflect that 10 units
attached will be the maximum and staff is addressing the monotony
through the planning development review, offsets in the building
frontage, etc. without the strict 6 unit limit.
Mr. Buddy Miles was present and stated he agreed with the
statements by Mr. Leipertz.
Mr. David Sauer stated that the proposed amendment represents a
!point where you start and not stop. He stated from this point
iyou do not have to go through the Conditional Use Planned
Development, if you want to do in-fill development on a quarter
an acre then that offers certain unique problems that need to
be addressed through Conditional Use Planned Development. Me
stated ~t iE not that they do not want it but they don't want it
to be approved in unique and difficult situations withoot
additional planning and care. Ne stated in the parking
situation, trees cannot live if.they are planted five feet apart
as they need at least 10 feet between. Ne stated further there
is a difference between common area which is passive and
recreational area which is active. He stated the density
proposed of 8 units per acre is adequate without conditional use
but when you go beyond that you come into more problems. Me
stated the reason for the 10 acrs minimum is that the larger
project can easily afford to give the amenities that the smaller
project cannot. He stated when you get to smaller than 10 acres,
there will be concerns about what amenities can be made and
o££ered and for this reason it should go through Conditional Use
Planned Development.
~Lr, Jim Theobald stated the density Chesterfield County currently
permits is 10 units per acre which has historically been
pe~mltted. He stated that should you reduce that density, any
project that was presently legally built under those requirements
becomes a non-conforming use which has dire consequences to a
developer's ability to refinance especially through a government
lender. He stated the lenders do not understand why the project
is a non-conforming use and it will not be able to be rebuilt as
a matter of right without going through an appeals process and
this gives them concern with regard to cash flow and the
underwriting considerations upon which they have made their
commitment to fund. He stated if a project is currently built
that had 10 units per acre and this ordinance were adopted and
reduced the density to 8 and that project burns down, that
individual would not necessarily be permitted to rebuild as a
matter of right. Mr. Micas stated it did become a non-conforming
use. Mr. Patterson stated that if it were more than 50%
destroyed, you would have to come into compliance with the new
ordinance, but under 50% it could be rebuilt, Mr. Micas stated
this would effect a multifamily development because it would
reduce the number cf units he could have and increase the
amenities which would cost him money. Mr. Theobald stated they
cannot obtain insurance to cover the loss of income generated by
the previous number of units but he can get insurance for
increased cost that complies with governmental regulations. He
stated that only permits the developer to build a reduced number
of units in accordance with the increased building codes and the
lender comes up short. He stated it could preclude the closing
of a loan and it is a real problem with the lender. Mr.
Applegate inquired if this would also apply when an apartment
complex converts to condominiums. Mr. Theobald stated he was not
certain but it might impact that as well. He stated he is an
attorney in Mr. Weinbarg's office and they are representing the
homebuilders and Mr. Leipertz was to present the other issues but
he felt it necessary to mention this issue on density.
Mr. Steve Perkins from Walthall Mill stated he felt the move
toward density reduction is a good idea and he supports it
entirely as the County's resources will be better utilized.
There was no one else present to discuss this matter.
1G.E. ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
for a
~r. Applegate stated this date and time had been advertised need
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to plan of
development.
Mr. David Sauer stated he felt everyone believed there was a
for this ordinance.
There was no one else present to address the matter.
Mr. Applegate closed the public hearings.
85-822
~irs. ~irone inquired about the townhouse zoning regarding the
minimum of 10 acres.
Mr. Zook stated currently the County's
ordinances does not provide for townhouse development other than
through Conditional Use Planned Development. He stated it can be
viewed as an increase from where we are today. He stated staff
feels requiring projects to have that minimum acreage--10 for
townhouses and 20 for multifamily--encourages the appropriat~
location of those developments with respect to compatible
environments and also encouraqes the ability of the large scale
developments to be able to afford to provide some of the active
on-site recreation which is demanded. He stated to develop
otherwise, the County has made provision for doing that through
Conditional Use Planned Development.
Mr. Applegate requested Mr. Zook to comment on the discussion
regarding the ordinance relating to the deletion of B-7 from the
ordinance which is not recommended by the ~lanning Commission.
Mr. Zook stated after looking at this proposed ordinance, it was
felt that it was extremely exhaustive of County resources, the
development community and the general public. He stated that if
it were adopted, it has questionable validity. He stated further
that the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this and
it was not advertised for consideration tonight. He Stated the
mor~ balanced approach is that which is recommended which is
equitable to all parties and is one that is appropriate from a
professional point of view as well. Mr. Leipertz stated he was
unclear on what the recommendation was regarding R-7. Mr.
Applegata stated the Planning Commission voted to deny complete
deletion of R-7 zoning from the ordinance but recommended to
amend R-7 zoning bulk requirements to require that property
currently R-7 conform to R-9 standards for vacant, undeveloped,
unplatted and net tentatively recorded property. Mr. ~ook stated
as long as the tentative is active and is recorded prior to
January 1, 1989, then it retains the benefit of the R-7 zoning
and standards.
iMr. Daniel stated whenever you undertake a piece of work of this
imagnitude, there will be points that are not agreed upon by all.
iHe stated the Board indicated on several occasions that thin is
;the way the zoning ordinances should move and once in a while
:th,r~ will be particulars that arise that cause some concern. He
stated the proper and best thing to do is to vote on the
:recommended ordinances which has basically been supported by the
:individuals here. ae stated there will be some individual cases
which can be reviewed later but the direction is clear. He
stated he would support the recommendations as made by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Dodd stated that the County is not trying to stifle the
homeowner through the b~ilder to the point that an average person
cannot ow~ a home because if we do that, we will hurt our growth
situation in the County but we are hearing more and more concerns
from the citizens that something has to be done to deal with
those builders who are creating the problem of building on small
lots and not building quality. He stated this does not address
quality and we are aware of that but it is a step in the right
direction. He stated he felt perhaps the Board should consider
:giving a little hit of leeway with the 20% common area
and recreational area. He stated other than that, he could
approve these recommendations. He stated as far as the
apartments, 8 units per acre is still too high. He stated he
still felt there was still some fine-tuning necessary to address
the quality.
Mr. Applegate stated that he felt density doss not measure
i quality and although we may be on the high side, the idea was to
icontrol the level ef services and by outting back density we
should be able to measure the reduction in population which will
allow us to monitor the level of services. He stated he felt
could keep R-7 and maintain quality, however, R-7 has not been
85-8~3
allowed in the County for years and he does not have a problem
with that. He inquired what the reason was for having the
attached reduced from 10 to 6 in.the residential townhouse. Mr.
Zook stated there was an interim proposal changing this from l0
to 6 and it has been reconsidered and is back up to 10. Mr.
Applegate reviewed some of the parking requirements, the maximum
density, etc. which was proposed. He stated the only thing he
was concerned about is that the Board is upgrading R-7 to R-9 and
it should be pointed out that once we force the developer to de
that, it will be a higher priced product; we are placing the
burden on the developer for a townheuse/multifamily to build less
units per acre which will increase the cost for those units. He
stated we indicate we are in favor of economic development, yet
we may not have moderate priced housing for the employees of' the
businesses attracted to the County. Mrs. Girone stated she felt
the reduction of 25% in the central area is desirable. 8he
stated this was just an e%ample of an area where they have
figured what the impact would be which would reduce the density
and that is the desirable goal. Mr. Daniel stated he did not
know there was a labor pool problem. He stated the~e may be need
to modify the ordinance with time but we need to establish a
benchmark now. Mr. Mayes stated he felt supply and de,nd will
take care of the ho~ing situation. He stated he is proud to see
citizens become involved in the decision-making process.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt density should be reduced and the
reduction of that will reduce services. Mrs. Girone inquired
what was intended by the common area/recreational area. Mr. Dodd
Istated he felt it would be to allow the recreational area to he
ilneluded in the 20% co~mon area. He stated he felt the 20% is a
Igood amount of land for that purposa. Mr. Zook stated the Sta£~
recommended that there be 20% in common area and 10% for active
recreational area with n minimum of 1.5 acres set aside for
recreational purposes. ~e stated that these requirements have
been carefully balanced to assure projects the opportunity for
the maximum density. ~e stated the recreational area and common
Open space gives that elbow room that is necessary in a dense
environment. He stated that 1.5 acres or minimum of 10% would be
provided for active recreational needs. He stated in looking at
the requirements for townhouses in other localities this is
typical and they have found that this is usually the amount that
is provided within the existing development pattern in
Chesterfield County. He stated it is not more restrictive and it
is not taking anything away from the development of that property
because the property is a~ready limited by the number of units
per acre.
Applegate stated that there was some concern regarding th~
amendment to the subdivision ordinance and as he understands it,
it would go back to the Planning Commission and not to the Board
without a public hearing. Mrs. Girone stated that the public
would be able to attend a~d speak at the Planning Commission
meeting but it would not be advertised.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board resolved
to adopt the ordinances as presented by the Planning Commission
with tbe changes of the provision to the common/recreational a~ea
to be 20%..
Mr. Daniel thanked everyone for their participation in this
effort,
~s. Girone stated with regard to th~ common area, there would be
two-thirds common area and one-third would be recreational of the
open space. She ~tated she did not want to reduce what exists
today. She stated she felt the Planning Commission had the
right recommendation for the quality of life in the County.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd withdrew, their motion.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
CHE$~RRFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
SECTION 18-16, RELATING TO THE RESUBDIVISION
PROCESS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County=
(1) That Section 18-16 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Section 18-16. Resubdivision.
A re~ubdivision of all Or any part of a recorded subdivision
may not be made or recorded until submitted and approved by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter. (4-26-72, § 8.6.) In no case shall any resubdivisi0n be
approved where the newly created lot(s) are smaller than the
average lot size and lot width of other lots in that block.
However, this requirement shall not apply to the resubdivision of
lots within an existihg subdivision where the purpose is to
adjust lot lines and no new lots are created.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dcdd, the Board adopted
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TH~ CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~NDED, BY AMENDING
SECTION 21-107 RELATING
TO TNE R-7 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
DE IT ORDAINED DY TH~ Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 21-107 of the Code of the County of
!Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-107. Required Conditions.
The following conditions shall be met in the R-7 District:
(a) Lot Area. Each dwelling, together with
accessory building(s), hereafter erected shall be
located on a lot having an area not less than
seven thousand square feet and a front width of
not less than fifty feet, provided that such lot
was grantedtentative ~ubdivision approval prior
to November 13, 1985 and recorded, prior to
January 1, 1989. If such tentative approval is
net renewed and expires or if a new subdivision is
granted tentative approval after November 13,
1985, each dwelling, together with its accessory
building(s), hereafter erected shall be located on
a lot having an area not less than nine thousand
square feet and a front width of not les~ than
seventy-five feet.
85-825
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
~he following ordinance~
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY 0F
2HNSTERFI~LD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 21-9, 21-21,
21-33, 21-38, 21-50, 21-52, 21-56, 21-68, 21-77 AMD 21-80 AND
ENACTING SECTIO~ 21-56.1 AND ARTICLE XXII, SECTIONS 21-196
T~ROUG~ 21-200.1 RELATING TO MULT~FAMILY DISTRICTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
2ounty:
(1) That Section 21-9 of the Code of the County Q.~
~hesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended, and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-9. Fees for hearings.
(a) Zoning:
o o o
(5! Multiple-family ..... $475.00 plus $20,00 per acre.
Conditional Uses and Special Exceptions:
(1) Two-family ..... $500.00 plus $10.00 per unit after
the first two units.
(2) That Section 21-21 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is a/~ende~, and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-21. Districts enumerated.
For the purpose of this chapter the unincorporated territory
of the County is hereby divided into districts as follows:
o o o
R-M~ Residential - Multifamily District
MN-1 Mobile Home Park District
Residence or residential districts, hereafter referred to as
{ Districts, include the R-40, R-25, R-15, R-12, R-9, R-7, ~/~-1,
~nd MH-2 Districts. Residential-Multifamily Districts include
:he R-MF District. Business districts, hereafter referred to as
B Districts, include the O, B-l, B-2, B-3 and B-T Districts.
