11-27-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
November 27, 1985
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman
Mr. Jesse J. Mayas, Vice Chairman
Mr. Marry G. Daniel
Mr. R. Garland D0dd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. ~edrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mrs. Doris DeRart,
Legislative Coord.
Chief Robert ~anes, Fire
Department
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir.
of Parks & Rec.
Mr. Robert Masden,
Assr. Co. Admin. for
Human Services
Mr. Richard McRlfish,
Dir. of ~nv. Eng.
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mrs. Mary A. McGulre,
County Treasurer
Mr. Steve Micas, CO.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Services
Mr. Jeffrey Mussy,
Asst, Ce. Admin.
for Development
Mr. Richard Nunnally,
VPI/SU Extension Agt.
Mr. Lame Ramsay, Dir.
of Budget & Acctg.
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
E×ec. Asst., Co. Adm.
Mr. ~obert Wagenknecht,
Dir. of Libraries
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Frederick W. Willis,
Dir. of Human
Resources Management
Mr. James Zook,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
9:05 a.m. (EST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Applegate introduced Rovsrend Wayne Hannah, Pastor cf Grace
Brethren Church, who gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board approved
the minutes of November 13, 1985, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
85-865
Mr. Mayes requested that Mr. Hedrick send a letter to the
residents of Claypoint Road regarding the position the Board took
at the November 13, 1985 meeting.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Beard
approved the minutes of November 20, 1985, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel requested that the Board be forwarded a copy of the
revised Legislative Program approved at the November 20, 1985
meeting.
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR,S COMMENTS
Mr. Nedriek stated he had no comments scheduled for this meeting.
4. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Daniel stated the Richmond Regional Planning Di~trlct
Commission held a meeting with the regional legislators on
November 19, 1985. Ne stated one Of the areas of discussion that
they continue to focus on is legielative programs designed to
improve economic development for the region and in particular,
rosds. He stated there was considerable discussion regarding the
Chippenham/Laburnum bridge as well. He stated Commissioner King
pledged that every possible step would be taken to accelerate the
construction schedule of Route 288 from Route 10 to Route 360. He
stated also there are approximately $700,000,000 in contracts
in place by the Highway Department which means there is an
oversupply of jobs for the available supply of contracts to carry
those jobs out. He stated the Highway Department feels that as
more and more counties such as Chesterfield do jobs themselves,
this will place a larger demand on the ~ighway Department's
ability to meet highway schedules. He ~tated on Route 288 every
effort should be made to sell the bonds and have the money to the
Highway Department as soon as possible so there can be no
misunderstanding on the earliest possible construction schedule.
Mr. Hedrick stated the Board did talk about the County taking
over the construction of Route 288 itself in order to move
expeditiously. He stated the ne~t step on the part of the County
would be to forward a letter from the County to the Highway
Department authorizing them to proceed with the project as soon
as possible. He stated until the Bighway Department receives
such a letter, which has nothing to do with the bond sale, etc.~
they will not proceed with the project to wait and see what
action the County will take. Mr. Daniel stated the Highway
Department has pledged to assist the County in every way possible
to accelerhte the construction of Route 288 and he felt any delay
that can be traced to the County should not be tolerated.
Mr. Daniel stated he had received numerous phone calls relating
to leaf burning. He stated this is an issue which has constantly
been before the Board but people in the urbanized areas of the
County are especially concerned. Be Stated he did not feel a
reasonable business could come tc the County during leaf burning
season and receive a true impression of the County as they would
net return. He stated he would like the Board to instruct the
County Administrator to bring back, during next year's budget
process, other alternatives ior consideration by the Board as
something has to be done in the urbanized corridors of the
County.
Mr. Daniel requested that the County Administrator set up a
routine report in the agenda packet listing the Board'~ projects,
their status and target dates and any other pertinent
information.
85-866
Mrs. Girone stated that she agreed with Mr. Daniel's co~cnts
regarding leaf burning in the County. She stated that she has
indicated to those who have cad. led her that she is in favor of
banning it completely. She stated alee the smoke is affecting
ether jurisdictions and She felt the region would appreciate it
as well as the citizens of the County as it is a health hazard.
she stated that she did not feel there would ever be a con~ensus
of all but the Board needs to deal with the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
Mrs. Girone stated the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation is
going to have a spring program to desl with household hazardous
waste such as insecticides, paint, etc. and what is the proper
way of disposition. She stated the Corporation will be coming
to the Board in the near future asking for its endorsement of
such a program.
Mrs. Girone stated Contour has been meeting and has designed a
very attractive center at the juncture of Route 64 and 1-95 in
the City of Richmond. She stated she expressed concern that
there is no program to go with the building and they will be
continuing to meet and hopefully develop a program so that the
building meets their needs.
Mrs. Girone stated she attended the RRPDC meeting, attended the
Social Services Legislative meeting, spoke to the Rotary Club
about economic development and roads and they were very
attentive, attended the Youth Awards ceremony, and met with the
Citizens Committee fbr Consideration of a Charter.
Mr. Mayes stated he was charged with the responsibility of
delivering a plaque to a retiring 4-star General at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina. He stated Mr. Callahan flew he and Mr. Stith to
Fort Bragg which costs were paid by those other than the County.
He stated he was proud when they introduced him as being from on~
of the fastest growing counties in the country.
Mr. Dodd stated there was a meeting of the Capital Region Airpor'
Commission which he did not attend.
Mr. Dodd stated we are now being told that the Route 288/Route 1~
connector will be advertised in August, 1986. He stated that is
the third date that he has heard and it is continually being
delayed. He stated he would llke something to be done this y®arj
Mr. Dodd stated he would like the County Administrator to prepar~
a Board paper with the idea of reducing the R-12 lot frontages
from 90 to 80 feet. He stated this could then be considered by
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Applegate stated that-he agreed with Mr. Dodd regarding the
Route 28S/Route 10 connector. He ~tated he was led to believe
just last week that from Route 1 to Route 10 and Route 1 to the
Richmond Petersburg Turnpike would be handled together and that
was the reason for moving it back and now they have even moved
that back. Mr. Dodd stated he agreed with the rationale of doin(
the projects together as the interchange at 95 and 288 is a very
expensive road and if they can get to Route 1 it will provide
some relief for Chester. He stated, however, it is another dela
and Temple Avenue will be completed is the near future.
Mr. Applegate stated the other Board members had reported on the
meetings that he hsd attended.
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION.~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR C~ANGES
IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board moved
85-867
Item G.2.b., Contract for Construction of Clover Hill Water Tank,
out of sequence to be heard as the first item under New Business;
added Item 10.M., Resolution Endorsing Implementation of a
Cooperative Education Program at' John Tyler Come,unity College
which will be the second item under New Business; added Item
10.N., Resolution Authorizing General Obligation Bonds which will
be the third item under New Business; and adopted the agenda as
amended.
6. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL P~COGNITION
6.A. MR. MANUEL "MANNY" DEESE, RICHMOND CITY ~ANAGER
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Manuel "Manny" Deese, Richmond City
Manager, who had recently resigned from that position to accept
another position in private industry. Mr. Applegate expressed
appreciation to Mr. Deese for the contribution to the City as
well as the Region which he has made and congratulated him on his
new position.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The professional career of Manuel Deese has
spanned a period of Over 22 years in local government.
WBEREAS, FOr seven years he has provided faithful service
to the Metropolitan area and the City of Richmond as City
Manager; and
WHEREAS, The results of his leadership has commanded the
attention of national and international acclaim with the
development of Metro Enterprises such as the 6th Street Market
Place, Main Street Station and the Diamond; and
WHEREA~, His leadership has helped to create s regional
partnership for eoonomic growth with the genesis of the
Metropolitan Economic Development Couneil and Contour; and
WHEREAS, His lesdership, courage and vision have been the
hall-mark of his career and have nurtured the existence of a
lasting regional spirit of cooperation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County, Virginia would like to express its
deepest appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Deese and wish him
every success in his new endeavor.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate presented Mr. Deese with the executed resolution.
Mr. Deese expressed appreciation to the Besrd for this
recognition and stated he has enjoyed working with Mr. Hedrick
and the Board on regional projects. He stated he also has
enjoyed the cooperative spirit shown by their leadership and
involvement.
6.E. DR. WILLIAM P. WAGNER, HEALTH DIRECTOR
Mr. Masden stated that Dr. William P. Wagner will be retiring and
ending 30 years of service to the Commonwealth and especially to
Chesterfield County. He briefly outlined Dr. Wagner's dedicated
efforts to the County. He stated the Board is requested to adopt
a resolution, designate the entrance road to the County by the
Health Department as "Wagner's Way" and introduce a special
message from Governor Charles Robh on this Occasion. He
introduced Dr. Wagner and Mrm. Wagner.
85-868
On motion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, William P. Wagner, M.D., joined the State/Local
Health Service System on March 31, 1955; and
WHRREAS, Dr. Wagner was appointed as Director of the
Chesterfield Health District on October 1, 1959; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Wagner has provided direction and leadership
for the Chesterfield Health Department as well as dedicated and
faithful medical service to the citizens of Chesterfield County
since 1959; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Wagner has been instrumental in developing the
County's Nursing Home and planning for the facilities which the
Health Department currently occupies as well as the proposed
Human Services Building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board o~ Supervisors
of Chesterfield County that William P. Wagner, M.D. is hereby
!eommended for his many years of faithful and dedicated service to
the citizens of Chesterfield County.
AND BE IT FHRTSRR RESOLVED, that the Board expresses its
appreciation for his service to the County and extends best
wishes for his future endeavors.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate presented Dr. Wagner with the executed re~olution,
read a letter from GovernOr Robb requesting that he present a
letter and resolution to Dr. Wagner on his behalf and presented
,Dr. Wagner with a road sign which would be installed at the
I entrance way to the Courthouse by the Health Department as
Wagner's Way. Dr. Wagner expressed appreciation to the Beard for
this recognition.
6.C. MS. ROSEMARY F. EYLER, TReASUReR'S DRPARTMENT
Mrs. McGuire wa~ present and introduced Ms. Rosemary F. Eyler.
She outlined Ms. ~yler's working experience and dedicated service
to the County.