Industrial districts, hereafter referred to as M Districts,
include the M-I, M-2 and M-3 Districts. Agricultural districts
include the A District.
(3) That Section 21-33 of thc Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
85-826
In all R-MP Districts, B Districts and M Districts, solid
waste storage areas (dumpster and garbage can) shall be screened
from view by a solid fence, wall, or dense evergreen plantings.
(4) That Section 21-38 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-38. Generall~
Thc maximum height of all buildings within the districts
enumerated below shall be as follows except for the provisions of
Section 21-40 below:
R-40, R-25, R-15, R-12t R-9, R-7, R-TH, M~-I, M~-2 and
(1) All buildings other than a~essory and
multi-family--three stories or forty feet, whichever is
(2) Accessory buildings--one-half the height of
the principal building or twenty-five feet whichever is
greater.
(3) Multi-family--ex~ept for those projects
listed in Section 21-200.1, the height of any structure
shall not exceed six stories or 70 feet, whichever is
less, provided that if no elevator is provided, the
height of an~ structure shall not exceed three stories.
(5) That Section 21-50 of the Code Of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted ae
foll~*s~
Sec. 21-50. Parking spaces required.
The minimum number of parking spaces to be provided for each
use shall be as follows: (For any use not listed, the
requirements of the most similar listed use shall apply, unless
otherwise specified.}
USE
SPACES
Ia) Dwellings
1. One family
2. TWO family
3. Multi-family
except for those
projects listed in
Section 21-200.1.
NUMBER OF
1 for each
dwelling unit
2 for each
dwelling unit
2 for each
dwelling
unit, and no
more than one
required
parking space
per unit be
provided in
carports
and garages.
(6) That Section 21-52 of the Coda of the County of
~hesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
]follows:
9ac. 21-~2. ParRing and storing recreational equipment in "R"
and "R-MF" Districts. ~ '
(b) In all "R" District~, all recreational equipment shall
be parked or stored in a rear yard, except for loading or
unloading, and shall be setback at least ten feet from the rear
lot lines and five feet from the side lot lines. NO trailer or
vehicle shall have its wheels removed except for repair purposes.
(d) In R-MP Districts except for those projects listed in
Section 21-200.1, the parking and storing of recreational
equipment shall be prohibited unless a co~mon storage area(s) is
(are) provided for recreational vehicle parking, including boats,
trucks exceeding 4,000 net weight and two axles, campers, and
travel and utility trailers. Parking spaces for recreational
equipment and/or vehicles shall be in addition to that required
for parking private vehicles. Said storage area or areas shall
be effectively screened from view in ~¢cordance with Division
11.1.
(7) That Section 21-56 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended is amended ~'n~ reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-56. Parking lot regulations.
Every parking area for six or more vehicles shall be subject
to the following regulations:
o o o
(c) Buffer strip. Along any side or rear lot line which
adjoins any "R" DistriCt, except in front yard areas, there shall
be installed and maintained an ornamental, concrete or masonry
wall or solid board fence or dense evergreen planting at least
five feet high unless natural conditions provide effective
screening. The planting and maintenance of all trees or shrubs
shall be under the supervision of the Director of Planning. In
R-MF Districts except for those projects listed in Section
21-200.1, this requirement must be shown on landscaping plans
Submitted in conjunction with plan of development approval as per
Division 11.1.
(9) That the Code of the County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, be amended by enacting Section 21-56.1 as follows:
Sec. 21-56.1. Except for those ~reQects listed in Section
51-200.1, the fellow%ng l~'~decaping standards for p~rkin~ areae
in R-MF Districts shal~ appl~.
(a) Interior parking area landscaping.
(i) Any parking area shall have at least ten square feet of
interior landscaping for each space. Each required landscaped
area shall contain a minimum of 100 square f~et and ha~e a
minimum dimension of at least ten feet.
(2} The primary landscaping material used in parking areas
shall be trees which provide shade or are capable of providing
shade at maturity. Each landscaped area shall include at least
one tree, having a clear trunk of at least five feet. The total
number of trees shall not be less than one for each 200 square
feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area.
The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs and other
vegetative material to complement the tree landscaping.
(3} Landscaping areas shall be reasonably dispersed
throughout, locate~ so as to divide and break up the expanse of
paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be
calculated aa required landscaped area.
(b) Peripheral parking area landscaping.
85i828
(1) Peripheral landscaping shall be required along any side
of a parking area that abuts land not in the right of way of a
street such that:
A landscaped strip at least ten feet in width shall be
located between the parking area and the abutting property
lines, except where driveway~ er other openings may be
required. At least one tr~e having a clear trunk of at
least five feet, for each fifty linea~ feet shall be planted
in the landscaped strip.
(c) Landscaping plans. A landscaping plan shall be
submitted in conjunction with plan of development approval as per
Division 11.1. Such landscaping plans shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances, and clearly delineate all
existing and proposed parking spaces or other vehicle a~as,
access aisles, driveways, and the location, size and deecription
of all landscaping materials.
(9) That Section 21-68 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-68. Application.
The following u~e~ require a site plan when they require a
building permit or involve a land area greater than four thousand
square feet:
o o o
(b) Any land use or development in the R-MP, ~4H-1, O, ~1
B-2, B-3, B-T, M-i, M-2 and M-3 Districts.
(10) That Section 21-77 of the code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted a~
Sec. 21-77. Fees.
(a) In addition to any other fees required by th~ county
(state and county agencies and departments and tax exempt
non-profit organizations excluded), a fee of seventy-five dollars
plus five dollars per dwelling unit shall be paid to the County
Treasurer upon filing of a site plan for uses requiring a plan of
development; for all other uses, a fee of three hundred and
seventy-five dollars shall be paid to the County Treasurer upon
filing of a site plan, plus:
(ll) That Section 21-80 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
~ollows:
Sec. 21-80. Same--Conditional uses.
The following use~ may be allowed by conditional use subject
to the provisions of Section 21-34:
ooo
(b) Reserve.
{12) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978,
amended, be amended by enacting Article XXIZ as
ARTICL~ XXII. R-~F Residential ~ Multifamil¥ District
~ec. 21-196. Permitted uses--By
The following uses shall bs .ps,mitred by right in thc ~-MF
)istrict: multiple-family dwellings in accordance with Division
~ec. 21-197. Same~-~¢cessory uses.
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R-MF
)istrict:
{a) Private garages, gardens, tool and storage buildings.
(b) ~ome occupations.
(c) Non-commercial passive and active recreational
facilities for community purposes.
(d) Management office and maintenance buildings.
(e) Temporary buildings or trailers devoted to purposes
incidental to construction activities taking place on the
premises; provided, that such buildings or trailers shall be
removed upon completion or abandonment of such work.
Sec. 21-198. Same--Conditional uses.
The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses in the
R-MF Districts subject, to the provisions of Section 21-34:
(a) Child care centers and kindergartens.
{b) Planned developments.
Sec. 21-199. Same--Special exceptions.
The following uses may be permitted as special exceptions in
the R-MF District subject to the provisions of Section 21-15:
Public and private utility uses, so long as they require a
structure, to include ail water, sewer, solid waste disposal,
electric, gas and communications. Service lines, cables, buried
wires or pipes in easements on public roads, or on the premises
of individual consumers shall be permitted without obtaining a
Special Exception.
See. 21-200. Required conditions.
(a) The purpose and goal of the following conditions is to
create a development which protects against overcrowding, undue
density of population, obstruction of light and air, and which is
attractive, ¢0nvenient and harmonious. TO this end, buildings
should be designed to impart harmonious proportions and to avoid
monotonous facades or large bulky masses. Buildings should
possess architectural variety but enhance an overall cohesive
residential character. Character shall be achieved through the
creative use of design elements such as balconies and/or
terraces, articulation of doors end windows, sculptural or
textural relief of facades, architectural ornamentation, varied
roof lines, or other appurtenances such as lighting fixtures
and/or planting.
(b) The following development standards shall be met in the
R-MF District:
(1) Parcel area and density. The minimum parcel size
shall be twenty ac~es. The density of the development shall
not exceed ten dwelling units per grcs~ acre.
{2) Percentage of parcel coverage. Ail buildings,
including accessory bn~l~in~s, On any parcel shall not cover
more than 40 percent of the area of such parcel. NO
85-830
accessory building except for private garages and
recreation, maintenance and management office buildings on
any parcel shall cover more~ than 100 square feet.
(3) Dwellinq units. The total number of dwelling
units on any ode floor level of a building shall not exceed
(4) Setbacks from roads and property lines. All
structures shall be set bac~ ~inimum of 25 feet from
interior private driveways. If the structure is 48 feet or
more in height, the setback may be reduced to 20 feet whore
adjacent to a fire lane. structures shall be setback at
least 15 ~eet from any parking space and at least 50 feet
from any proposed right of way of a public road. All
structures shall be set hack a minimum of 50 feet from all
property lines, unless adjacent to another Residential
Multifamily District, in which ease a minimum setback of at
least 30 feet will be maintained. Apartment buildings
constructed along adjacent or internal public road(s) shall
front that road(s).
(5) Distance between buildings. The minimum distance
between buildings shall be 30 feet plus five feet for each
story above thre~ stories.
(6} Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be provided and shown
on the plan submitted for plan of development approval.
(7) Driveways and parkin~ areas. All roads,
driveways, and parking area~ shall have concrete curbs and
gutters. All private driveways and parking areas shall be
at least 15 feet from the right of way line of any existing
or proposed public road, subject, however to the provisions
of Section 21-44 and 21-56 (a).
(8) Roads. A ~eeond road access (public or private)
shall be designed and constructed to a public road prior to
the occupancy of more than fifty (50) units. Additional
accesses may be required where more than 200 u~its are
constructed to be determined by the Planning Commission at
the time of approval of the plan of development. As used
here in the term "access roads" shall be those roads which
connect residential clusters to public roads. Access roads
shall have a minimum pavement width of thirty (30) feet all
other private streets and driveways shall have a minimum
width of twenty-four (24) feet.
(9) Recreational area required. An area conveniently
accessible to and included within the development of not
less than ten percent of the gross acreage shall be provided
event shall less than One and one-half acres be provided.
Recreational ~acilities, including active and passive recre-
ation and community buildings shall be provided, as deemed
appropriate during plan of development approval in
accordance with Division 11.1. Issuance of occupancy
permits for multifamily dwelling units shall be in
conjunction with the phasing of recreational facilities in
accordance with the approved plan of development.
(10) Compatibility with adjacent properties.
Compatibility between any m~l¥~p'l~ f'amily project and
adjacent properties shall be insured by providing a buf£er
area in accordance with Division 11.1.
~ec. 21-200.1 Exceptions.
Sections 21-196 through 21-200 shall not apply to
undeveloped projects which had valid zoning and a valid site plan
approval on November 13, 1985, provided that the site plan
approval remains valid according to Section 21-75. Exceptions
85-831
shall be granted to permit these projects ko be developed
according to conditions of zoning and site plan approvals.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THR CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~
1978, AS AMENDED~ BY AMENDING SECTIONS 21-3, 21-9, 21-21~
21-33, 21-38, 21-47, 21-50, 21-52, 21-56, 21-80 AND ENACTING
SECTION 2]-56.1 AND ARTICLE X, SECTIONS
21-109 THROUGH 21-113.1 RELATING TO
TOWNHOUSE DISTRICTS
BE IT 0RDAIN=D by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 21-3 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended is amended '~n~ reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-3. Definitions.
o o O
Townhouse. A series or group of single family attached
dwelt~ed or sited on individual subdivided lots designed
bo be sold as a unit. Each unit shall be separated from one
another by party walls without doors, windows, or other
provisions for human passage or visibility through such walls,
from basement to roof.
o o o
Yard, privacy. A small area contiguous to a building and
enclosed on at least two sides by either a wall or fence of six
feet minimum height.
(2) That Section 21-9 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-9. Fees for hearings.
(a) Zoning:
(5)
o o e
Residential Townhouse (R-TH) ..... $475.00 plus
$20.00 per acre.
(3) That Section 21-21 of the Code of the Count~ of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended is amended and reenactments
follows:
For the purpose of this chapter the unincorporated territory
of ~ho County is hereby divided into districts as follows:
§5-~32
~-7 One Family Residential District
~-TH Townhouse Residential Distr~ct
~H-1 Mobile Nome Park District
O O O
Residence or residential districts, hereafter refer~ed to as
~ Districts, include the R-40, R-25, R-~5, R-12, R-9, R-7, MH-1,
~nd M~-2 Districts. Townhouse residential districts include the
~-T~ District. Business districts, hereafter referred to aa B
~istriets, include the O, B-I~ B-2, B-3 and B-T Districts.
~ndustrial districts, hereafter referred to as M Districts,
include the M-I, M-2 and M-3 Districts. Agricultural Districts
knclude the A District.
(4) That Section 21-33 of the Code of the Cp, unt~ of
~hosterfield, 1978, as amended is amended and reenacted as
21-33. Dumpster and garbage can areas.
Zn all multiple family developments, R-TH districts, and
:ommercial and industrial districts, solid waste Storage areas
(dumpster and garbage can) ~hall be screened from view by a solid
~enee, wall or dense evergreen plantings.
(5) That Section'21-38 of the Code of the County of
~h~sterfield, 1978, as amended is amended and reenacted as
follows;
~ec. 21-38. Generally.
The maximum height of all buildings within the districts
~numerated below shall be as follows e×cept for the provisions of
~eetion 21-40 below:
(a) R-40, R-2~, R-15, R-12, R-9, R-7, R-TN, ~{-1, and MH-2:
(1) Ail buildings other than accessory--three
sto~ies or forty feet, whichever is less.
{2) Accessory buildlngs--one-half the heiqht of
the principal building Or twenty-five feet whichever is
greater. In R-TH Districts, except these lots listed
in Section 21-113,1 (a), no windows, doors, or other
similar openings will be permitted above one story or
ten f~et, whichever is less. Accessory buildings that
abut a common side property llne shall maintain a solid
wall (having no windows, dOOrS, or other similar
openings) along said adjoining property line.
(6) That Section 21-47 of the Code of the County of
~heeterfield, 1978, as amended is amended ~nd reenacted as
~ollowS:
~ec. 21-47. Required yards for aocessor~ buildings in "R",
"R-TH" and "A" Districts.
Except as indicated in this section, the yard requirements
~or permitted uses shall apply to the accessory buildings:
(a) In R and A Districts and lots in R-TH Districts
identified in Section 21-]13.]. (a) one story detached accessory
~uildings shall observe a side yard setback not less than
)ne-half the required side yard fo~ a permitted use, a front yard
setback of the lesser of on,-half the depth of the lot or eighty
eeet, and a rear yard s~tback of not less than ten feet; except
~hat an accessory building located'on a corne~ lot shall observe
85-833
a corner side yard setback not less than the required front yard
setback for a permitted use.
(b) In R-TM Districts, attached and detached carports,
garages, storage buildings, or other similar accessory structures
are permitted on individual lots and shall observe the front,
side, and corner side yard setback for the principal building.
No rear yard setback shall be required.
TO assure adequate usable open space on each 10t, one wall
of any such accessory structure must abut an interior side
property line. A privacy yard, having a minimum size o~ ten by
twenty-five feet shall be maintained on each lot where there are
such structures. An accessory structure in an R-TM District
shall cover no more than forty-five percent of the required rear
yard.
(c) Tn R and A Districts and lots in R-TH Districts
identified in Section 21-113.1 (a) a detached accessory building
having more than one story shall observe an interior side yard
not less than the side yard required of the permitted use, a rear
yard setback of not les~ than one-half the required rear yard for
a permitted use, a corner side yard setback of not less than the
front yard requirement for a permitted use; and a front yard
setback the lesser of 0ne-half of the average depth of the lot or
eighty feet.
Id) In R and A Districts and lots in R-T~ Districts
identified in Section.21-113.1 (a) a detached accessory building
shall cover no more than twenty percent of the required rear
yard.
(e) In R and A Districts and lots in R-T~ Districts
identified in Section 21-113.1 (a), carports attached to single
family dwellings shall observe interior side yard setbacks not
less than one-half the required side yard in that district hut in:
no case less than five feet. (11-27-72), §24-11; 4-28-76).
(7) That Section 21-50 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended is amended ab~ reenacted
follows:
Sec. 21-50. Parking.spaces re~ui~ed.
US__~E
a. Dwellings
1. One family
2. Two family
3. Multifamily and lots in R-TH
Districts identified in Sec,
21-113.1 (a)
4. Townhouses
NUMBER OF SPACES
1 for each dwelling
unit
2 for each dwelling
unit
1 4/5 for each
dwelling unit
2 for each dwelling
unit, and no more
than one r~quired
pa~king Space per
unit bs provided in
Carports and
garage~.
IS) That Section 21-52 of the Code of ~he County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended is amended and reenacted as
follow~}
Sec. 21-52. Parkin~ and storing recreational eguipment in "R"
and "R-T~" Districts.
85-~34
(b) In all R Districts an~ lots in R-TH Districts
identified in Sec. 21-113.1 (a), all recreational equipment shall
be parked or stored in a rear yard, except for loading or
unloading, and shall be setback at least ten feet from the rear
lot lines and five feet from the side lot lines. NO t~ailcr or
vehinle shall have its wheels removed except for repair purposes.
(d) In R-TH Districts, the parking and storinq of
recreational equipment shall be prohibited unless a common
storage area(s) is (are) provided for recreational vehicle
parking~ including boats, trucks exceeding 4,000 pounds neb
weight and two axles, campers, and travel and utility trailers.
Parking spaces for recreational equipment and/or vehicles shall
be in addition to that required for parking private vehicles.
Said storage area or areas shall be effectively screened from
view in accordance with Division 11.1.
(9) That Section 21-56 of the Cede of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended is a~ended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-56. Parking lot regulations.
Rvery parking area for six or more vehicles shall be subject
to the following regulations:
o o o
(e) Buffer strlp~ Along any side or rear lot line which
adjoins any "R" District and lots in R-TH Districts identified in
Sec. 21-113.1 (a), except in front yard areas, there shall be
installed and maintained an ornamental, concrete or masonry wall
or solid board fence or dense evergreen planting at least five
feet high unless natural conditions pro~ide effective screening.
The planting and ~aintenance of all trees or shrubs shall be
under the supervision of the Director of Planning. Tn R-TH
Districts, this requirement must be shown on landscaping plans
submitted in conjunction with plan of development approval as per
Division 11.1.
(10) That the Code o£ the County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~
amended, be amended by enacting Section ~1'56.1 as follows:
Sec. 21-56.1. Landscaping standards for parkih~ areas in R-TH
Districts.
Except for those lots identified in Sec. 21-113.1 (a), all
R-TH Districts shall comply with the following landscaping
standards for parking areas:
(a) Interior parking area landscaping.
(1) Any parking area shall have at least ten square feet of
interior landscapinq for each space. Each required landscaped
area shall contain a minimum of 100 ~quare feet and have a
minimum dimension of at least ten feet.
(2) The primary landscaping material used in parking areas
shall be trees which provide shade Or are capable o£ providing
shade at maturity. Each land,caped area shall include at least
one tree, having a clear trunk of at least five feet. The total
number of trees shall not be less than one for each 200 square
feet, Or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area.
The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs and other
vegetative material to complement the tree landscaping.
(3) Landscaping areas shall be reasonably dispersed
throughout, located So as to divide and break up the expanse of
85-835
paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be
calculated as required landscaped area.
[b) Peripheral parking area landscaping.
(I) Peripheral landscaping shall be required along any side
of a parking area that abuts land not in the right of way of a
street such that:
A landscaped strip at least ten feet in width shall be
located between the parking area and the abutting property
lines, except where drlvewaym or other openings may be
required. At least one tree, having a clear trunk of at
least five feet, for each fifty lineal feet shall be planted
in the landscaped strip.
(c) Landscaping plans. A landscaping plan shall be
submitted in conjunction with plan of development approval a~ per
Division 11.1. Such landscaping plan~ shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances, and clearly delineate all
~xisting and proposed parking spaces or other vehicle areas,
access aisles, driveways, and the location, size and description
of all landscaping materials.
(11) That Section 21-80 of the Code of th~ Count~ of
Che~terfiel_~, 1978, as amended is amended and reenacted as
Sec. 21-80. Same--Conditional uses.
The following uses may be allowed by conditional use subject
to the provisions of Section 21-34:
o o o
(12) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, be amended by ~nacting Article X a~' follows=
Article X. R-TH Residential - ?ownhouse District
Sec. 21-109. Permitted uses-iBy riqht.
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-TH
Oistrlct: Townhouses in accordance with Division
Sec. 21-110. Same--Accessory uses.
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R-TH
Oistrict:
(a) Propagation and cultivation of crops, flowers, trees,
and shrubs which are not offered for sale.
(b) Private garages, tool and storage buildings, boat
houses, piers and docks.
(c) Non-commercial passive and active recreational
facilities ~or community purposes.
(a) Home occupations.
(e) Temporary buildings or trailers devoted to purposes
incidental to construction activities taking place on the
premises; provided, that such buildings or trailers shall be
removed upon completion or abandonment of such work.
85-836
(f) Temporary real estate offices for the purposes of
selling lots or townhouses within the development provided such
office is removed upon 80 percent of the recorded lots being
sold.
(g) Buildings or structures devoted to maintenance and
groundskeeping purposes and equipment storage.
Sec. 21-111. Same--Conditional uses.
The following uses may be allowed as Conditional Uses in the
R-TH District subject to the provisions of Section 21-34:
(al Child care centers and kindergartens.
(b) Planned developments.
Sec. 21-112. Same--Special exceptions.
The following USes may be Dermitted es Special Exceptions in
the R-TH District subject to the provisions of Section 21-1~:
Public and private utility uses, so long as they
require a structure, to include all water, sewer, solid
waste disposal, electric, gas and communications. Service
lines, cables, buried wires or pipes in easements on public
roads, or on the premises of individual Consumers shall be
permitted without obtaining a Special Exception.
Sec. 21-t13. Required conditions.
(a} The purpose and goal of the following conditions is to
result in a development which protects against overcrowding,
undue density of population, obstruction of light and air and
which is attractive, Convenient and harmonious. TO this end,
buildings should be designed to impart harmonious proportions and
tO avoid monotonous facades or large bulky masses. Townhouse
Buildings should possess architectural variety but enhance an
Dvezall cohesive residential character. Character should be
achieved through the creative use of design elements such as bal-
=onies and/er terraces, articulation of doors and windows,
~culptural Or textural relief of facades, architectural
Drnamentation, varied roof lines, Or other appurtenances such as
~ighting fixtures and/or planting. Townhouse rows of more than
six (6) units shall be clustered and employ sufficient variety of
9etbacks between Knits to avoid monotonous facades and bulky
(b) The following conditions shall be met in the R-TH
)istrict except as specifisd in Section 21-113.1 (a):
(1) Lot area. Each dwelling, together wi=h its
accessory buildings, hereafter erected shall be located on a
lot having an area of not less than one thousand five
hundred twenty square feet and a front width of not less
than nineteen feet; except end units in townhouse groups or
rows having less than five units shall have a lot area of
not less than two thousand three hundred twenty square ~eet
and a width of not less than twenty-nine feet and end units
in townhouse groups or rows having five or more units shall
have a lot area o£ not less than two thousand seven hundred
twenty square feet and a width of not less than thirty-four
feet.