On motion of the Hoard, the following resolution was adopted=
WHEREAS, Ms. Rosemary F. Eyler will retire from the
Treasurer'~ Office, Chesterfield County, on December 31, 1985;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Eyler has provided over 19 years of quality
servie~ to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Ms. Eyler's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED that this Hoard of
Supervisors publicly recognizes MS. Eyler and extends On behalf
of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for her service to the County.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution
be presented to Ms. Eyler and that this resolution be permanently
recorded among the paper~ of thi~ Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Mr. Applegate presented ~e. Byler with the executed resolution.
M~. Eyler expressed appreciation to the Board for this
recognition.
85-869
S.D. MS. EDNA K. Fu~NN~ TREASURER'S DEPARTMENT
~rs. McGuire introduced Ms. Edna K. Mann. She outlined Ms.
~ane's working experience and dedicated service to the County.
~n motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Ms. Edna K. Mann will retire from the Treasurer's
9ffice, Chesterfield County, on December 31, 1985; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Mann has'provided 25 years of quality service
to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WBEREAE, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Ms, Mann's diligent Service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Mann and extends on behalf of
its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for her service to the County.
AND BE IT FURTHER R~$OLlrED, that a copy of this resolution
be presented to Ms. Mann and that this resolution be permanently
recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of
2hesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate presented Ms. Mann with the executed resolutieD.
Hs. Mann expressed appreciation for this recognition.
6.E. MS. ~AR¥ $. CUNNINGH~M, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
~r. Welchons introduced Ms. Mary Cunningham and outlined her
working experlenoe and dedicated service to Chesterfield County.
Dn motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WBEREA$, Ms. Mary S. Cunningham will retire from the
~tilities Department, Chesterfield County, on December 31, 1985;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Cunningham has provided over 19 years of
~uality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Ms. Cunningham's diligent service.
NOW, THeReFORE, BE IT P~$0LV~D that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Cunningham and extends cn
behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County
their appreciation for her service to the County.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution
ibe presented to Ms. Cunningham and that this resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate pre~ented MS. Cunningham with the executed
resolution, Ms. Cunningham expressed appreciation for this
recognition.
6.F. MR. LESTER V. MCDOWELL~ JR., UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Mr. W~lchons introduced Mr. Lester McDowell and outlined his
working experience and dedicated service to the County.
85-870
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WE~R~AS, Mr. Lester V. MeDowell, Jr., will retire from the
Utilities Department, Chester£i~ld County, on December 31, 1985;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. McDowell has provided over 21 years Of quality
service to the citisena of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mr. McDoweli's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. MoDowell and extends on
behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County
their appreciation for his service to the County.
AND BE IT FURTHER P~SOLVED, that a copy of this resolution
be pre~ented to Mr. McDowell and that this resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers c£ this Board Of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate presented Mr. McDowell with the executed
resolution. Mr. McDowell expressed appreciation for this
recognition.
6.G. DECLARING PEARL .~ARBOR REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Stith stated December 7, 1985, is the 44th anniversary of the
attack On Pearl Harbor and the Pearl Harbor Survivors'
Association {PHSA) has requested that a resolution be adopted.
He introduoed Mr. Gunther and Mr. Martin who were present on
behal~ of the PHSA.
On motion Of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, On December 7, 1985, will mark the 44th
anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor; Territory of Hawaii;
and
WHEREAS, This anniversary is a reminder of the vigilanoe
and preparedness which our Nation must maintain; and
WHeReAS, We owe a great debt to those members of the Armed
Forces who lo~t their lives in that attack, and also to those who
survived and aided in carrying out their duties to the ultimate
victory.
NOW, THEREFORE, HH IT Pd~SOLVED by the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervi~or~ that the seventh day of December, one
thousand nine hundred and eight-five, be declared REMEMBRANCE DAY
throughout the County of Chesterfield.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate' presented Messrs. Gunther and Martin with the
executed resolution. Mr. Martin expressed appreciation for this
recognition and stated their only message to all is "Remember
Pearl Harbor, ~eep America Alert."
Mr. Dodd stated it was his privilege to be at Pearl Harbor this
summer and stand on the USS Arizona as it exists today. He
stated you cannot be there without feeling deep emotion. Mr.
Applegate stated he, too, understood the emotion associated with
thi~ designation as he has a brother buried in Punchbowl.
85-871
6.H. 1985 UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN RESULTS
Mr. Masden stated he was proud ~o announce that County employees
contributed $22,500 to the 1985 United Way Campaign. He stated
last year there was ~ 20% increase in the County's contribution
and this year that 20% was exceeded by 5%. He stated that
response is indicative of the hard work of the individual solicito~s,
however, seven individuals did an outstanding job. He introduced
Mr. Richard Nunnally, Extension Service: Mrs. Linde West, Data
Processing; Mr. Roy Patrick, Fire Department; Mr. Robert Wagenknecht,
Library Department; Mrs. Jane Cross, General Services: Ms. Jane
Holland, Planning Department; and Mr. Ken Cronin, Personnel
Department.
Mr. Applegate presented each individual with a plaque commending
their outstanding efforts and congratulated each on their
success. Mr. Medrick congratulated Mr. Masden on the
coordination and efforts that he had given in this regard as
well.
6.I. EMERGENCy SITUATION IN CHESTERFIELD DUE TO FLOODING
Chief Fanes stated that on November 6-9, 1985, the County
experienced serious flood conditions due to an excessive amouut
Of rain. He presented a resolution to the Board and indicated
adoption would enhance the County's position in damages
recuperating incurred because of the flood. He stated there were
no deaths in the County, ther~ were minimal injuries but there
were 15 homos damaged; three apartment buildings and ~everal
commercial/industrial establishments. He stated the County had
approximately $20,000 in damages and private entities had about
$200,000. Re Stated the operating departments worked well
together during these adverse conditions. Me expressed a special
appreciation to the Police Department for their coordinated effort
in traffic control from 1-95 through the roads cf the County
as there was not a single vehicular incident.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHMR~AS, The Board of Supervisors of the County of
Chesterfield does hereby find:
1. That due to the heavy rains on Sunday, Monday and
Tuesday, November 3, 4 and 5, 1985, and the sub-
sequent flooding on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the
County of Chesterfield had serious flood conditions.
2. That due to the floods, the serious loss and
damage to property necessitates the proclamation of an
emergency during that period.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED that an emergency
existed throughout maid County.
AND IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the
existence of said emergency the powers, functions and duties of
the Director of Emergency Services and tho emergency service
organizations of the County of Chesterfield were those prescribed
by State law and the ordinances, resolutions and approved plans
of the County of Chesterfield in order to mitigate the effects of
said emergency.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Appiegate presented Chief Hanes with The executed resolution.
He added further that Chief Fanes arranged for a helicopter tour
of the flood when it occurred and it was awesome to see the
effect and force of water when it ].eft the bank of and rivers and
Mrs. Girone stated she had a citizen who had flood damage and
85-872
thought all the victims had been contacted but requested their
names so he could contact them. Mr. Daniel noted he had talked
with one citizen who was concernDd with the federal process
established to deal with this assistance program. Mr. Eedrick
stated that it was very comforting to see the Falling Creek
Sewage Treatment Plant well protected by the flood wall that had
been constructed several years ago.
HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIF~
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens on
unscheduled matters Or claims scheduled for this meeting,
DEFERRED ITF/~S
8iA. APPOINTMENTS
8.A.1. STUDY COMMITTEE FOR APPOMATTOX RIVER ILAKE GENITO PROJECT)
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board appointed
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone to the Study Committee for the
Appomattox River (Lake Genito Project) and Mr. Hedrick as the
ex-officio member for Chesterfield County whose terms are ef-
ifective inunediately and will be at the pleasure of the Board.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated he had requested Mr. Hedrick to set up the
first meeting with the other jurisdictions as soon as possible.
8.A.2. APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
appointed Mr. Richard L. Eedrick to the Appomattox River Water
Authority who~e term is effective immediately and will expire on
November 21, 1989 and further that Me~srs. David Welchons and
Jeffrey Muzzy be designated as alternates.
8.A.3. TP~%NSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Gfrone, the Board
appointed Mr. John McCracken to the Transportation Safety
Commission whose term is effective immediately and will be at the
pleasure of the Board.
8.B. AID DEVELOPER OF WOODLAND POND TO ACQUIRE WATER EASEMENTS
Mr. Welchons stated a decision to authorize the Right cf Way
Manager to aid the developer of Woodland Pond Subdivision in
acquiring the offsite water easements for Woodland Pond
Subdivision was deferred from the November 13, 1985 Board
meeting. He stated offers were made by the developer to the
owners for the easements and of the twenty owners involved cnly
two have agreed to the easement. He stated the reason for
deferral was to allow staff to review some concerns expressed by
Mr. G, E. Miles. 5e ~t~ted in discussing this matter with Mr.
Miles after the Board meeting, staff learned that his proposal is
to install the water line along the south side of Beach Road and
then swing over to the north side just before reaching the bridge
over Swift Creek. Ne stated staff has reviewed the plans with
the developer's engineers and concur with the engineer's selected
85-873
routing along the north side of Beach Road for the following
1. The existing water line is fn an easement on the north side
of Beach Road, and therefore, the services can be changed over
without installing new services across Beach Road. Each of these
crossings will add approximately $1200.00 tO the project, all of
which will be County cost through refunds.
2. ~here is a major C & p underground transmission cable on the
south side. These cables are not generally laid in a straight
line, which makes parallel construction difficult.
3. The existing 4" water fine and easement is located ~urther
into the property, in most cases, than the location of the new
line. We propose to vacate %he old easements upon completion of
the new water line.
4. When the bridge across Swift Creek was constructed, the
bridge was designed to accommodate a water line on the north side
of the bridge,
5. Thc existing flood plain and creek along the south side of
Beach Road offers more restrictions to future development on the
south side than the north side.
He stated the developer has been unable to negotiate these
easements and has asked that the County aid him in the
acquisitions. He stated since the developer has made a
reasonable effort to acquire these easements but has been unable
to do so, Staff reoon~ends that the Board authorize the Right of
Way Manager to aid the developer in aoqulring the water easements
provided the developer executes a contract with the County
agreeing to pay all the costs.