(2) Percentage of lot coverage. All buildings,
including accessory buildings, on any lot shall not cover
more than £ifty percent of the area of such lot. NO
accessory building s×cept for a private garage on any lot
shall cover more than two hundred and twenty-five square
feet.
85-837
(3) Front yard. Each lot shall have a front yard
having a depth of not less than twenty feet.
(4) Side yard. A side yard of not less than ten feet
in width shall be provided for each end residence in
townhouse groups Or rOwS having four or less units.
Townhouse groups having five or mona units shall have a
minimum side yard of fifteen feet.
15) Corner side yard. Each lot On a corner shall have
a corner slde yard of not less than twenty-five feet.
(6) Rear yard. Each lot shall have a rear yard having
a depth of not less than twenty-five feet.
(7) Group or row design.
(a) The total number of units within each
attached group or row of t0wnho~ses shall be
varied, but in no case exceed ten and shall be
designed and sited as outlined in Sec. 21-113
(b) Each townhouse unit shall have a varied front
building line of at least two feet; every third
unit shall vary in front building line at least
(8) Minimum acreage required. Each such townhouse
development shall have a minimum of ten gross acres.
(9) Density. Density shall not exceed eight dwelling
units per gross acre. Gross acreage is defined as all land
within the exterior boundaries of the tract on which the
development is located including private lots, private
drives, parking areas, recreational areas, public streets
and other public or semi-public uses established as part o~
the development plan.
(10) Frontage On public street. Ail lots shall have
frontage on a public street or access thereto by common
right of way within five hundred feet.
(ll) Common area. A minimum cf twenty percent of total
gross acreage shall be provided as common open area,
exclusive of driveways, parking areas, and recreational
areas. Within this area, a minimum common area of five feet
in width shall be provided for each exposed side, front and
rear of all lots except the side, front and rear of any lot
or lots fronting Or abutting a public street.
(12) Cerumen areas and ownership of property. Co,on
areas which are not contained in lots or streets conveyed to
individual owners, shall be maintained by and be the sole
responsibility of the developer-owner of the t0w~house
development until such time as the developer-owner conveys
such comm~on area to a nonprofit corporate owner whose
members shall be all of the individual owners of townhouses
in the development or to a nonprofit council of co-owners as
provided under Section 55-79.1 et seq. of the Code of
Virginia. Such land shall be conveyed to and be held by
such nonprofit corporate owner or such nonprofit council Of
co-owners solely for recreational and parking purposes of
the owners of the individual townhouse lots in such
tcwnhouse development. In the event of such conveyance by
the developer-owner to a nonprofit corporate owner, deed re-
strictions and covenants, in form and substance satisfactory
to the County Attorney, shall provide, among other things,
that any assessments, charges and costs of the maintenance
of such common areas shall constitute a pro rata lien
against the individual townhouse lots, inferior in lien and
dignity only to taxes and bona fide duly recorded deeds of
trust on each townhouse lot. A~ applicant, seeking to
85-838
subject property to townhouse development under this article
whose ownership or interest in the property is held by a
valid l~ase, shall provide .for an initial term of not less
than ninety-nine years in such lease.
(13) Recreational area required. An area conveniently
accessible to and included WiThin the development of not
less than ten percent of the gross acreage shall be provided
for suitable recreational use by the occupants, and in no
event shall be less than one and one-half acres be provided.
Recreational facilities, including active and passive
recreation and community buildings shall be provided, as
deemed appropriate during plan of development approval in
accordance with Division 11.1. Issuance of occupancy
permits for townhouses shall be in conjunction with the
phasing of recreational facilities in accordance with the
approved plan of development.
Sec. 21-113.1 Exceptions.
(a) sections 21-109 through 21-113 shall not apply to lots
in the R-TH District which:
(1) had an unexpired tentative subdivision plat on
November 13, 1985, provided that the tentative subdivision
plat has been properly renewed in accordance with Section
18-18 (b) of this Code; or
(2) had s subdivision plat recorded prior to November
13, 1985.
(bi Permitted Uses.
(1) Permitted uses--By right. The following uses
shall be p~itted by right in the R-TH District as
referenced in this Section: Townhouses for Sale.
(2) Same--Accessory uses. The following accessory
uses shall be permitted in the R-TH District: Those
accessory uses permitted in the R-40 District,
(3] Same--Conditional uses. The following uses may be
allowed as conditional uses in ~he R-TH District subject to
the provisions of section 2]-34: Those conditional uses
permitted in the R-40 District.
(4] Same--Special exceptions. The following uses may
be permitted as special exceptions in the R-TM District
subject to the provisions of section 21-15: Those uses
permitted as special exceptions in the R-40 District.
(c) Required Conditions.
The following conditions shall be met in the R-TM
District as referenced in this section:
(1) 5ct area. Rach dwelling, together with its
accessory buildings, hereafter erected shall be located on a
lot having an area of not less than one thousand five
hundred twenty square feet and a front width of not less
than nineteen feet, except end units which shall have a lot
area of not less than two thousand three hundred twenty
square feet and a width of not less than twenty-nine feet.
(2) Percentage of lot coverage. Ail buildings,
including accessory buildings, on any lot shall not cover
more than forty percent of the area of such lot. No
accessory building except for a private garage on any lot
shall cover more than one hundred square feet.
(3) Front yard. ~ach lot shall have a £ront yard
having a depth of not less than twenty-five feet.
85-839
{4) ~ide yard. A side yard of not less than ten feet
in width shall be provided for each end residence in the
building; except, that corner side yards shall be not less
than twenty-five feet.
(5) Rear a_~_~. ~ach lot shall have a rear yard of not
less than t--~-~ty--~r~ve feet in depth measured from tbs rear
main building line.
(6) Common areas. A minimum con, non area cf ten feet
in width shall be provided for each exposed side, front and
roar of all lots cf a block, except the side, front and rear
of any lot or lots £renting or abutting a public street.
(7) Limitation on number Of unite. The total number
of units in a group of attached townhouses shall not exceed
ten.
(8) Common areas and Ownership of property. In the
event common areas are provided which are not contained in
lots or streets conveyed to individual owners, such common
areas shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility
of the developer-owner of the townhouse development until
such time as the developer-oWner conveys such common area to
a nonprofit corporate Owner whose members shall be all of
the individual owners of townhouses in the townhouse
development or to a nonprofit council of co-owners a~
provided under section 55~79.1 et ~eq. of the Code of
Virginia. Such %and shall be conveyed to and be held by
such nonprofit corporate owner or such nonprofit council of
co-owners solely for recreational and parking purposes of
the owners of the individual townhouse lots in sneh
townhouse development. In the event of such conveyance by
the developer-owner to a nonprofit corporate owner, deed re-
strictions and covenants, in form and sub~tance satisfactory
to the county attorney, ~hall provide, among other things,
that any assessments, charges and costs of the maintenance
of such cool, on areas shall constitute a pro rata lien
against the individual townhouse lots, inferior in lien and
dignity only to taxes and bona fide duly r~corded deeds of
trust on each townhouse lot. An applicant, seeking to
subject property to tOwnhouse development under this article
whose ownership or interest in the property is held by a
valid lease, shall provide for an initial term of not less
than five hundred years in such lease.
(9) ~. Density of development shall not exceed
ton dwelling units per gross acre. Gross acreage is defined
as all land within the exterior boundaries of the tract on
which the development is located including private lotst
private drives, parking ar~as, recreational areas, public
Streets and other public Or semi-public uses established as
part o£ the development plan.
(10) Minimum acreage resuired. Each such townhouse
development shall hav~"a' minzmum gross acreage of not less
than ten acres.
(11) Frontage on p.~.~ic street. Whenever the plan for
townhouse pro,eot provides for other than one individual
ownership, all lots shall have frontage On a public street
or access thereto by co~on right of way within five hundred
feet.
{12) Recreational area requ{red. An area conveniently
accessible to and included within the fownhouse development
of not less tha~ ten percent of the gross acreage shall be
provided for suitable recreational use by the occupants of
the townhouse development, and in no event shall lsss than
one and one-half acres be so provided. A site plan of the
recreational facilities shall be submitted to the Director
of Planning for approval and incorporated in the master deed
88-840
as approved before recording. Occupancy permits for
townhouses shall be issued only when the recreational
facilities have been complgted according to approved plan,
or when the whole project, including recreational
facilities, has been fifty percent completed, or when the
developer-owner furnishes bond with approved surety to the
County satisfactory to the Director of Planning and County
Attorney.
(13) Setback for driveways and parking areas. Ail
private driveways and parking areas shall be at least
fifteen feet from the right of way line of any existing or
proposed public road, subject, however, to the previsions of
section 21-44 and 21-56 (a).
Vote:
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO ~4END TH~ CODE OF TS~ COUNTY O~
CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ENACTING DIVISION 11.1,
SECTIONS 21-67.1 THROUGH 21-67.10 RELATING TO
PLAN OF DEVELOPMENTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(11 That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, be amended bY Enacting Division 11.1 as foll~ws:
DIVISION 11.1. PLAN OF DEVELOPMENTS
Sec. 21-67.1. Plan of development.
(a) ~urpose~.
(l) To assure compliance with all applicable
requirements of this 0rdinanee.
(2) To state the specific additional requirements
applicable to the development of uses designated under this
section.
(3) TO insure a minimum impact and compatibility with
adjacent land uses and future development.
(4) To prescribe the standards for preparation and
submission of plans of development and for the design and
construction of required improvements.
(b) Uses requiring plan of development.
(1) All uses referenced to this section.
Sec. 21-67.2. Required information.
Every plan of development as herein provided, submitted in
accordance with this division shall contain all information
normally required on a site plan as per Division 12 of this
article or on a tentative subdivision plat as required in ChapterI
18, Article II. In addition, every plan of development shall
contain the following:
(a) Landscaping plans.
(b) Architectural renderings and/or elevations.
Sec. 21-67.3. Procedure for Processing.
The plan of development shall be submitted to the Director
of Planning in ten (10) clearly'legible blue or black line copies
which shall be accompanied by the plan of development fee and
application for processing and approval.
The Director of Planning or his agent shall be responsible
for checking the plan of development for general completeness and
compliance with such administrative requirements as may be
established prior to routing copies thereof to reviewing
departments, agencies, and officials. He shall see that all
reviews are completed on time and that action ie taken by the
approving authority on the plan of development in accordance with
the approved public hearing schedule established at the beginning
of each calendar year, except under abnormal circumstances, from
the receipt thereof in his office.
Sec. 21-67.4. Review of plans of development by approvi~
authorities. ' ,, -
All plans of development which are properly submitted as
provided in this division shall be reviewed and recommended for
approval in accordance with Sec. 21-74.
Sec. 21-67.5 Nearing on application.
Upon recoipt in proper form of written recommendations from
the reviewing County departments, agencies and officials, the
Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the plan of
development and shall approve, approve with modifications, or
disapprove the plan of development. In approving the plan of
development, the Commission may establish such conditions and may
roquire ouch modifications as will assure compliance with the
standards and regulations of the subject d/strict and this
section.
Sec. 21-67.6 Final plans.
The plan of development shall be a tentative plat for land
within the proposed development to be subdivided Or a preliminary
site plan for land to be developed otherwise. Final plans for
land within the proposed development to be subdivided shall be
final plats as required in Chapter 18, Division 3. Final plans
for land not to bo subdivided shall be site plans as required in
Division 12 of this article. Final plans shall be submitted to
the Director of Planning who shall approve them if he determines
such plans are in accordance with an approved plan of development
and all applicable ordinances. If the final plans are not in
accordance with the plan of development, then the Director of
Planning shall refer the final plan to th~ Planning Commission.
If the Commission finds tho final plan not to be in accordance
~ith the approved plan of development; the plan of development
~hall be amended by the Commission, or the final plan shall be
uade to be in accordance with the approved plan of development
~efore the final plan shall be approved.