Mr. Mayes stated there has been ~ome concern that a reasonable
concern at the last meeting and today as well. He stated he
understood that people involved were told nothing about the
project, surveyors went on the property without permission, the
residents were not given adequate answers, etc. He stated he has
reviewed the area and he felt what staff was recommending is
reasonable but the concerns of the citizens is understandable.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his real estate company
may be selling property in Woodland Pond, ~eclared a potential
conflict of interest pursuant to the virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Miles stated everyone on Beach Road who is opposed to the
location o~ the easements is not opposed to the water line
construction. He stated the County may have some existing
!easements but for the most part, the only thing the County has is
a four inch water line as far as he can determine. He stated he
talked with the Highway Department yesterday and they did not see
a problem with installing a water line in the Highway Department
right of way along Beach Road and the County only needs to obtain
a permit to do this. He stated the amount of land the developer
iwants to take is excessive and the amount of money being offered
~ls very low. He stated the developer has offered $700 for the
~easements and most landowners have gotten independent appraisers
Iwho value the damage at $10,000-$20,000 per landowner. He stated
this is indicative of the excess they are going to be hurt by
property taken in the front of their homes. He stated what
Court will award is something else but this is what the
appraisers have indicated. He stated they do not feel the water
line needs to be put up on the property where ih is because the
people's property Ks being damaged unnecessarily when there is
another route that can be taken that is just as economical. He
stated no one has compared the price of construction in the road
versus where it is proposed and the condemnation costs involved.
85-874
He stated if you come down Beach Road from Route 10 going to the
bridge, about 200-300 feet is close to the road and from that to
the bridge'there is a 30-35 ft. cleared area already existing on
the south side. He stated the landowners on the south side are
~not opposed because there are no trees to be cleared and no
:damage would be done. He stated the telephone lines and con-
nections would equal the damage to one homeowner on the north
Iside. Be stated he is a developer and he works around telephone
~lines constantly and with 30 ft. of easement there should be ne
iproblem. Be stated the easement being requested is 10 ft. plus a
i10 ft. temporary easement but the temporary eaeement can be
destroyed and given back to the property owner and the courts
decide what will be paid. He stated the damage to the people
will be so bad that money will not be able to compensate for it.
He stated it was his opinion and that ef others that the line can
be constructed down the road and serve the subdivision end
everyone else without the excess damage with the line as proposed.
He stated there is no need for the damage plu~ unnecessary
condemning of land when there is an alternative for constructing
the water llne. He stated he felt th~ developer should respeet
their property when it can be done another way. He stated the
developer has indicated to connect the water lines across the
street is too expensive and there is a cable. Be stated that is
a preblam but the cost of working around that versus what the
damage will be otherwise is not comparable. Ne stated there was
ne comparison between the relocation of the line versus the
damage that would be done to the property. He stated that on the
south side of the road there is 30 ft. cf cleared land and it
would not damage anyone's property, that "Miss Utility" could
mark the line, etc. sa stated that replacement value for just
tree~, shrubs, blacktop, etc. in the easements is ~stimate~ to be
$10,0000-$20,000 each for which the developer is offering $700.
Mr. Mayas stated he has to act in the best interest of the County
and he felt it would be cheaper to go with the plan as proposed
because of the existing line and because the bridge was built to
accommodate the line on the north side. Mr. Mil~s stated no
figures have been obtained for an alternate route. Ee stated the
homeowners are interested in what this will cost them as well as
what it will cost the County. Mr. Mayas stated with all aspects
involved, he will have to go with what is in the best interest of
the County.
Mr. Dodd stated the water line decision will have to be made
today but stated in other instances, homeowners have been willing
to assist with the cost of changing a design. Mr. Miles stated
he knew that about four or five would consider paying the $500
cost to have the line changed but he cannot speak for all the
property owners. Mr. Dodd stated the cost was indicated as
$1,200. Mr. Daniel stated he felt this was a case similar to the
H. 0. Lyne case providing public utilities to a subdivision.
stated he felt that perhaps in the future, before zoning is
approved that a utility impact study be accomplished and be
included with the technical aspects. He stated he felt details
such as this should have been worked out prior to a developer
building roads, water lines constructed, ate. He stated he felt
the overall process should be considered.
Mr. Mayas stated that when staff does its work and those people
affected have not been consulted in the staff recommendation, he
felt it should go back until the people are involved. Mr.
Daniel stated he agreed but he felt the zoning pro,ess should
have addressed this previously. Mr. Dodd stated he did not feel
this was the same as the 5. O. Lyne case because this is in the
front of these peeple's home. Mr, Daniel stated he was talking
about des=rue:ion of property in general. Mr. Miles stated the
problem is that the water line was decided to go up Beach Road,
it was designed by the engineers, sent to and approved by the
Utilities Department and sent to the Board before anyone had
85=87g
anything to do with it. He stated he felt all should have been
involved and not hu~t by a dec~sion made earlier by others
without their involvement.
Mr. Tom Claytor stated he was not notified before the surveyors
came on his property. He stated the easement will be
approximately 40 ft. off the road at his location. He stated he
has not heard anything since he submitted his proposal to put
the line in the road.
Mr. Bryce Powell, President of Midlothian Enterprises, stated he
felt the concerns of the citizens are valid in certain instances.
He stated that the Board approved this subdivision contingent
upon their obtaining public water On February 27, 1985; on April
10, 1985, the plan for County participation in this water line
was approved by the Board for which the Connty is not going to
pay anything for the extension of over 2 miles of 16 inch water
line that they were not already allocated to spend with the
iimprovement Of the existing four inch water line; in September,
!1985 their engineers designed the plans after consulting with the
Utilities Department; the plans were approved by the Utilities
Department in September, 1985; the plans were let for bid and the
bid was approved by the Board on 0etcher 23, 1985. He stated
their subdivision plat was recorded On November 15, 1985 and they
have sold lots and to date they have over $600,000 of dry water
line waiting for this line to be connected. Ha stated there is
no one more affected by cost than he because he pays 100% of what
is constructed. HQ stated if the water line can go in the road
cheaper that is a concern to him, but he needs a decision today
or he will face a financial hardship.
Mr. Mayes stated this issue is before the Board to request the
County to assist the developer in assisting him to acquire
easements on the basis that the developer has made a reasonable
effort to negotiate the easements. He stated the people feel
there has not been a reasonable effort made. Mr. Powell stated
they began approaching the people on October 15. Mr. Mayes
stated he felt the questions raised by the landowners have to be
addressed. Mr. Powell stated there are tWO questions--one, if
the line goes as proposed, and the second, regarding the
compensation for the damage caused but there is a process to
arbitrate that discussion which is the condemnation process.
stated he has had some differences of opinion of what the damage
value is. Be stated before they approached the people, they
followed the procedure for evaluating the property which has been
utilized by the County for the past 20 years, worked with the
Right of Way Department using the s~me formulas, made the offers,
received acceptance of four, have gotten counteroffers from many
of the residents which they have accepted in some cases~ they
have made additional counteroffers, some counteroffers have come
back 10 and 20 times over, etc. Mr. Mayes inquired what the
basis was for condemnation. Mr. Powell stated the County is
agreeable to the water line serving this project, they have
agreed to put it in and have reached an impasse with several of
the citisens as to the amount of reimbursement for the easement.
5e stated they need the County's assistance in going to
condemnation so the line can be constructed and then through a
commission the pros and cons of the damage question are
~etermined. Mr, Mayes stated he felt the Board is willing to
help him but they need to protect the citizens' interests as
~ell.
Kr. Powell stated there are two concerns--the location of the
line and the costs of the easements. He stated they have
~esigned the line where it has been determined by the engineers
and the Utilities Department. He stated he can offer people
money for the easements and if they do net accept there is the
condemnation process. Mr. Mayes stated he felt that unless there
lis an agreement between the landowners and the developer he is
IInot prepared to support the action.
85-876
Mr. Micas stated that the Board's decision today is a policy
question which is that if you believe that the d~veloper and the
landowners have reached an impasse, do you want to use your power
of eminent domain to acquire that easement to assist in the
extension of this line. Mr. Mayes stated the power of eminent
domain is for public purposes. Mr. Micas stated the argument
has be~n made today that this line will serve a public purpose by
replacing an inadequate four inch County water line. Mr. Mayes
stated that would be the issue to deal with. Mr. Hedrick stated
the Board approved this project several meetings ago and
indicated this was a public project and in fact agreed to County
participation in the sizing of the project because the existing
four inch water line is scheduled for improvement. He stated
because this development same along, it was an opportunity for the
County to be in an advantageous position in that the developer
needed the water line, we had the line scheduled anyway and
through a private/public partnership, the developer is paying the
cost cf the extension of the water line that the County would
have had to pay for otherwise. Mr. Muyes stated that was not
clearly written in the Board paper. Mr. Hedrick stated the Board
has taken several actions up to this da~e basically to the point
the developer is an agent of the County in this regard because
with the scheduled replacement of the water line he has attempted
to acquire the easements for which there is an impasse as to what
the residents feel is fair restitution. He Stated obviously
there is an emotional aspect for the property owners as this has
more value to the owners than to a perspective buyer later. He
stated the easement should be based on the market value. Mr,
Mayes stated he agreed with what was being said, he only wished
he had the opportunity to review these f~cts as well. He stated
the property owners also indicated they were not contacted. Mr.
Dodd stated this is the normal procedure as other areas have had
the same situation occur and usually a compromise can be worked
out. He stated he did not feel the front yards needed to be
de.stroyed but neither did he feel the developer should bs
delayed. Mr. Hedrick stated the issue is where to lay the water
line and it has been the County's policy t~, lay the line in the
right of way adjacent to the road because if there are problems
later, you will have to tear up the road to repair it and then
fi~: the road and it is an expensive process. He Stated the
decision is whether to lay tko line on the north or south side
and if laid where proposed it will cost between $8,000~$10,000
less than on the other side. He stated if the Board determines
it should go on the south side, there is the possibility the
other property owners will present a similar case as those
present today. He stated this issue will be faced every time a
wa~er line or road is constructed in the County. Mr. Mayes
stated he felt it necessary that the citizens b~ involved from
the beginning. Mr. Poweli Stated citizens have never been
involved from the inception of a project and he did follow the
County's policy.
~r. Daniel inquired if the developer and citizens could get
~egether to reach a compromise which would not be detrimental to
the developer and satisfy the psople as well. Mr. Powell stated
that at this point he need~ a decision today but to design the
line for the south side of the road would involve bids, etc. and
it would cause him extreme financial difficulties. Mrs. Girone
inquired how many properties were involved. Mr. Powell stated
there are 19 propertiss, four are resolved, six indicated they
will not respond to their offers until the Board acts, thers are
counteroffers that ar~ 10-20 times aS much as they offered and
based on the County's policies, he will not accept thoss
counteroffers. Mr. ~ayes inquired why Mr. Powell proceeded with
the contracts when problem~ existed in this project. Mr. Powell
state~ the County has been a partner by approving this contract
and they have followed ~he County's normal policies which have
sxisted for years.
85-877
He stated if the Board wanted to change its policies that was
another issus, but requasted that it not be done today.
Mr. Hayes suggested that the BoArd defer this case until later
this morning to allow the developer and the property owners to
try to come to a compromise.
Mrs. Girone stated that it is not unusual for property owners to
be unhappy but the process allows their needs to be met. She
stated that they have been heard, they have heen contacted and
are awsre cf what this project is and what it means to them;
there has been an offer made which they have refused; and the
process now allows that if this is the Correct place for the
line and the Board approves this, then condemnation is the next
process. She stated then the people will be heard again in Court
as far as reimbursement for their easements and damages. She
stated this line has been planned and now a developer has come in
and will be constructing the line.
M~, Daniel stated the concept was approved on April 10, 1985.
Mr. Mayas stated the property owners still were not aware of this
and he was unaware that the property owners were not aware. Mr.
Welchons stated before the project had begun, J. K. Timmon$ and
Assoc. sent a letter to each of the property Owners advising them
that there would be surveyors on the property which was
approximately six months ago. He stated further the right of way
along Beach Road is only 30 ~. and that ~s not enough without
acquiring additional easements and there is only One less
property owner on the south side.
Mr. Mayas stated he did not feel the staffing of this report has
been appropriate and tbs Board ha~ been put in a position whereby
the government will have to go with the developer rather than the
property owners which he feels is wrong. He inquired if the
Board approved this project, would the property owners have
another opportunity for redress. Mr. ~edriuk stated the people
will not have the opportunity to stop the project from being
built on the north side but they will have an opportunity to try
to obtain satisfactory financial payment through the Court which
is an arbitration process that is built into the system. Mr.
Mayas stated he felt if additional staff work had been done, the
Board would not be in this posture. Mr. Hedrick stated he felt
the same situation would have existed. Mr. Welchons stated it
was a matter of timing because the water line needed replacing and
the developer needed water ~imultaneously. Mr. Mayas stated that
was not the way it was presented. Mr. Bedrick Stated this has
been the normal process when the County is requested to assist a
developer to acquire easements.
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferrsd
further consideration of this matter until the end of the morning
session in order to allow the developer and the property owners
to meet to discuss this matter to try to reach a compromise.
Ayes: Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Applegats.
Mr. Daniel stated he f~lt this involved a monetary dacision as to
the value of the damages. Mr. Powell stated he cannot agree to
the figures requested by the property owners at thi~ time.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
9. ~UBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no public hearings scheduled for
this date.
85-878
10. NEW BUSINESS
iD.G. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS
10.G.2. CONSENT ITEMS
10.G.2.b. CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CLOVER HILL TD/~K
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County A~ministrator to execute any
necessary documents for contract W85-~B, construction cf Clover
Rill Water Storage Tank to Hydrostorage, Inc., in the amount of
$1,563,840.00 and that $100,000.00 be transferred from
5H-5535-700R (Contingency) and $342,032.00 is appropriated from
5~ (Bond Proceeds) to 5N-5835-503N (Clover Hill Storage Tank.)
Vote: Unanimous
10.M. COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM AT JOHN TYLER COLLEGE
Mr. Hedrick introduced Dr. Freddie ~icholas, President of John
Tyler Community College, who was present. Dr. Nicholas stated
the College just recently learned that it may be able to acquire
$250,000 from the federal government for a cooperative education
iprogram. He stated in spite of what has been written in the
Inewspapers lately regarding the Virginia community college system
!and the downturn in enrollment, John Tyler is alive and well and
~they did exceed their enrollment projections this fall by 3.5% in
FTE and 6% in head count students for a ~otal of 4,200 students.
~e requested the Board endorse the cooperative educational
program at the College which they felt would greatly enhance the
citizens of the area. ~e stated it would provide students with a
curriculum degree program in the technical areas to also be
iprovided the opportunity at the same ~ime for on the job practical
:experience working with business and industry. He stated there
is a need and it would be funded by the federal government if
approved. He stated the Eoard's support is needed because the
ifederal government, when reviewing the proposals, look with favor
on endorsements from local governments served by the College as
well as businesses and industries. Mr. Daniel stated he has
requested Mr. Hedrick to assist in the preparation of the support-I
lng letters as well which would include OUr Director of Human
Resources Management, business leaders, the Business Council,
etc.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, The John Tyler Community College is located in
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Some 40% of the students enrolled at John Tyler
Community College are students of Chesterfield County; and
WHEF~EAS, John Tyler Community College is embarking upon a
Cooperative Education Program; and
WHEt~EAS, This Cooperative Education Program will enrich
educational experiences by combining classroom learning with work
experience in the community; and
WNEREAS, This Cooperative Education Program will provide
alternate career paths for Chesterfield residents; and
WHEREAS, This Cooperative Education Program will provide a
source cf income to assist Chesterfield residents while enrolled
in college; and
WHEREAS, Students trained within a Cooperative ~ducation
Program will be able to locate permanent employment more readily;
and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield employers will have greater access to
temporary and prospective full-time employees.
85-879
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors endorses the implementation of a Cooperative
Education Program at John Tyler Community College.
Vote: Unanimous
10.N. %SSUANC~ OP GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Mr. Ramsey stated that the County's original plans had been to
look at issuing the general obligation bonds next ~pring but since
the referendum the condition of the market has improved bo the
extent that the County should proceed to issue the bonds
immediately. He stated there are several issues involved
including the current, outstanding Powhite notes which need to be
converted to permanent debt, there is $6,000,000 in school
authorized debt that was carried over from 1981 that we approved
for their use in the school capital improvement program for which
we need to arrange permanent debt and that all the 1985 referendum
projects but the roads be issued immediately. ~e stated the
plans alt along had been, because of the construction schedule
and restriction on arbitrage as far as the County holding bond
proceeds, that we wait approximately one year for the road bonds.
He stated the market is the best it has been for several years
and there is a lot of demand for this type of debt from financial
institutions anticipating passage of the federal tax reform which
will severely restrict their ability to use this type of investmen
He stated the anticipated interest rate would be 7.7% interest
rate on a 20 year bond, they anticipate taking bids on December
17, 1985 and close in.January, 1986.
Mr. Daniel inquired how long you could hold bonds from the time
of issuance. Mr. Ramsey stated you have three years to actually
spend the money. Mr. Daniel stated he would like an official
letter sent to the Highway Department with an official response
as to when the Highway Department would Oomplete Route 288. He
stated if that official response is from January, 1989 toward
this date [which is within the three year time frame) that the
County go ahead and issue the $30,000,000 in bonds and have a
ceremonial delivery of the $30,000,000 check to the Highway
Department. He stated he felt the County needed to show that we
are moving on this issue and it does not make sense for the
County not to issue our own bonds to pay for a road that the
voters have paid for and then explain to the public that you are
not going to build a road or have it completed beyond 1989. He
stated he felt that if the Righway Department would have the road
completed by 1989 then we should get the money and have it
working for the County and working for the building of the road.
Mr. Applegate stated the staff paper indicates the Highway
Department cannot complete it within three years so it would be
unwise to proceed in that manner. Mr. Daniel inquired if the
Highway Department has officially responded to the County that
Route 288 between Route 10 and Route 360 will not be completed by
1989. Mi. Ramsey stated he felt the point Mr. Daniel was making
was that everyone should know that the money is available to the
Highway Department as soon as they can move on the project. He
stated we can tell the Highway Department we will have the money
available as quickly as they can start the project and even if
they start next month and start incurring costs, the County can
arrange temporary borrowing to have the money there anytime they
need it. Mr. Daniel stated he thought he understood that interest
rates will probably not be this low in the future and we will be
missing the opportunity to borrow the money at the least amount
of interest and least amount of cost to the taxpayers. Mr.
Ramsey stated we are also dealing with the ideal size bond issue
to take ko the market and $60,000,000 is the maximum for the
County to place in the market at one time. Mrs. Girone inquired
what impact this would have on the 1986-87 budget. Mr. Ramsey
stated in structuring this by delaying principal for a year,
allowing the County to phase in the debt even more than we had
planned, we can save $1,500,000 over the
85-880 '
~iscussed in the three year projections. Mr. Daniel stated he
~ould like to have an official letter from the Highway Department
indicating when Route 288 will b9 completed. Mr. Ramsey stated
~taff is recommending that this debt be struotured with the delay
)f the principal for one ysa~. He stated the County has done this
~efore and it allows the County to phase the debt service in the
3udget over a several year period and 1987-88 would be the first
impaot of the principal. Be stated in 1986-87 we would pay
interest and 1987-88 we would start paying principal and from that
~oint on we would have the full impact. Mr. Micas stated that
~he resolution will arrive today from the bond attorneys and will
,e included as part of the official motion.