~ec. 67.7 Period of validity and extension.
The Planning Commission reserves the right to roview a plan
)f development at any time, and an approved plan of development
~hall become null and void if the final site plan or final
~ubdivision plat is not submitted within 12 month~ from the date
:f approval of the plan of development. When there are no
:hanges from a previously approved plan of development, the
)irector of Planning is authorized to administratively review and
:enow a plan of development for an additional twelve month
~eriod, subject to all previously imposed conditions. In the
~vent it is deemed necessary to require additional conditions,
:enewal requests shall be considered by the Planning Commission
~t its next appropriate meeting. Applications for renewal shall
85-8~2
be prepared in the same manner as applications for initial plan
of development approval.
Sec. 21-67.8 Revisions and waiver.
(a) After a plan of development has been approved by the
Planning Commission, minor revisions of the plan of development
which comply with the spirit of this division and other
provisions of this ordinance, with the intent of the approving
body and their approval of plans of development, and with the
general purpose of the Comprehensive plan for development of the
area, may be epproved by the Director of Planning with the
concurrence of the reviewing authorities concerned. Deviation
from an approved plan of development shall void the plan and the
Director of Planning shall require the applicant to resubmit a
new plan of development for consideration.
(b) Any major revision of an approved plan of development
may be made in the same manner as originally approved and any
requirements of thi~ division may be waived by the Director of
Planning in specific cases where such requirement is found to be
unreasonable and where such waiver will not be adverse to the
purpose of this division.
Sec. 21-67.9 Fees.
In addition to any other fees required by the county the
following fee shall be paid to the County Treasurer upon filing a
plan of development application:
Plan of development . . $200.00
- and $10 per dwelling unit
Renewal, plan of development $150.00
- and $1 per dwelling unit
See 21-67.10 Appeal to the Soard of Supervisors
Any applicant for a plan of development may file an appeal
with the Board of Supmrvisors from any final decision of the
Planning Commission On any application for a plan of development.
Such appeals must be filed in writing with the secretary ef the
Planning Commission within fifteen days of the ~ecision.
The appeal must specify the particular action or portion
there of which is being challenged and must specify the basis for
the appeal.
Upon receiving a timely appeal, the secretary of the
Planning Commission shall transmit the appeal and the record of
the case to the Board of Supervisors.
Vote= Unanimous
Mr. Zook expressed appreciation to the citizens and development
community for their participation in this matter and the staff
for their diligence.
11. NEW BUSINESS
ll.A. SENIOR CITIZENS HALL OF FAME
~irs. Diane Peterson, Re~ources Coordinator, introduced Mrs.
Carrie Rogers from the Chesterfield Senior Council and a member
of the Hall of Fame Committee. ~irs. Rogers introduced Mrs. Elsie
S. Elmore and MS. Alice Newland who were present and ~tated that
Firs. Elizabeth B. White co, id not be present. She stated these
women had been inducted into the Senior Citizena Hall of Fame.
She stated that Mrs. Elmore has volunteered her time and energies
in many areas, particularly in government and human services; she
85-843
is a member of the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of
Social Services; she is a member of the Department of Social
Services Multi-discipline Team on Child Abuse and Neglect; her
work On the Governor's Advisory Committee on Child Abuee and
Neglect led to the development of guide materials which has been
used across the state in assisting localities with the
establishmeDt of community-based multi-disc]plinary committees;
she has been a member of the Chesterfield Christmas Committee forl
many years and was its Christmas Mother in 1981; and she is
currently Chairman of the Human Services Planning Committee at
United Way of Greater Richmond.
She stated that Ms. Newland has given 1,800 hours of volunteer
service with the individual patients at Chippenham Hospital
through the Retired Senior Volunteer Program; she has been a
member of the Board of Directora of the Capital Area on Aging for
fou~ years and ia currently its Vice-President; she has served as
District President of Virginia Retired Teachers Association and
is currently its Treasurer; she was elected for two terms to the
Virginia SAlver Haired Legislature and microfilms vital records
for the Chesterfield Historical Society.
She stated that Mrs. White volunteers many hours at the
Chesterfield County Nursing Home; she displays a caring and
positive attitude toward the needs and interest of the Home; she
~ecently established and leads a resident ceramic class; she
assists in the feeding program, visits individual residents,
writes letters, works with those withdrawn residents; she assists
with fund raising programs and serves as the Nursing Nome's
representative to pro%ida tours or entertainment and she recruits
volunteers to assist with the Nursing Hom~ programs.
M~s. Elmore presented the Hoard with the Senior Citizens Hall of
Fame plaque with the names of the inductees inscribed. Mr.
Applegate, on behalf of the Board, accepted the plaqu~ and
congratulated the inductees On their accomplishments.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes.
Recon~ening:
ll.B. ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING ONCE YEAR
END BALANCE FOR ~84-85 ESTAHLI$~n
Mr. Hedrick Stated there were several requests for additional
funding which the Board discussed at the end o£ the budget
process and it was agreed that once the year end fund balance was
determined that these items would be reconsidered. Mr. Ramsey
stated the requests include firefighters, additional services for
Mental Health/Mental Retardation and a secretary for General
District Court which amounts tc $336,600 for the remaining si~
months of the fiscal year. He stated staff met with the
departments involved and they feel the items are still critical
to their operation. He Stated the year end fund balance for
1984-85 is $434,137 less than estimated and is actually $34,463.
He stated if the Board wanted to fund these items from the fund
balance, the remaining fund balance would be 4.8% of the total
general fund rather than the 5%. Mr. Applegate inquired if the
4.8% would have an effect on the bond rating. Mr. Ramsey stated
the $5,800,000 that would remain is the estimate for June 30,
1986 and we are counting on getting some money back next year but
we are hoping to us~ that for the following year's budget and it
is still an estimate. Mrs. Girone stated these requests
represent an on-going obligation of $600,000 for future years.
Mr. Daniel inquired when recommendations for the 1986-87 budget
would be ready for discumsion. Mr. Hedrick stated in February or
March. Mr, Daniel inquired since these were obligations for
future budgets, that action be deferred ~ntil the 1986-87 budget
is ready for consideration. ~e stated these items are in
competition for limited resources and if we approve this,
85-844
it takea the money out of reserve as well as voting an automatic
obligation in next year's budget.
Mrs. Girone stated that she felt the Mental Health/Mental
Retardation is critical and suggested the Board consider this
item. The Board indicated they had agreed on all four issues
equally and the ~ituation involving the firefighters for Matoaca
is actually worse than when originally discussed. Mr. Dodd
stated he did not know of any area of the County that requested
firefighters that was critical and it was not funded. H~
Suggested that the M~ntal Health/Mental Retardation and
firefighters for Matoaca be approved aud the others be
reevaluated. Mr. Applegate stated all were equally agreed upon
in June and felt they all should be cousidered but that the
figures are ba~ed on six months so a decision is not necessary
today. Mr. Ramsey stated those items involve filling positions
and the departments nesd 30 days to do so. Mr. Applegate
inquired when the Board would be considering the 3 Year
Projections. Mr. Hedrick stated the Board would be asked to
schedule a work session to discuss it. Mr. Ramsey stated the
budget schedule calls for the actual budget for next year to be
~ubmitted at the end of February. Mr. Hedrick requested that the
budget schedule be forwarded to the Board in the near future.
Mr. Daniel stated that when the budget was approved for 1985-86
these items were selected as other items which needed to be
funded but we would not do anything until the year end figures
were received. Be stated the funds have been calculated at
$35,000 rather than $470,000. He stated if these items are
approved, it will reduce the surplu~ in addition to placing a
budget pressure on future budgets. He stated he felt the Board
has waited this long, they could wait a while longer to see what
the projections are for 1986-87 and we can deal with it all at
one time. Be stated there is some discussion regarding the
firefighters for Matoaca and the Mental Health/Mental Retardation
programs which are important but he felt the firefighters for
Dale is just as critical. He stated he would like to see the
entire financial picture before these items are approved because
these are projects competing for limited resources. Mr.
Applegate stated there is only $35,000 to fund the items unless
the Board is going to reduce the fund balance. Mr. Daniel stated
he thought it was clear that under no circumstances would the
Roard reduce the fund balance under 5%,
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
resolved to defer consideration of the additional funding for the
firefighters for Matoaca and Dale Districts, additional funding
for the Mental Health/M~ntal Retardation Services and a secretary
for General District Court until the 1986-87 budget ia ready for
discussion.
Mr. Mayes stated these items are critical and it is the Roard's
duty to deal with them. Mrs. Girone stated that the Board
thought there would be money to deal with these items but there
is not and if we approve them, we will be adding an additional
$600,000 to next year's budget without looking at the budget or
se=ting priorities for next year. Mr. Applegate inquired if the
Hoard could deal with the matter if we have an opportunity to
look at the 3 year projections. Mrs. Girone stated she felt if
the Board looked at the 3 year projections, then it could
determine which are the most important issue~. Mr. Dodd stated
he did not want to raise taxes, but when it was necessary to put
Ipaid men in the Benslsy Fire Department the Beard did and he
feels Matoaca District needs the firemen. Mrs. Girone stated
this should have been included in the budget if it were
necessary. She stated that five months have gone by and inquired
how critical is critical. ~r. Applegate inquired if the firemen
were included in the 1985-86 budget recommended by staff. Mr.
Hedrick stated it was in the add back portion. Mr. Mayes stated
that was the case because there were not enough funds to fund it
in th~ regular budget. Chief Fanes stated that replacement of
breathing apparatus, fire protective clothing, etc. were deemed
85-845
more critical at that time. Mr. Applegate inquired about the
additional funds necessary for equipment, etc. if the men were
hired in Matoaca. Chief ~anes slated that the ~atoaca Station
has been an all volunteer unit since 1953 and the money is to
fund bunking facilities, shower/bathroom facilities, kitchen
facilities, furniture, constant manning money, uniforms, etc.
Mrs. Girone stated this is an upgrading of the operation not just
the hiring of men for the station and it should have been in the
budget. She inquired when the men would be in the station.
Chief Eanes stated they would be hired on January 1, 1986 and
would be in the station on April 1, 1986. Mr. Mayas stated this
was part of the request and when there was no money, it was moved
into the add backs. Mr. Applegate stated staff did not recommend
this in the 1985-86 budget. Mr. Hedrick stated that staff
recommended those items but within the funds available after
distribution to the other areas, there were no f~ds available as
it was not as high a priority as others. Mr. Mayas stated he
felt Matoaca District was the only district with fire safety
protection deficiencies. He stated if there is a disaster, the
Board will have to have this on their conscience because it would
not fund it. Mrs. Girone stated that the Board does not want to
turn their back on issues such as this but it is now determined
as critical and it did not survive the regular budget process and
has not been brought to the Board's attention in the last five
months. Mr. Mayas stated ho ~elt this would not survive today
for the same reasons it did not survive the normal budget process
but there were funds for the the other needs. Mrs. Girone stated
she felt it strange that out of $250,000,000 budget, we could not
fund this in the 1985-86 budget.
Mr. Daniel stated that Chief Eanes has requested in more than one
budget seesion three firefighters for the Dale Fire station and
in the establishment of the priorities in the minds of those who
review those requests, collectively agreed that this was a lesser
priority than some of the other needs. He stated he has publicly
voted to vote with the majority on their collective wisdom. He
stated if for some reason we are going to fund the fire program
for Matoaca, he would be upset if the Dale Fire Station was not
included. He stated others may feel discouraged if the other two
items are not funded and there we are at the total amount of
Money. He stated ha felt the Board should defer any vote and
review the impact on next year's budget. He stated he did not
ieel a 30 day deferral would make that much of a difference. Mr.