,n motion of Mr. Daniel, Seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
he following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPFRVISOES OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTFRF~ELD, VIRGINIA, AUTEORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO
CAUSE TO BE PUBLISHED A NOTICE OF SALE OF
$62,300,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
GEN~RA~ OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF SUCH COUNTY
WHEREAS, the qualified voters of the County of Chesterfield,
'irginia (the "County"), voting at an election held on November
· 198], authorized the County t~ incur a debt and issue its
eneral obligation bonds to e%idcnce such debt in the amount of
26,000,000 for school'improvement projects, $20,000,000 which
,ends have heretofore been issued and $6,000,000 Of which bonds
re authorized but unissued as of the date hereof;
WHEREAS, the qualified voters of the County voting at an
~lection held on June 12, 1984, authorized the County to incur a
!cbt and issue its general obligation bonds to evidence such debt
n the amount of $22,000,000 fer highway improvement projects
nd, in anticipation of the issuance of such bonds, the County
as heretofore issued and there are outstanding as of the date
~ereof $22,000,000 of general oblipation bond anticipation notes
,f the County;
WHEHEJ%S, the qualified voters of the County voting at an
,lection held On November 5, 1985, authorized the County to incur
.cbt and issue its general obligation bonds to evidence such debt
n the a~ount of $27,000,~00 for school improvement projects, in
.he amount of $4,300,000 for fire station improvement projects
nd in the a~ount of $3,~0,000 for park and recreation
mprovement projects, none of which bonds have been issued as of
.he date hereof; and
WHEREAS, this Board wishes to authorize and direct the
iounty Administrator to cause to be published a Notice of Sale of
62,300,000 aggregate principal amount of general obligation
'ublic Improvement Bonds, dated as of December 1, 1985, of the
ieunty, for the purposes of paying the costs of the public
mprovement projects referred to hereinabove authorized by the
'oters of the County at the aforementioned elections held on
!ovember 3, 1981 (to the extent the bonds so authorized have not
eretofore been issued) and November 5, 1985 and retiring the
~neral obligation bond anticipation notes issued by the County
Dr the highway improvement projects authorized by the voters of
~e County at the election held on June 12, 1984;
NOW, T~REFORE, ~ IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA:
SECTION 1. Authorization and Direction to Publish Notice of
ale of $62,300,000 Princi~ai Amount of Public Improvement Bonds.
~e County Administrator of the County is authorized and directed
o cause to be published in The Bond Buyer, a financial journal
ublished in the City of New York, New York, and in The Richmond
News-Leader, a newspaper of general circulation in the County, a
Notice of Sale of $62,300,000 aggregate principal amount of
general obligation ~ublio Improvement Bonds of the County to be
issued for the purposes describe~ in the recitals hereto, with
the first such publication to be made not less than seven (7)
days prior to the date proposals for the purchase of such bonds
are to be received by this Board. Such Notice of Sale shall be
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with such
changes as the County Administrator shall approve upon the advice
of the financial advisors and legal counsel to the County in
order to reflect the details of such bonds, such details to be
subjec~ in all respects to the ratification, approval and
confirmation by this Board prior to or at the time such proposals
are received by this Board.
SECTION 2. Effectiveness of Resolution. This resolution
shall take effect upon its adoption.
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE 0E SALE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ VIRGINIA
$62,300,000
OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS,
SERIES 1985
NOTICE IS EEREBY GIVEN that sealed proposals for the
purchase of $62,300,000 aggregate principal amount of General
Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1985 (the "Bonds"),
of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), will be
received by the Board of Supervisors in the State Treasurer's
Office, 3rd floor, Monroe Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219
until ll:0O a.m. , local time, on Wednesday, December 18, 1985,
at which time and place all proposals will be publicly opened.
The Bonds will be dated as of December 1~ 1985; will be
issued in fully registered form; will be of th~ denomination of
$5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof; will bear interest
from their date payable on June 1, 1986 and semiannually on each
/uno 1 and December 1 thereafter; and will mature and become due
~nd payable on December 1 in each of the years and in the
principal amounts set forth below:
year Priecipal Amount Year
1986 $ 1996
1987 1997
1988 1998
1989 1999
1990 2000
1991 2001
1992 2002
1993 2003
1994 2004
1995 2005
Principa%.~J~ount
$
Principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds
~ill be payable in such coin or currency of the United States of
%merica as at the respective dates of payment thereof is legal
~ender for public and private debts. The principal of and
~remium, if any, on the Bonds is payable at the principal
~orporate trust office of __, in the City of Richmond,
;irginia, as Registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). Interest
)n the Bonds will be payabl~ by check or draft mailed by the
kegistrar to ~he registered owners of the Bonds at their
respective addresses as sQch addresses appear on the books of
85-882
registry kept by the Registrar as of the fifteenth (15th) day cf
the calendar month next preceding each interest payment date.
The Bonds maturing On or before December 1, 1995 shall not
be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities. The
Bonds maturing on and after December 1, 1996 shall be subject to
redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated
maturities upon at least thirty (30) days' prior notice, on or
after December 1, 1995, in whole at any time, or in part from
time to time on any interest payment date, upon payment of
principal amount of the Bonds (or the portions of the principal
amount thereof to be redeemed), together with the interest
accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, plus a premium
of [Redemption Premium to be inserted]. In tho event less than
all of the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for
redemption, the particular Bonds of such maturity or portions
thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shell be
selected by the Registrar by lot.
The Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of financing the
costs of various public improvement projects of and for the
County. The full faith and credit of the County shall be pledged
to the pasrment of the principal of and interest on the BOnds as
the same become due. For the payment of such principal and
interest, the County has power and will be obligated to levy ad
valorem taxes without limitation as to rate or amount on all
property subject to taxation by the County.
Bidders shall specify the rates of interest per annum to be
borne by the Bonds, to be Expressed in multiples of one-eight
(l/nth) or one-twentieth (I/20th) of one percent (1%). Bidders
shall not be restricted as to the number of rates which may be
named, provided that ali Bonds maturing on the same date must
bear interest at the same single rate from their date to such
maturity date. NO proposal will be considered for less than all
of the Bonds or for a price less than the principal amount
thereof, plus accrued interest, if any, from the date O~ the
Bonds to the date of their delivery. Unless all proposals are
rejected the Bonds will be awarded on December 18, 1985, to the
responsible bidder offering to purchase the Bonds at the lowest
"True" or "Canadian" interest cost to the County, such cost to be
computed by doubling the semiannual interest rates (compounded
semiannually) necessary to discount the debt service payments
from their respective payment dates to the date of the Bonds and
to the price bid, not including interest accrued, if any, to the
date of delivery. The right is reserved to reject any and all
bids or to waive any irregularities of informalities in any bid.
Proposals m~st be unconditional, must be on the County's
proposal form prepared for the purpose~ must be submitted in
sealed envelopes marked "Proposal for Purchase of County
Chesterfield, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement
Bonds, Series 1985" addressed to tho undersigned and must be
accompanied by a certified or bank treasurer's or cashier's check
in the amount of $1,246,000 payable to the order Of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, as a guarantee of good faith on the part
of the bidder. No interest will be paid by the County on such
good faith deposit. B0od faith checks of unsuccessful bidders
will be promptly returned to the represenbatives thereof upon the
award of the Bonds or rejection of all proposals, a~ the case may
be. The good faith check of the successful bidder will be
deposited by the County and the proceeds thereof credited against
the purchase price due for the Bond~ upon their delivery or
retained as and fez liquidated damages in the event the
successful bidder fails to take up ~nd pay for the Bonds in
accordance with its proposal.
The Bonds will be printed ~g the expense of the County.
Delivery of the Bonds, properly executed, will be made to the
successful bidder in New York, New York, on December 30, 3985,
8~883
er as soon thereafter as the Bonds can b~ prepared. IIn the
event the County shall be unable to deliver the Bonds in definitive
form on or before December 31, 1985, the County if so requested
by the successful bidder will d~liver temporary Bonds to the
successful bidder on or before such date.] Payment of the
balance of the purchase price, including any premium offered,
must be made in Federal Funds. The County will furnish on
delivery of the Bonds the opinion of Wood Dawson Smith & Hellman,
New York, New York, approving the validity of the Bonds, which
opinion will also be printed on the Bonds, together with the
unusual closing documents, including a certificate that no
litigation is pending affecting validity of the Bonds.
The successful bidder shall d~liver written instructions to
the Registrar at its principal corporate trust office in the City
of Richmond, Virginia, not less than five (5) business days prior
to the scheduled delivery of the Bonds as to the manner in which
the Bonds shall be registered at delivery, including the name and
address of each registered owner and, if a single registered
owner shall require more than one Bond, ths number and amount of
Bonds to be registered to such registered owner, in the absence
of instructions, the Bonds will be regietered in the name of the
successful bidder in such denomination or denominations as the
Registrar shall determine.
It is anticipated that CUSIP identification numbers will be
printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print any such
number on any Bonds nor any error or omission with respect
thereto shall constitute cause for failure or refusal by the
successful bidder £or.the Bonds to accept delivery of and pay for
the Bonds in accordance with the terms of its proposal. No CUSIP
identification number shall constitute or be deemed to constitute
a part of any Bond or a ~art of the contract evidenced thereby
and no liability shall attach to the County or any officer or
agent thereof (including any paying agent for the Bonds) because
Of or on account of any such number or any use made thereof
including any use made thereof by the County, any such officer
er agent) or by reason of any inaccuracy, error or omission with
respect thereto or in such use. All expenses in relation to the
printing of CUSIP identification numbers on the Bonds shall be
~aid for by the County; provided, however, that the CUSIP Service
~ureau charge for the assignment of such numbers shall be the
responsibility of and shall be paid for by the successful bidder
for the Bonds.
Requests for proposal forms, for the Preliminary Official
Statement pertaining to the Bonds and for further information
should be addressed to Mr. Lane B. R~msey, Director of Budget and
Accounting, County of Chesterfield, Chesterfield County Administra'~-
ion Building, Chesterfield, Virginia 23832, telephone 804-748-154~,
or to Wheat, First Securities, Inc., 707 East Main Street,
Richmond, virginia 23219, telephone 804-649-2311. Proposal
forms and the PrelimiDary Official Statement may also be obtained
at the office of Wood Dawson Smith & Bellman, 17 Battery Place,
New York, New York 10004, telephone 212-422-0450.
Richard L. Medrick
County Administrator
County of Chesterfield
, 1985
Dated: December
Vote: Unanimous
10.A. RMA TO STUDY PARKING FACILITIES IN CITY OF RICHMOND
Mr. Applegate introduced Mr. Jeff Smith, President of th~ Retail
Merchants Association of Greater Richmond. Mr. ~edrick stated
the proposed resolution requests the Richmond Metropolitan
85-884
Authority to conduct a feasibility study for the need for
additional perking for the Downtown area. Mrs. Girone inquired
if there were any obligation on the part of the County if this
resolution were adopted to part£cipate in the cost of a study or
in the land acquisition or oonstruction of possible parking
facilities in the future. Mr. Smith stated the County would not
be co~mitting any funds whatsoever. ~e stated that the City of
Richmond and Counties of Henrico and Chesterfield would just
agree for the Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) to undertake
a feasibility study for parking facilities for the City. He
added further that the Retail Merchants Association appropriated
$10,000 to begin this process followed Dy the City of Richmond
with a stipend of $15,000 of which $18,000 has been spent which
has brought them to this recommendation. He stated there are no
funds anticipated to be committed by the political subdivisions
involved in the RMA on the first cut which would be the
feasibility study, se stated they will give to the P~4A the work
which has been done to date, He stated the outgrowth of that
would lead to the establishment within the City of a parking
authority to give some power and future to addressing the matter
of parking in the City. He stated if that should occur, end
hopefully it will, it will commit no funds from Henrico Or
Chesterfield and probably not from the City other than to
underwrite Or guarantee any bonding that might be involved in the
bond process for the acquisition of property, development of
facilities, etc. Mrs. Girone stated she fe3{~ this should be put
in the motion. Mr. Smith Stated he was not speaking On behalf of
the City, for the record.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, ~econded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, The completion of the Sixth Street Festival
Marketplace, and the continuing upgrading and rehabilitation of
the downtown area of the City of Richmond has given rise to a
substantially increased demand for parking; and
WHEREAS, It is anticipated that future improvements in the
downtown area will result in a need for even more parking; and
WHEREAS, It is the consensus of the Board of Supervisors
that in order to accommodate the present and anticipated demand
for parking in the downtown area, it is necessary that additional
off-street parking faGilities be provided; and
WHEREAS, The Riohmond Metropolitan Authority is authorized
to conduct feasibility studfe~ to determine parking needs and is
further smpowered and authorized to construct, operate and
maintain public parking facilities including public parking
structures; and
WHEREAS, The Richmond Metropolitan Authority has caused to
be constructed the parking deck located on the former FleMing
Griffin Parking Place and is uniquely qualified to undertake a
feasibility study concerning parking requirements in the downtown
area of Richmond and to construct, operate and maintain such
additional public parking facilities including public parking
structures as are and will be needed to satisfy the demand for
additional parking in the downtown area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY:
That the Richmond Metropolitan Authority is requested to
conduct a feasibility study to ascertain the existing and
anticipated needs for additional parking facilities in the
downtown area of the City of Richmond, and whether such
needs can be satisfied by private enterprise, or whether it
will bs necessary to provide public parking facilities to
satisfy these demands.
85-885
BB IT FURTEER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESteRFIELD COUNTY:
That, if the study conducted results in the Richmond
Metropolitan Authority determining that there is a need for
additional parking facilities that cannot be met through the
efforts of private enterprise, the Richmond Metropolitan
Authority undertake the acquisition of land necessary for
anticipated additional parking needs in downtown Richmond,
and, if necessary, proceed with construction, operation and
maintenance of public parking structures within the downtown
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED By THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY:
That the County Administrator, for and on behalf of
Chesterfield County, is requested, authorized and directed
to participate and cooperate in any feasibility study that
is undertaken, to keep the Board fully advised of
developments in the study, and to assist the Richmond
Metropolitan Authority in all efforts which it might exert
to meet the present and anticipated parkinq needs in the
downtown area of the City.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY:
That this resolution in no way obligates Chesterfield County
to any financial assiskanee regarding this study or the
acquisition of property or the c0nstruetion of ~aid parking
facilities ehould they be deemed necessary.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY:
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this resolution
to the chairmen and members of the City Council of Riobmond
and to the members of the Board of Supervisore of the County
of Nenrico.
Note: Unanimous
~0.B. PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER REQUEST TO OPERATE
AMBULANCE SERVICE
)n motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set
:he date of December 11, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. to consider a request
~rom Tri-city Para-Transit Service to operate an emergency and
Ion-emergency ambulancs service in Chesterfield County.
~ote: Unanimous
.0.C. FUNDS FOR SALEM CHURCH PTA PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
ppropriated $4,000 from the Dale District 3¢ Road Funds to be
sed to purchase playground equipment for the Salem Church
:lementary School. It is noted the Salem Church PTA provided
und~ for one piece of equipment and requested assistance from
he County to provide several smaller pieces.
otc: Unanimous
0.D. CONSENT ITEMS
0.D.1. REQUESTS FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PERMITS
motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
85-886
approved the requests fo~ bingo and/or raffle permits from the
following organizations for the calendar years as indicated:
1. Richmond James River Lions'Club - 1986
2. Knights of Colu~tbus, BishOp Ireton Council
Ne. 6189 - 1986
3. Brandermill Jaycees, Inc. - 1986
4. Cavalier Athletic Club, ~nc. - 1986
5. Virginia Belles Softball Club - 1986
6. Manchester Athletic Association, Inc. - 1986
7. Bt. Bdward-Hpiphany School - 1986
8. Manchester Music Sooster Club - 1988
9. South Richmond Rotary Club - 1985 and 1986
Vote: Unanimous
10.D.2. STATR ROAD ACCEPTANcB
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from thio Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of North Boint Road and North Point Court in North
Point, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seoonded
I by Mr Dodd, it is resolved that North Point Road and North Point
Court in North Point, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby
are e~tablished as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
tNichways and Transportation, be and it hereb is re uest
~,take into the Secondary System~ North Boint ~oad, b~ inn~ ~t
the intersection with Narboar Pointe Road, State Recto 3200, and
~oing 0.07 mile easterly to the intersection with North Point
Court, then continuing 0.09 mile southeasterly tO a cul-de-sac;
and North Point Court, beginning at the intersection with North
Point Road and going 0.04 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac.
~his request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance
~hese roads serve 20 lots.
~nd be it furthe~ resolved, that the Board of SUpervisors
~uarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
:ight-of-way for North Point Road and a 40' right-of-way for
~orth Point Court.
~orth Point is recorded es follows;
;orth Point. Plat Book 37, Pages 46 and 47, October 9, 1980.
.0.D.3. 1986 COUNTY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
he following dates a~ holidays for Chesterfield County
overnment employees for 1986:
HOLIDA¥
ew Year's Day
ce-Jackson~Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
ashington's Birthday
emorial Day
ndependence Day
abet Day
olumbus Day
cretans Day
hankegiving Day
DAT~E
January 1, 1986
January 20, 1986
Febnoary 17, 1986
May 26, 1986
July 4, 1986
September 1, 1986
October 13, 1986
November 11, 1986
November 27, 1986
85-887
Day After Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Eve
Christmaa Day
Vote: Unanimoua
November 28, 1986
December 24, 1986
December 25, 1986
10.~. APPOINTMENTS - PERSONneL APPEALS BOARD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, tbs Board
nominated Mr. Oene Anderson for reappointment to the Personnel
Appeals Board whioh official appointment will be made at the
Deeember ll, 1985 meeting.
Vote: Unanimous
10.F. CO,UNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
10.~.1~ R~DUC~D SPEED LIMITS ON BBULAH AND HOPKINS ROADS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seoonded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Wkereas, the Chesterfield County Board o~ Supervisors has
received requests from citizens living along Beulah Road (Rou~e
641) and ~opkins Road (Route 637) ~o reduce the speed limit on
these roads in the area approaching the Beulah/Hopkins Roads
inter~eotion.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors
hereby requests the Virginia Department of Highway~ and
Transportation to conduct a speed study on Beulah Road and
Hopkins Road to determine i~ a reduction in the speed limit is
warranted.
Vote: Unanimous
10.F.2. STR~T LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
denied the request for a street light at the intersection of
Jefferson Avenue and Fairfax Avenue because it did not meet the
County's established criteria and further the Board approved the
installation o~ street lights at the following locations with any
necessary funds to b~ ~xpended from the District Strest Light
Funds as indicated:
1. Intersection of S. Providence Road and Clovertrss Court,
Clover Hill
2. Intersection of Spring Run Road and Qualla Road, Matoaca
3. Inter~ection of Spring Run Road and Millhouse Drive, Matoaoa
Vote: Unanimous
10.F.3. P~FERRAL OF DRAFT BON AIR PLAN TO PLANNING C0~D4ISSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
transmitted the draft of the Bon Air Plan to the Planning
Commission for consideration and public hearing.
10.F.4. P~FERRAL OF DRAFT TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANS FOR
SOUTBERN AND WESTERN AREAS TO PL4%NNI~G COMMISSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
transmitted the draft Transportation and Land Use Plans for th~
85-888
Southern and Western Areas to the Planning Commission for
consideration and public hearings.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel inquired how many more plans are coming to be
transmitted tQ the Planning Commission. Mr. Zook stated the
Northern Area Plan will have to be submitted to the Planning
Commission and there are currently four or five plans at the
Planning Commission level at this point which will be coming to
the Board between now and June, 1986.
10.G. UTILITIES ITEMS
10.G.1. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE ALONG POCOSHOCK BOULEVARD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Utilities Department to conduct a
survey of the Pocoshock Boulevard area (as outline~ on the map
filed with the papers of this Board) to determine the numbe~ of
residents that would sign contracts obligating themselves to
connect to public sewer if made available.
Vote: Unanimous
10.G.2. CONSENT ITEMS
10.G.2.a. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINES FOR WEST BRANCH SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
[pproved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following contract:
Water Contract Number W85-184CD, West Branch Subdivision,
Woodlake
Developer: Investors Woodlake Development Corporation
Contractor= RMC Contractors, Incorporated
Total Contract Cost: $26,303.00
Total Estimated County Cost: 881.51
Estimated'Developer Cost: $25,421.49
Number of Connections: 15
Code: 5~-2511-997
10.G.2.c. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINES ON OMAHA/NORMANDALE, PARKWAY
LANEt HILDA AVENUE AND IRVENWAY LANE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
n~cessary documents for Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. in the total
amount of $87,410.60 for the following contracts:
1. Contract W84-141C - Omaha/Normandale - $33,747.30
Contract W85-7C - Parkway Lane - $19,206.00
3. Contract W85-10C - Hilda Avenue - $18,385.30
4. Contract W85-27C - Irvenway Lane - $16,072.00
And further the Board made the following appropriations for the
projects:
W$5-7C - Appropriated $2,000.00 from 5D Surplus to
5H-5835-507E.
85-889
W85-10C - Appropriated $4,000.00 ~rom 5D Surplus to
5B-5835-510~.
W85-27C - Appropriated $1,~00.00 from 5D Surplus to
5H-5835-527B.