Mayas asked Chief Eanes how this would effect his operation if
the matter were deferred. Chief ~anes stated that with the
existing resources, the department has increased the alarm
response from the Ettrick Fire Station, combination paid and
volunteer, to cover some of the Matoaca Fire District when they
found some deficiencies in the program. He stated also on tho
western side of Matoaca, they have increased the alarm responses
with assistance from the Phillips Volunteer Fire Department, all
volunteer, to augment some of the deficiencies in Matoaca as
well. ~e stated with the assistance of these departments, they
feel they are covering the Matoaca area as best as can be with
existing forces. He stated a 30 day deferral will still give
them the time tn hire firemen by January 1, 1986 if that is the
Board's final decision.
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone withdrew their motion for deferral.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board set the
date of December 11, 1985 at 10:00 a.m. for a work session on the
3 Year Projections at which time these items will also be
discussed.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.C. AIRPORT ITEMS
ll.C.1. RUNWAY LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AT ROUTE 10 AND COGB!LL ROAD
Mr. Callahan stated the Board deferred consideration of landscape
buffers at the Airport until there were some alternative designs
85-846
prepared. He stated there are two plans for treatment of runway
landscaping at Route 10 and Cogbill Road but in the interest of
safety the trees should he removed as soon as possible. He
outlined the two plans of landscaping, one without a berm which
would take several years to mature before screening would be
complete at a cost of $20,000 and another with a berm which will
provide irmmediate screening at a cost of $103,000. He stated the
clearing can be completed before the winter season since the
contractor is still on the premises because of the weather which
has held him up. He stated to clear the area at this time would
be best.
Mr. Daniel stated during the early staqes of the expansion,
commitments Wore made to the public and some of those ar0 being
met with funds from the federal funding for the Cogbill Road side
but it does not provide money for the Route 10 area. He stated
he understands that the $20,000 proj0ct could take as long as
I! five years to provide Screening.
On faction of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized staff to clear the 200 ft. of trees on the Route 10
side of the Airport expansion project and appropriated $103,000
from the Contingency to fund the landscaping plan.
Mr. Applegate inquired why trees were to be cut and then
replanted. Mr. Daniel stated that the landscaping would be low
height vegetation. Mr. Appleqate inquired if the Board could
authorize the cutting of the trees and defer the landscaping plan
until later since it will not be planted until spring. Mr.
:Daniel stated he would like his motion to stand as is. Mrs.
Girono Stated there is only $236,000 in the contingency fund and
there is still six months to go in the fiscal year. Mr. Dodd
stated he felt it would not cost $103,000 to berm and landscape
and suggested funds be taken from the Airport Industrial Park
Fund for this purpose. He stated the Board could not find money
to hire firemen in the previous action. Mr. Daniel stated that
he could support the funds being expended from the Airport
Industrial Park account. ~LY. Ramsay stated he thought the
balance in the Airport Industrial Park account was approximately
$80,000. Mr. Hedrick stated those funds were used to make
improvements at the Park when we sell property. Mrs. Girone
inquired why the landscaping was necessary. Mr. Daniel stated he
would like to buffer the runway and the noise from it from Route
10. He stated he had checked into j~st topping the trees, etc.
which was not satisfactory. He stated this is on one of the main
thoroughfares in thm County, it involves preservation of quality
of life and investments and if it ware not accomplished, it would
degrade the quality of the Airport Park. Mr. Mayas inquired how
this amount of money compares to the other projects discussed
earlisr. Mr. Daniel stated the $103,000 is available in the
contingency and it is not a recurring expense. He stated the
other issues were to be taken from the fund balance and would be
an annual recurring expense. Mr. Callahan explained that if a
landscaping plan were not approved, the trees would be cut and
the property would be seeded with grass. HO stated the area to
be cleared is approximately 1,500 feet along Route 10 starting
about 500-600 feet from the Airport entrance. Mr. Daniel stated
he asked staff to try to find alternatives that would avoid this
expense, but there were none available. Mrs. Girone stated she
felt this could be included in th~ capital improvem0nts program
and compete with drainage and other major projects in the County.
Mr. Daniel stated if he knew nothing would be improved and
commitments honored, he may not have agreed to the original
expansion project. He stated he felt the success of the Airport
is partially because you cannot see it and no one realizes it is
there from Route 10.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd.
Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Abstention: Mr. Mayas.
85-847
Mr. Micas advised the Board that the motion failed for a lack of
approval by a majority.
Mr. Mayes stated he could not approve a landscaping project when
firefighters cannot be hired. Mr. Daniel stated that issue would
be coming up again in 30 days. He stated further that this is an
i~ue of cutting the trees and restoring the land. ~e stated he
cannot agree to the trees being cut because he did not feel the
Board would approve a landscaping project. Mr. Mayes stated he
felt in view of the shortage of funds that we have for critical
and essential needs, he could not vote for this. Mr. Daniel
stated that if the Airport Development program had been studied
correctly, the $103,000 would have been in the original funding.
~e stated this cannot be recreated and he feels that it is
important that the project be done and be done correctly to the
level of co~nnitment to the citizens. Mx. Mayes inquired if this
matter could be handled on December llth with the other issueS.
Mr. Daniel stated that would be fine but that the trees should
not be removed before a decision is made. Mr. Mayes stated
removal of the trees is an FAA requirement. Mr. Callahan stated
the FAA has requested that the trees be re~ved so that the
Airport can be in compliance with the requirements as this is the
critical end because it has the instrument approach.
Mr. Hedriek stated we deferred the cutting of the t~ees for two
weeks at the request of Mr. Daniel to allow him time to get this
issue before the Board for landscaping. He stated normally this
is a safety issue and he did not feel the Board had the latitude
of holding up the cutting of the trees at this time. Mr. Daniel
stated funds fez this should have been included in the original
project and they were not. Me stated he felt this was highly
unfair to the citizens in the area. Mr. Applegate stated the
Board should deal with the cutting of the trees tonight since it
is a safety issue and bring back the issue of landscaping, bkT.
Daniel stated he felt the landscaping is part of the same
decision and he felt it was a moral obligation. Mr. Applegate
stated the safety issue has to be considered first and the Board
does agree something should be done at the site for landscaping.
Mrs. Girone suggested cutting the trees and app?opriating $20,000
for the landscaping.
Mr. Daniel stated he would like to make a motion to take $20,000
from the Contingency and $80,000 from the Airport Industrial
Park. Mr. Micas stated that is substantially the same question
voted on earlier and it cannot be reconsidered tonight. Mr.
Applegate stated the County Administrator has indicated the Board
must deal with the FAA requirements tonight. Mr. Mayes stated
the Board should deal,with this issue now because of the safety
factors.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized staff to cut trees within the 200 ft. buffe~ at the
Airport for the Airport expansion project for approximately 1,500
feet and that $75,000 be appropriated £rom the contingency for
the landscaping plan with a lower level of buffering which
includes the berming and is an alternative for the two plans
submitted.
Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd.
Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
11.C.2. DELTA ASS0CIAT~$ TO P~RFORM AIRPORT ENGINEERING WORK
On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents with Delta Associates as primary and Campbell, McQ~een
and Pais as alternate to perform engineering services for a
p~riod o~ three years (Federal fiscal years 86, 87, 88) for
Chester£ield County Airport contingent upon allocation of Federal
funds.
85-848
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D. DONATION TO YMCA
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he belongs to the YMCA and
is on their Board, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to
the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and ~xcused
himself from the meeting.
Mr. Masden stated that the South Richmond-Chesterfield YMCA has
requested a donation of $2,000 as it contributes to the
recreational activities of the citizens of the County, for
example, Camp Thunderbird.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
appropriated $2,000 from the General Fund Contingency to the
South Richmond-Chesterfield YMCA.
Ayes: Mr, Applegate, Mr. Mayee, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
ll.E. 1985 - METRO C}JAMBER LEGISLATIVE TOUR
Mr. Hedrick stated the Board is requested to appropriate $1S,000
as the County's share for the 1986 Metro Chamber Legislative tour
which is part of the regional effort involving Richmond, Hanover
and Henrico County. Me stated it will provid~ the County with
the opportunity to work with the General Assembly on a number of
issues. Mrs. Girone inquired about the issues. Mrs. DeBart
stated the four jurisdictions decided to emphasize
transportation, wastewater treatment and economic development.
She stated if there were any funds remaining, they would be
returned to the jurisdictions. She Stated that all of the state
legislators will be involved as well as members of the Governor's
cabinet and this type of tour is rotated annually and it has not
been in Chesterfield for approximately 20 years. On motion of
Mrs. Cirone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appropriated $15,000
from the General Fund Contingency for the 1986 Metro Chamber
Legislative Tour.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES
ll.F.1. ORDINANCE RELATING TO P~AL ESTATE ASSESSMENT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~r. Mayes, the Board est
the date of December 11, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing
to consider an ordinance amending the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Section 8-8 relating
to real estate assessments.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.2. RESTRICT THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON POCOSHOCK BOULEVARD
Dn motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Maye~ the Board set
the date of January 8, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to
~onsider the restriction of through truck traffic on Pocosh0ck
~oulevard.
;otc: Unanimous
85-849
ll.G. 1986 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Daniel stated that he felt Item #5 in the 1986 Legislative
Program should include that the bond proposals would be
project-oriented rather than just a specified amount of money
approved. Mrs. Girone stated that the Code requires that it be
itemized but we could substitute the VACO statement which
addresses this. Mr. Daniel stated it should be included as a
reinforcement. Mr. Micas stated that he would add a statement
lin the rationale that indioates so long as the projeot~ are
identified in advance of the vote. Mr. Mayes stated this Board
appoints representatives to various boards of educational
linstitutions and he felt there should be an evaluation mechanism.
imf. Micas stated he could draft an item that the State Code
iprovide that the Governor establish a program to identify the
!quality and performance of appointment~ by the Governor. Mrs.
IDe~art stated that this has been discussed periodically and it
[might be wise to add it. She stated each board has a set of
iresponsibilities but she did not know if any had a review of
iperfern~nces. It was generally agreed that the Board would defer
consideration of the 1986 Legislative program with the additions
mentioned this date, a oopy of which is ~iled with the papers of
this Board, until November 20, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. at which time
the Board will be meeting with its Legislative Delegation at
Magnolia Grange.
11.~. STR~T LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
the installation of street lights at the following locations with
the funds to be expended from the District Street Light Funds as
indicated:
1. Near parking lot on Strathmore Road in front of Bensley
Elementary School, Bermuda
Between 2424 and 2426 Aberdeen Road, Bermuda
3. 3101 Kingsland Road, Bermuda
4. Intersection of Rellbrook Drive and Conifer Road, Dale
5. Intersection of ~ellbrook Drive and Ponce De Leon Road, Dale
6. Intersection of Ironbridge Road and E. Booker ~lvd.,
Matoaea
7. Willowdale Drive and Winte~bourne Drlve, 'Matoaca
Willowdale Drive and Willowdale Court, Matoaea
9. Willowdale ~rive and Ravensbourne Drive, Matoaca
10. Winterbourne Drive and Ravensbourne Drive, Matoaca
11. Between 11107 and 11106 Sydelle Drive, Midlothian
Vote: Unanimous
11.~. APPOINTMENTS
11.I.1. STUDY COMMITTEE FOR APPOMATTOX RIVER
Mrs. Girone and Mr. Daniel were nominated for appointment
to the Study Committee for the Appomattox Ri~er with Mr. ~edrick
designated as the ex-officio representative for the County. It
is noted that the official appointment should be made at the
November 27, 1985 meeting.
11.I.2. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
accepted the resignation of Mr. Stanley Balderson from the
Transportation Safety Commission and nominated Mr. John McCracken
for official appointment at the ~ovember 27, 1985 meeting.
Vote: Unanimous
It was noted that Mr. Elmer ~odge's resignation from the County
le~t another ~acanoy. It was generally agreed that this vacancy
would not be filled at this time.
85-850
11.I.3. APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITy
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded ay Mrs. Girone, the ~oard
nominated M~. Richard L. Eedrick for appointment to the
Appomattox River Water Authority with Messrs. David Welchons and
Jeffrey Muzzy as alternates with official appointment to be made
at the November 27, 1985 meeting.