It i$ noted that no additional appropriations were necessary for
contract W85-141C and that some prior appropriatione were made on
these projects but additional appropriations were necessary.
Vote: Unanimous
10.G.2.d. CONTRACT FOR GOOLSBY AVENUE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following contract:
Sewer Contract Number S85-137CD/7(8)5D7M, Falling Creek
Associates, Phase II; Lot23; Goolsby Avenue
Developer: Goolsby Associates
Contractor: Bookman Construction Company
Total Contract Cost: $8,223.00
Total Estimated County Cost: 315.00 (through connections)
Estimated Developer Cost: $7,908.00
Number of Connections: 3
Code: 5N-2511-997
Vote: Unanimous
10.G.2.e. SEWER CONTRACT FOR FALLING CREEK FORCE MAIN, PART A&B
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and awarded Contract Numbers S84-39C/7(8)439R and
S85-20C/7(8)520R for the construction Of the Falling Creek Force
Main (Parts A & B) from the Falling Creek Pomp Station to
Proctors Creek in the amount of $2,963,911.00 to Bryant Electric
Company who submitted the low bid of $2,963,911.00, and
transferred $1,600,000.00 from the Pump Station and Force Main
accounts (5P-5835-43R~} to 5P-5835-439R (Force Main Project, Part
A) and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents.
It ~e noted that the Utilities Department's 1985-86 CIP was
approved with the funds combined for the Falling Creek Pump
Station and Force Main Project, Part A. The contract was awarded
for the Falling Creek Pump Station Project and wa now are
awarding the Falling Creek Force Main Projects (Parts A and B).
For clarification, staff wishes to advise that in accordance with
the approved 1985-86 C~P, $2,270,000.00 was set aside for the
Falling Creek Force Main Project, Part B.
Vote: Unanimous
10.G.2.f. SEW'ER EASEMENT ALONG ~ST PROVIDENCE ROAD
on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman and County Administrator to
execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of the
County, a 16' sewer easement across the property of Carl E.
Castle and Lillian E. Castle along West Providence Road, as shown
on the plat filed with the papers cf thi~ Board and further to
vacate the existing easement.
Vote: Unanimous
10.G.3. REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
85-S90
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator,
10.G. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with reports on the status of the
General Fund Contingency Account, the General Fund Balance, the
Road Reserve Funds, the District Road and Street Light Funds and
the proposed 1986-87 budget schedule.
· DEFERRED ITEMS
.B. AID DEVElOPeR OF WOODLAND POND IN ACQDIRING EAS~/~RNTS may
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his real estate firm
be selling property in Woodland Pond, declared a potential
conflict of interest pursuant to he virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Hedrick stated the Board deferred consideration of the
request to aid the developer of Woodland Fond in acquiring
easements necessary along Beach Road for the installation of a
water line. He stated the Board had two alternatives--one to
approve the concept of the design of the water line which has
been done but would also be authorizing staff to assist the
developer in acquiring easements along the north side of the road
and the other would be to recommend that the water line he
relocated to the southern side of the road. He stated this would
delay the project as well as cost an additional $8,000-$10,000.
He stated the recommendation is that staff be authorized to
assist in acquiring the easements necessary icr the developer of
Woodland Pond.
Mr. Welchons stated it did not appear to be a problem with
chsnging the sides of the road on Beach Road, it will mean an
additional 90 degree bend in the line, some friction loss but not
an appreciable amount, and the bores will be the same; however,
he did not know what situation would exist with the property
owners on the opposite side of the road with regard to easement
acquisitions. Mr. Mayes stated the flood plain existed on the
southside of the road as well as telephone lines. Mr. Welchons
stated there is some flood plain on that side of the road. He
added there are some telephone and power lines on both sides of
the road. He stated staff recommended the design for the north
side of the road be approved. He added the property owners and
the developer did not reach a compromise during the discussions
held. He stated the property owners along Nash Road want the
water line put within the 30 ft. state right of way and when the
road is put in, in all likelihood the line would have to be
relocated at that time. Re stated staff reconu~end that the water
line be in the easements. Mr. Hedrick inquired if there were an
alternativ~ for the Nash Road line. Mr, Welchons stated the
alternative would be to put it in the right of way and take the
chance that when the road is widened, the Utilities and its
customers will have to pay the cost of relocating that line
outside the right of way and obtain the easements at that time
which is not recormmended.
Mr. Miles stated that there wag no agreement made between the
parties but it is clear that coming down Beach Road there is a
workable situation On the opposite side of the road. Be stated
as far as easements are concerned, the road will he shifted
anyway tO the north side when it is rebuilt. He stated there is
a clear 30 ft. area already where the telephone lines are to work
in, he did not know of anyone except for poeeibly property owners
who one would be hurt on the south side and serve the same
purpose to the community and the developer. He stated he did not
know what was planned for Nash Road but the road plans have been
prepared and he £elt the lines could be designed so that nothing
would have to be changed for Beach Road. He stated he felt there
Was a workable situation coming down Beach Road without major
85-891,.
problems. Re stated as far as the money goes ~Qr changing the
line, he felt the people would pay the $10,000 difference. Mr.
Powell stated he wan prepared to do what is fair and equitable
for all parties. Be stated that-if it is the decision of the
Board to move the water line, he would prefer that it be moved
into the State right of way becaune if they have to acquire
easements on the south side of the road, there will also be
concerned citizens with the same concerns as those present today.
Be stated his sonsern in that they have gone through the County's
process so far in good faith thinking they were acting
responsibly. He stated he would suffer financial hardship if it
were diverted at thin point. Be stated the plans might be able
to be designed but then there is survey time to get the easement
plats, to resubmit the plans to contractors, etc. He stated this
will cause him a great hardship to change at this point from the
time standpoint, but he has ne choice but to abide by the
decision of the Board today. He requested that if it is changed,
that the Board assure him that the County will work with them to
expedite the process because he has people who are expecting to
receive water service on April 15~ 1986. He stated they thought
they were following the rules and procedures of the County. He
stated the rules may need to be changed but he cannot address
that, that the people have valid concerns and he is sorry that
this matter has come to this end.
Mr. Daniel stated the County has had On its plans for years the
replacement of that four inch water line, that zoning was
approved and all the County's policies were put in place when
that zoning was approved, the opportunity for improving the four
inch line with develop, er participation was voted on by the full
Board, and all the other technical mechanisms were put in place
that would allow for the design. He apologized for the County
that every property owner did not have the opportunity to
participate in that process. Be stated if anything went wrong,
that certainly did since the citizens indicated they did not know
that some of these things were going on. Be stated this type of
situation needn to be cleared up to make sure that this will not
happen again. He stated there has been debate on this design
versus an alternative design, and he is not sure if there were
time to do another design that the same arguments from the
other citizens there would be voiced, He stated he did
sympathize with the homeowners but hoped and trusted that proper
compensation will be made by the Courts but he felt there was
nothing that could be done at this time unless there was a
compromise between the developer and citizens.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt this was typical and was not anything
unusual, she stated she was satinfied that the process is a valid
one and that everyone has had the input. She stated the Board
has never spent this much time in listening to people and trying
to understand the process. She stated she felt the Board should
approve the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Dodd stated before he became a member of the Board he gave
easements for two water linen and a sewer line and never received
any compensation because he felt it was progress for the County.
He stated he felt the developer and the citizens feel the same
way because it is progress for the County and we need it but he
felt to slow down at this time would be wrong and he agreed that
the process is solid and is as good as it can be. He stated the
people cannot be involved in everything and he would not like to
see another process developed regarding development which would
be time consuming and expensive for the County and people
involved. ~e stated he felt there were times when the Board
needed to make a common sense decision and he felt that perhaps
on Beach Road to Swift Creek that the line be switched to the
south side with the additional funding to be borne by the
property owners who desire to be switched and then from Swift
Creek it be constr~cted as reco~ended.
85-892
Ir. Mayes stated that when he went to look at the property, th~
~ew sixteen inch line is between the four inch line and the road
~os~ of the way to the bridge. Ns stated the bridge is designed
:o accommodate that 16 inch line'on the right side of the road.
{e stated he appreciated the position the landowners are in and
~e apologised to the Board for their net having the inpnt which
~e felt should have been included. Ne stated he felt it was in
~he best interest of the County to proceed even though the County
las put itself in the position of the heavy hand of government
~oming down on a few landowners. ~e stated he felt this has
~appened in the past and he did not feel it was right and that it
~hould be corrected, Ee stated he did not feel this was the time
~o correct it but in the future the Board should be very careful
~hen it aligns itself in this posture.
In motion of Mrs. Gircne, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Hoard
~uthorized the Right of Way Manager to aid the developer oi
¢oodland Pond Subdivision in acquiring the off-site water easements
for Woodland Pond Subdivision provided the developer execute a
~ontract with the County agreeing to pay all costs involved,
~yes: Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
~bst~ntion: Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd.
~bsent: Mr. Applegate.
~r. Mica~ advised that the motion carried.
10.I. AND J. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND LUNCH
Dn motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board went
into Executive Session at the Crosswind Restaurant for
Ionsultation with Legal Counsel regarding Plantation Pipe Line
vs. Chesterfield County; Kennedy v. Williameon, C.A. No.
85-0433-R; M-911 Tariff filed by C&P Telephone Company with State
~onporation Cormmission and the Condition, Acquisition or Use of
Real Property for Public Purposes Pursuant to Sections 2.1-344
(a) (6) and (2) respectively of the Code of the Virginia, 1950,
~s amended.
~yes: M~, Mayes, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
~bsent: Mr. Applegate.
It is noted Mr. Applegate joined the Board during the Executive
Session.
Heconvenin9:
.0.0. SECOND REVISION TO POWHITE PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT
i~' motion of Mr. D~niel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
~uspended its rules and regulations to allow for consideration o£
second revision to the Powhite Parkway Right of Way Agreement
;ith the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as
2tern No. 10.O.
~yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
kbsent: ~r. Dodd.