Vote: Unanimoas
Mr. ~edrick stated that Mr. Welchon~ would be attending most of
the meetings because it is more an Operational situation at this
point since the expansion is complete.
11.I.4. CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CHARTER
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board accepted
the resignation of Mr. A. Lee Hanbury from the Commit=ee for
Consideration of a Charter effective October 31, 1985 and further
the Board appinted Mr. Bdgar Wallin whose term is effective
immediately to fill this vacancy £or Dale District.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.J,1. REQUESTS FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS
Mr. Hedrick ~tated there was ano=her request for a binge/raffle
permit from the Manchester Richmond Lodge, #699, Loyal Order of
Moose which was of an emergency nature.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board suspended
its rules and regulations to allow the inclusion of a request for
a bingo/raffle permit for the Manchester Richmond Lodge, %699,
Loyal Order of Moose under Item ll.J.1.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for the calendar
years as indicated:
1. The American Legion Midlothian Post 186, Inc. - 1986
2. The Eensley Bermuda VQlunteer Rescue Squad - 1986
The Optimist Club of Bermuda, Inc. - 1986
4. The Thomas Dale Music Booster Club - 1986
5. The C. E. Curtis Elementary PTA - 1986
6. The Clover Hill High Mchool Athletic Assoc, - 198~
7. The Reams Road Elementary School PTA - 1985
8. The Virginia Belles Softball Club r 1985
9. The Manchester-Richmond Lodge, 9699, Loyal Order of
Moose - 1985
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J.2. STATE ROAD ACC~PTANC~
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writin~ upon his
examination of Carol Anne Road in Evergreen Hills, Sections A and
B, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, ~ecended
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Carol Anne Road ~n Evergreen
Hills, Sections A and B, Matoaca Dis%riot, be and it hereby is
established as a public road.
85-851
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, .Carol Anne Road, beginning at the
intersection with Alberta P~ad, State Route 888, and going 0.19
mile southwesterly to the intersection with proposed Linegar
Drive and then continuing 0.08 mile southwesterly to a
cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive Of the adjacent slope and sit~ distance
easements.
These roads serve 36 lets.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for this road.
These sections of Evergreen Hills are recorded as follows:
Section A. Pla= Book 39, Page 34, August 20, 1981.
Section B. Plat Book 40, Page 32, December 9, 1981.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Poxberyy Drive, Den Bark Drive, Goins Lane,
Foxberry Court, Foxberry Circle, Twilight L&ne~ Oxer Road, Oxer
Court, Leveret Lane, Den Bark Circle, Den Bark Court South, Den
Bark Court North and Babbler Lane in Fozberry, Section 1, Clover
Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Foxberry Drive, Den Bark Brlve,
Goins Lane, Foxberry Court, Foxberry Circle, Twilight Lane, Oxer
Road, Oxer Court, Leveret Lane, Den Bark Circle, Den Bark Court
South, Den Bark Court North and Babbler Lane in Foxberry, Section
1, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as
public roads.
And he it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is r~quested to
take into the Secondary System, Foxberry Drive, beginning at the
iintersection with Hicks Road, State Road 647, and going 0.07 milo
ieasterly ~o the intersection with Goins Lane, then continuing
0.05 mile Southeasterly to the intersection with Foxberry Court,
then continuing 0.07 mile easterly to the intersection with Den
Bark Drive, then continuing 0.05 mile southeasterly to the
intersection with Foxberr7 Circle, then continuing 0.02 mile
southeasterly to tie into proposed Foxberry Drive, Section 2 of
Foxberry; Den Bark Drive, beginning at the intersection with
F0xberry Drive and going 0.09 mile southerly to a temporary
turnaround. Again, Den Bark Drive, beginning at the intersection
with Foxberry Drive and going 0.15 mile northeasterly to the
intersection with Twilight Lane, then continuing 0.05 mile
southeasterly to the intersection with Den Bark Circle, then
continuing 0.05 mile northeasterly to the intersection with Den
Bark Court North and Den Bark Court South, then continuing 0.05
mile northeasterly to the intersection with Babbler Lane, then
continuing 0.03 milo southeasterly to tie into proposed Den Bark
Drive, Section 2 of ~oxberry; Goins Lane, beginning at the
intersection with Foxberry Drive and going 0.03 mile northerly to
a dead end; Poxberry Court, beginning at the intersection with
Foxborry Drive and going 0.03 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac;
Foxberry Circle, beginning at the intersection with Foxberry
Drive and going 0.04 mile northeasterly tO a cul-de-sac; Twilight
Lane, beginning at thc intersection with Den Bark Drive and going
0.07 mile northerly to the intersectzon with Oxer Road, then
continuing 0.08 mile northwesterly to the intersection with
Leveret Lane, then continuing 0.02 mile northerly to tie into
$5-852
beginning a~ the intersection with ~ili~ht ~aae ~nd going 0.09
mile westerly to a temporary turnaround; Den Bark Circle,
beginning at the intarsaction with Don Bark Drive and going 0.04
mile southerly to a cul-de-sac; Den Bark Co~rt South, beginning
at the intersection with Den Bark Drive and going 0.03 ~0/le
southeasterly to a cul-de-sac; Den Bark Court North, beginning at
the intersection with Den Bark Drive and going 0.04 mile
northwesterly to a cul-de-sac; and Babbler Lane, beginning at the
intersection with Den Bark Drive and going 0.15 mile
northeasterly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance
These roads serve 147 lots.
And be it further resolved that the Board of Supmrvisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 40'
right-of-way for all of these reade except Foxbsrry Drive, Den
Bark Drive, Twilight Lane, Goins Lane, Oxer Road and Leveret Lane
which have a 50' right-of-way.
This section of Foxbe~ry is recorded as follows:
Section 1. Plat Book 45, Pages 47-49, April 11, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Soard, made report in writing upon his
examination of ManderS Knoll Terrace a~d Ma~der~ Knoll Court in
Smoketree South, Section C, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Doddr seconded
by Mr. ~ayes, it is rss01vod that Manders Knoll Terrace and
Manders Knoll Court in Smeketree South, Section C, Clover Hill
District, be and they hereby are established as public reade.
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, Wanders Knoll Terrace, beginning
at the intersection with Smoketren South Parkway, State Route
3340, and going 0.08 mile westerly to tho intersection with
Manders Knoll Court, then continuing 0.08 mile westerly to a
cul-de-sac; and Manders Knoll Court, beginning at the
intersection with Manders Knoll Terrace and going 0.07 mile
northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. Again, Manders Knoll Court,
beginning at the intersection with Manders Knoll Terrace and
going 0.04 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site dfstanee
These roads serve 36 lots.
A~d be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervi~0r~
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 40'
right-of-way for Manders Knoll Court and a variable 40' to 50'
right-of-way for Manders Knoll Terrace.
This section of Smoketree South is recorded as follows:
Section C. Plat Book 43, Page 2, May 2, 1983.
851853
Vote: Unanimous
~his day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
~irections from this Hoard, mede report in writing upon his
examination of Smoketree South Parkway, Logan Trace Road and
Logan Trace Court in Logan Trace, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Smoketree South Parkway, Logan
Trace Road and Logan Trace Court in Logan Trace, Clover Hill
District, be and they heraby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Smoketree South Parkway~
beginning at the inte~sectlon with Lucks Lane, State Route 720,
and going 0.07 mile southeasterly to the intersection with Logan
Trace Road, then continuing 0.01 mile southeasterly to t~e into
proposed Smoketree South Parkway in Mansfield Landing; Logan
Trace Road, beginning at the intersection with Smoketree South
Parkway and going 0.04 mile westerly to the intersection with
Logan Trace Court, then continuing 0.10 mile westerly to a
cul-de-sac; and Logan Trace Court, beginning at the intersection
with Logan Trace Road and going 0.06 mile northwesterly to a
cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance
easements.
These roads serve 27 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads except Smoketree South
Parkway which has a 60' right-of-way and Logan Trace Court which
has a 40' right-of-way.
Logan Trace is reeorded as follows:
Plat Book 44, Pag~ 90, December 29, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Metro Court in K~ngslan~ Co~ercial Park, Bermuda
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Metro Conrt in Kingsland
Commercial Park, Bermuda District, be and it hereby is
established as a public 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, Metro Court, beginning at the
intersection with Norcliff Road, State Route 1626, and running
northerly 0.11 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive o~ the adjacent slope and site distance
easements.
9his road serves as access to adjacent commercial property.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
9uarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 60'
right-of-way for this road.
Kiagsland Commercial ~ark is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 26, Page 8, March 16, 1976.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
~×amination of Robious Crossing Drive, Midlethian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dcdd,
seconded by ~r. Mayas, it is resolved that Roblous Crossing
Drive, Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as a
public 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, Robious Crossing Drive, beginning
at the intersection with Robious Road, State Route 711, and going
0.6 mile northerly to tie into proposed Robieus Crossing Drive,
Queenspark Subdivision, Section
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance
easements.
This road serves as access for two (2) schools and adjacent
subdivisions.
Also, by virtue of this road providing a public service, it may
be added to the system as an addition under Section 33.1-299 of
the Code of Virginia.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a variable
width right-of-way of 62.52' to 178.27' for thi~ road.
Robicus Crossing Drive is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 1656, Page 129, May 18, 1984.
Plat Book 1735, Page 1953~ October 30, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J,3. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICE GRANT FOR SHERIFF'E OFFIC~
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting a grant from the Department of Criminal
Justics Eervices in the amount of $35,339.00 for the Sheriff's
Ofiice for a Victim/Witness Assistance program.
ll.K. HIGHWAY ~NGIN~R
Mr. Dennis Morrison, Resident Engineer with the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, was present.
Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation far the assistance by the
Department in Bermuda District.
Mr. Mayas expressed appreciation for the assistance from the
Department and from Mr. Reynolds in Matoaca District.
Mrs. Girone stated that residents are pleased that the Robious
intersection is coming along but at night it is a bad situation.
85-855
She inquired when the yellow barricades will be down. Mr.
Morrison Stated they have paved the southside and northside today
sO there is full access to the road. ~ stated the project was
scheduled for completion November 1, 1985 but with the rain and
flooding it has been delayed.
Mrs, Cirone ~tated she was at Stonehenge last night and they are
concerned about the Southlake Boulevard extension. She stated
the~e are turn lanes and a turn bump and when yo~ come south, is
there not a turn lane into Edenbury. Mr. Morrison stated that is!
not in the $outhlake project. She inquired if there were a turn
lane in front of existing Branchway. Mr. Morrison stated it was
not. ~e stated the Only thing that will be done at ~ranchway is
that a ditch will be constructed and the road cul-de-saced and
the remainder will remain ss is. Mrs. Girone inquired if she
could use her ]¢ Road money or revenue sharing to allow a turn
bump in front of Branchway so that a car coming north will have
to stop before turning into Edenbury to allow traffic to come
around and pass. She stated she would like a left turn lane.
Mr. }~rrison stated that would be another project, ~rs. Girone
stated the skstohes originally showed turn lanes into Edenbury
and a bump. She requested that the project be held up until we
see what can be done. Mr. Morri~on stated he would get with Mr.
McCracken to discus~ the matter.
~rs. Girone stated on Route 60 going west at Route 147, the
people on Stonehenge claim the left turn lane on Route 60 going
into Courthouse Road is too short and so many cars are stacking
and perhaps th~ lane needs to be lengthened. She stated it may
be a timing of the lights Or a capacity problem and requested
that he check into this matter.
Mr. Daniel inquired if Beulah Road were Opened. Mr. Morrison
stated it should be closed another week as there were some
unanticipated problems. Mr. Daniel requested that whenever
something like this happens again, that there be an alternate
route without completely cutting off a main artery. M_r. Morrison]
apologized for not notifying th~ County sooner as it was a ]
problem and they have set up new procedures with regard to lane
closures and road detours. He stated there was some problems and{
there was no alternative in this particular case. Mr. Daniel
stated people were not notified except through a note through the
school children.
Mr. Applegate stated he has been working through Mr. MoCracken
have highway matter~ handled.
ll.L. UTILITIES ITEMS
ll.L.1. PUBLIC HEARING TO VACATE AHLLEy IN CENTRAL PARK,
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and tim~ had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portio~ of an:
alley in Central Park, Block 11. There was no one present to
discuss the matter. On motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by Mr.
Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANC~ to vacate a portion of a 16 foot alley within
Block 11, Central Park, Bermuda Magisterial District,
Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof
duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County in Plat Book 4, at pages 114 and 115.
WHEREAS, Barbara G. Meanley has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion
of a 16 foot alley within Block 11, Central Park, Bermuda
Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more
particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 4, pages 114 and
115, made by J. Temple Waddill, dated January 10, 1928. The
85-856
portion of alley petitioned to be vacated is more fully described
as follows:
A portion of a 16 foot all~y within Block ii, Central Park,
the location of which is more fully shown, shaded in red on
a plat made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, Incorporated,
dated March 9, 1982, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part of this ordinance.
%v~EREAB, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of V%~inia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and
WI~EE~AS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of the alley sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE~ BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
~, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of--~ey be and
y vacated.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Offic~ of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to section
15.1-485 of the Code of virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is
to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion
of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title
of the portion of alley hereby vacated in the property owners of
the abutting lots free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed an the names of
the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Barbara G. Meanley,
or her successor~ in title, as grantee.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.L.2. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
ll.L.2.a. SET DATE TO CONSIDER SALE OF SURPLUS WELL LOT IN
~RROWB E~ SUBDIVISION
On motion of ~rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, Lhe Board set the
date of December 11, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the sale of a
well lot designated as Arrowhead Well Lot - Block H, Section 2.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.L.2.b. AID DEVELOPER OF WOODLAND POND TO OBTAIN EASEMENTS
Mr. Welchons stated offers were made by the developer to th~
owners for the property rights and trees involved in the
~asements for the construction of the 16 inch water line along
Beach Road and Nash Road. He stated of the twenty owners
involved, only one has agreed to grant the easement.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. D0dd, the Board approved
the request from the developer of Woodland Pond and authorized
the Right of Way staff to aid him in acquiring water easements
along Beach Road and Nash Road provided the developer executes a
contract with'the County agreeing to pay all the costs.
Mr. Buddy Miles wa~ present and stated he is not against
water line construction but he is concerned with the way it is
~5-~57
proposed. He stated the State will be taking approximately 25
ft. of the residents' property for road improvements and this
will be an additional 10 ft. for'the water line easement and 10
ft. more for a temporary easement. He stated these easements
will dramatically affect the homes and suggested that the water
line be placed in the street to the bridge. He stated he felt
there are alternatives and these would be excessive easement~.
He stated the road will be torn up by the State and this would
seem to be the most logical alternative. He stated this is a
beautiful area which does not need to be destroyed. Mr. Mayes
inquired if the staff discussed this with Mr. Miles. Mr. Miles
stated he did not know anything about this until a letter was
received requesting the easement and his views have not been
discussed with staff, He stated Beach Road will be improved and
repaved so this s~ems a reasonable solution. Mr. Dodd stated the
lines would be more expensive to maintain if there were a leak if
placed in the streets. Mr. Miles stated he constructs sewer and
water lines in the streets in the subdivisions. He stated he
would like the Board to consider this possibility, Mr. Micas
stated the design is not technically before the Board at this
time but the matter of u~sisting the developer in obtaining the
easements. Mr. Mayes stated he felt staff should have th~
benefit of the residents' views prior to a decision being made.
Mr. Welohons stated he sees a problem as there will be a lot of
construction there when the State builds the road and he doubts
that the water line could he in the road right of way and still
have much of a water line left once the road is built. He Stated
staff had proposed tO construct the line adjacent to the right of
way as it is proposed.to be acquired for the road and that way we
are protected from what the Highway Department could do with the
line. He stated he was not sure what a delay would do to Mr.
Powell's time schedule. Mr. Mayes stated due to the
circumstances, he felt the views of the developer, the neighbors
and the County should be coordinated. Mr. Hedrick stated staf£
understands what has been said but would prefer that this issue
be approved to assist the developer at this time and staff will
work with both the residents and the developer in this matter,
Mr. Daniel stated this is one of the most beautiful areas in the
County and without a second opinion, he did not feel this was in
the best interest of the County or citizens in this matter and he
fel= time to assess the matter would be appropriate.
Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd rescinded their motion.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of a request to aid the developer of
Woodland Pond in Obtaining water easements along Beach and Nash
Road until November 27, 1985.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his real estate firm
may be selling property in the subdivisions, declared a possible
conflict of interest pursuant to the Virgznia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
Mr. Applegate stated he would like to make a general statement in
that the Board zones property and allows developers to spend a
great deal of money constructing roads and a subdivision. He
stated now we are questioning our own decisions and deferring
item~. He stated perhaps the Board should have full information
before considering a zoning case with regard to availability of
utilities, etc. He stated he understood this line would be a
replacement Of another line that was in need of repair. He
stated this could be costly for developers.
ll.L. 2.c.
ADDITIONAL D~SIGN WORK FOR POW~ITE PARKWAY EXTEN~ION
Mrs. Girone inquired why the Powhite Parkway Extension project
was being divided. Mr, Welohons stated it was his understanding
that the Highway Department determined that the project was too
large to be done as one and they wanted to open it up to allow
additional contractors the opportunity to do some work. He
stated one project would begin sooner and help the time
situation. Mrs. Girone inquired if they would be opening the
road in phases. Mr. Hedrick stated they will not be able to open
in phases because it is a toll facility.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr, Daniel, the Board
approved an agreement with Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation and the County for additional design work for the
Powhite Parkway Extension and authorized the County Administrator
to execute any necessary documents subject to approval by the
County Attorney. It ie noted that this agreement provides for
the angineerinq servicee to modify the utility relocation plans
and quantities to allow the Pcwhite Parkway project from
Chippenham. Parkway to Route 360 to be bid and constructed as two
projects rather than one as presently designed. The agreement
also provides for an alternate design for the utilitiem
relocation between Chippenham Parkway and Jahnke Road and
specifications so alternate bids may be received for this portion
of the project. The cost for this additional work will be paid
by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.L.3. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE IN CHESTNUT HILLS, SEC. A & E
Mr. Welchons stated as a result of a petition, the Board
authorized the Utilities Department to conduct a survey to
determine the number of residents that would connect to the
public sewer system in Chestnut Hills, Section A and B. He
stated only 32% (31 of 98) of the residents signed and returned
Tontracts agreeing to connect to the public ~ewer system.
~e etated only 21 of the 41 property Owners that signed the
~etitions returned signed contracts and only 12 of the
~roperty owners experiencing some ferm of septic tank problems
returned signed contracts. He stated staff recon~aends that the
)r0ject be cancelled because of poor response and that the
=ontnacts be voided and returned to the property ownere.
~pplegate stated he would like to defer consideration cf this
hatter as he understands there are some people experiencing
)roblems and he did net.understand the poor response.
)n motion of Mr. Applegate, secended by Mr. Dodd, the Board
~eferxed consideration of a request from residents in Chestnut
tills, Sections A and B, for public sewer service until January
3, 1986.
?otc: Unanimous
[1.L.4. CONSENT ITEMS
[1.L.4.a. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG SALEM CHURCH ROAD
)n motion of Mr. Dodd, eeconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
md authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
Iocuments, accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a
!0' strip of land along Salem Church Road from the Trustees of
~ebber Memorial Baptist Church.
~te: Unanimous
.1.L.4.b. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG CHURC~ ROAD
)n motion of Mr. Dedd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
~nd authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
[ocuments, accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a
85-859
20' strip of land along Church Road from Joe S. Pope and Marylene
R. Pope.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.L.4.c. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG EVES LAN~
On motion of Mr..Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
dosumonts, accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a
10' strip of land along Eves Lane from Charles P. Mezera and
Doris H.~Mesera.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.L.4.d, DEED OF DSDICATION ALONG BEACR ROAD
On motion Of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents, accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a
35' strip of land along Eeach Road ~rom Roaald L. Womack and Edna
R. Womack.
Vote: Unanimous
tl.L.4.e. D~E~,,0F DEDICATION AI~ONG OLD STAGE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents, accepting ox behalf of the County, the conveyance of a
20~ strip of land along Old ~tage Road from Alex B. Sadler, Jr.,
and Barbara C. Sadler.
Vote: Unanimous
ll,L.5. REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the ~oard with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
ll.M. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of
the General Fund Contingency, the General Fund Balance, Road
Reserve Funds and Distr~ct Road and Street Light Funds.
Mr. Eedrick stated the County had be~n formally notified that the
roads in the following subdivisions had been officially accepted
into the State Second~ry System, efiective as indicated:
Smoketrse, Sections J & K (10-21-85)
Coralberry Drive - From Route 2770 to 0.06 mile
south of Stonecrop Place.
Lady Slipper Lane - From 0.12 mile west of
Coralberry Drive to a southeast cul-de-sac,
Stonecrop Place - From Coralberry Drive to
0.12 mile west of Ceralberry Drive.
Stonecrop Court ~ From Stonecrop Place to a north
cul-de-sac.
Length
0.22 mi.
0.30 mi.
0.12 mi.
0.04 mi.
85-860
Sunview Subdivision (10-16-85
Sunview Lane - From 0.21 mile seuthwe~t of
Route 678 to a southwest cul-de-sac.
Sunview Court - From Sunview Lane to a southeast
cul-de-sac.
Rrandormill - The Oaks {10-24-85)
Liberty Oaks Road - From Route 2907 to a north
cul-de-sac.
Liberty Oaks circle - From Liberty Oaks Road to
a western cul-de-sac.
Liberty Oaks Court - From Liberty Oaks Road to an
east cul-de-sac.
~randermill - Spring Gate (10-24-85)
Spring Gate Road - Prom Route 2954 to a northwest
cul-de-sac.
Spring Gate Place - From Spring Gate Road to Spring
Gate Terrace.
Spring Gate Terrace - From 0.08 mile west of Spring
Gate Place to 0.06 mile east of Spring Gate Place.
Spring Gate Court - From Spring Gate Road to a
northwest cul-de-sac.
Brandermill - Ridge Creek
Brandermill Parkway - Prom 0.01 mile northwest of
Route 2960 to 0,02 mile northwest of Ridge Creek
Road.
Ridge Creek Road - From Brandermill Parkway to a
southwest cul-de-sac.
Ridge Creek court - From Ridge Creek Road to a
southeast cul-de-sac.
Brandermill - Chimney Rouse, Section 1 (10-24-85)
Brandermil~ Parkway - From 0.02 mile'northwest of
Ridge Creek Road to 0.16 mile northwest of Ridge
Creek Road.
Hrande~mill - Lon~hill (10-24-85)
Brandermill Parkway - From 0.16 m/lc northwest of
Ridge Creek Road to 0.05 mile north of Long Rill
Road.
Long Rill Road - From Rrandermill Parkway to a
west cul-de-sac.
Long Rill Court - From Long Hill Reed to a
north cul-de-sac.
85-861
Length
0.17 mi.
0.03 mi.
0.08 mi.
0.09 mi.
0.06 mi,
0.27 mi.
0.05 mi.
0.14 mi.
0.16 mi.
0.04 mi.
0.12 mi.
0.03 mi.
0.14 mi.
0.08 mi.
0.15 mi.
0.06 mi.
12. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adjourned at lI:00 p.m. until 5=00 p.m. on November 20,
Magnolia Grange.
Vote: Unanimous
Ribhard L. ~edrick
County Administrator
G. H. Applegate
Chairman
85-862
1985 at