~r. Micas explained that the County has an existing right of way
~greement with the Virginia Department of Highways and
I~ran~portation which provides that the County will use its bond
i~oney to fund the cost of right of way acquisition for Powhite
?arkway. He stated this revision will increase the amount of
2ounty funds to be from $18,000,000 to $22,000,000. Ne stated it
~ill permit the continued acquisition of right of way in the
%ormal progression of the road. On motion of Mr. Daniel,
~econded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the Second Revision to
85-893
~he Powhite Parkway Right of Way Agreement with the Virginia
)epartment of Highways and Transportation.
lyes= Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, 'Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
~sent: Mr. Dodd.
~55R171
in Bermuda Magisterial District, Julian and Maria Gayton requested
:enewal of a Mobile Home Permit on property fronting the south
Line of Drewrys Bluff Road, approximately 660 feet west of
;efferson Davis Highway and better known aS 2651 Drewry$ Bluff
~osd. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 15 (Sheet 23).
{rs. Gayton was present and stated the conditions were
~cceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr.
(ayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request
For a period of five years subject to the following standard
:onditions:
Ths applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
homo site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
4. No additional per~anent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
no__t be placed on a permanent ~oundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the nscessary permits from the Office of the
Building official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of ths Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Applegatev Mr. Mayes, Mr, Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
85S172
In Bsrmuda Magisterial District, Carl D. Adenauer requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting the
west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 600 feet
south of Forest Lake Road, and better known as 13900 Jefferson
Davis Highway. Tax Map 133-7 (2) Mid City Farms, Block A, Lot 12
(Sheet 41).
Mr. Psole noted that there were zoning violations in existence
relative to the parking of mobile homes on this site, and, if the
Board wore to grant this permit today, it would actually be
:granting a mobile home permit that would not be legal under the
izoning ordinance. He stated the applicant currently has a mobile
lome on the site and is living in it and rather than suggest that
:he Board approve a permit that is not in compliance with the
)rdinance, it is recommended that the case be deferred for 60
~ays. Be stated during that time period the applicant can work
85-B94
to resolve the location of the other mobile home and then bring
this request back to the Board, He stated if this were the only
mobile home on the site staff wpuld reoor~mend approval. Mrs.
Adenauer was present and stated the 60 day deferral was
acceptable. There was some discussion regarding the removal of
the seoond trailer, the relocation of the tenants in the trailer,
etc.
ion motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr, Mayes, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until January 22, 1986 at
2:00 p.m.
Ayes: Mr. Apptegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
~sent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Applegate stated that the applleant should make every effort
to have the second trailer removed from the property prior to the
January 22, 1986 meeting.
10,L. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
85S089
In Midlothian Magisterial District, D&M PARTNERSHIP requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 12.38
acre parcel fronting approximately 330 feet on the north line of
Old Buckingham Road~ approximately 800 feet east of Unison Drive.
Tax Map 16-6 (1) Parcel 2 (~heet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial
of the request for Residential {R-9) and approval of Residential
(R-15). Mr. Doug Sowers was present representing the applicant.
He stated they would like to amend their request to Residential
(R-12). There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated she
had discussed this matter with the applicants and she felt
Residential (R-12) would be appropriate.
On motion of Mrs. Gircne, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board de~ied
the request for Residential (R-9) and approved rezoning to
Residential (R-12).
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mru. Gircne.
Absent: ~. Dodd.
85S059 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, PAULA A. MULFORD requested a
Conditional Use to permit a private nursery school in a
Residential (R-9) District on a 0.407 acre parcel fronting
approximately 36 feet on the northeast line of Tevis Lane
approximately 360 feet north of Dumaine Drive. Tax Map 49-6 (8)
William Gwyn Estates, Section C, Block F, Lot 8 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial
of the request. Mr. Hudson Mulford was present representing the
applicant. He inquired where private schools or other scheols
could be located according to the zoning ordinance. Be stated
there are objections to their operating a private nursery school
in William Gwyn Estates but stated he has friends who live near
St. Catherine's, St. Benedictine's, all of which are in
:residential neighborhoods. He stated the neighbors behind their
~house and around them who support the request have more
visability of their operation than those who live on Tevis Lane.
He stated they want to offer a Mulford School which is similar to
the one his mother has operated in Fairfax County and is a very
highly respected and regarded preschool. He stated they would
like a smaller version for 10 children, two of which would be his
own. He stated there is opposition because people feel this is a
commercial operation but he noted there are already six other
types of businesses being conducted in seven of the 12 homes
85-895
on Tevis Lane. He stated these businesses consisted of an art
studio, hair styling services, babysitting services, furniture
construction, etc. He read a letter of support from a lady who
could not be present who had a child tutored by Mrs. Mulford.
Mr. Stan Borr stated that Mrs. Mulford currently cares for his
daughter and they are in total support of the Board approving
this request. He stated this is a learning facility with a
structured program for preschool readiness which is very valuable.
Mr. Daniel inquired how many children were at the facility at
this time. Mr. Mulford stated five. Mrs. Girone stated that if
there were no more than five, it was allowed. Mr. Mulford stated
not if they were to have a school rather than a babysitting
facility. Mrs. Girone inquired if they were prepared to meet all
the state requirements for a school. Mr, Mulford stated they
were prepared and have met the State requirements.
Ms. Helena Davis, an area resident, stated she represented the
majority of the neighbors and requested the denial of this
request for e private nursery school. She stated in the interim
time between their first petition and n0w~ Mrs. Mulford has
conducted her school and has shown her neighbors that she has
misrepresented her intentions as the stipulations she put forth
to protect the neighborhood have not been complied with. She
stated that although this request for denial is not a personal
affront, the Mulford's have taken it that way which has resulted
in harassment for those opposing them. She stated in the
interest of the neighborhood they request that this application
· be denied. She stated the Mulford's clients are parking in
others driveways, they have advertised outside the neighborhood
iwhich she indicated ~he would not do, and these types of things
!lhave waivered their faith in the operation running smoothly and
not affecting the neighborhood.
Ms. Heather Strudney, a neighborhood resident, ~tated that in the
beginning the neighbors felt they could work with this situation
but they do not feel that way anymore. She stated that they feel
Mrs. Mulford is qualified as a teacher and would take good care
of the children. Rowever, she stated they are opposed because
the Planning Con~ission felt that a Conditional Use Permit would
allow other businesses to move into the neighborhood. She stated
that certain businesses could be allowed by a Conditional Use
Permit and there are some that she would not like in the
neighborhood. She stated if she were assured that this was the
only business allowed in the neighborhood she might not oppose it
but as far as the Planning Commission was concerned, granting
this request would make it easier for others to get Conditional
Use Permits. She indicated she wants to sell her house one day
and does not want to have problems because of this. Mr. Daniel
stated he felt Condition %5 indicated it would be approved for a
period of one year and could be r~newed if it had nO adverse
impact on adjacent neighbors. Mrs. Strudney stated further that
in the beginning they were willing to work with the situation but
things have happened since which indicate they will be at the
Courthouse month after month fighting because the Mulford's will
not work with them on problems.
Mr. Applegate stated he had been to the area, the yard is fenced
and it is on a cul-de-sac. He stated there are two other
residents conducting babysitting services without fences in thsfr
yards. He inquired if the neighbors felt there was a dif£erence
between a preschool and a babysitting service. Mrs. Davis stated
that if it were a babysitting service there would only be five
children allowed, there is no room for parking ten vehicle~ that
would be coming in at 9 a.m. and again at Noon whereby with a
babysitting service there would be varied hours. Mrs. Strudney
~tated she wa~ con0erned that people could be mo¥ing other
businesses in, with the neighborhood having no control over them.
She stated that Mrs. Mulford probably could run the preschool
acceptably but things have happened whzch indicated the Mulford~
would not cooperate if there were problems. She stated those who
oppose the request feel there will be hassles for the tine that
the preschool is allowed. She also expressed concern that
85-896
Conditional Use Permits would be more easily obtained by others
once the precedent is set, Mr. Applegate stated it has been
indicated that there is a tax accountant, two babysitting
services, a hairdresser, a furniture dealer, etc. in the
neighborhood and obviously this is a very diversified group of
entrepreneurs. He stated if the Mulfords had come in and
requested expansion of babysitting services, he did not feel thiE
problem would havu existed. Mr. Applegate stated he felt there
is more to this cas~ than is being said and he felt that it might
be a conflict between neighbors which need not be discussed
publicly. He suggested that he meet with the neighbors to try to
understand the situation completely and that the case be
deferred.
On motion of Mr. Applegatc, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of this case until January 22, 1985 at
2:00 p.m.
Ayes= Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mrs. Davis requested that a meeting be set up as SOon as possible
stating she feels the situation is urgent as it has gone on since
May.
85S123
In Matoaca Magisterial District~ MOSES L. SCOTT requested an
amendment to Condition-3 of a previously granted Conditional Use
(Case 84S157) to permit junkyard operation to continue until
March 1986. This property lies in an Agricultural (A) District
on a ~.0 acre parcel lying adjacent to the corporate line of
P~tersburg, approximately 210 feet north of Rol£e Street on Hals
Island. Tax Map 182 (1) Parcels 1 and 2 (Sheet 53).
Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. C. Hardaway
Marks, representing the applicant, stated additional time was
necessary to remove the material on the junkyard. He stated if
the Board approved the request the conditions are acceptable.
Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel an additional three months would
be Unreasonable. There was no opposition present.
Qn motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated 3/20/84, shall be
considered the plan of development. (p)
~, ~ours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 9'here shall be no
Sunday operation. (P)
This Conditional Use shall be granted until March 1, 1986.
By the expiration date of this Conditional Use, the appli-
cant shall remove all junk materials from the site, (p)
%yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
tbsent: Mr. Dodd.
~58124
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD HOTEL
%SSOCIATRS requested amendment to a previously granted Condi-
:ional Use Planned Development (Case 82S039) to permit exceptions
:o the square footage limitation for temporary on-site
:on~truotion signs in an Office Business (0) D/strict on property
~ronting approximately 500 feet on the south line of Midlothian
?urnpike, approximately 50 feet east of the wc~.ern leg of Moore-
~ield Park Drive. Tax Map 17-12 (1) Parcel 38 (Sheet 8).
85-897
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Cer~%ission had recommended approval
O£ the request subject to certain conditions. Ms. Ann Andersen,
representing the applicant, indicated the conditions were
acceptable. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Nr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Within five (5) days of the approval of this request, th~
existing 149.34 square foot sign identifying the various
contractors shall be removed. This sign may be replaced
with a twenty (20) square foot sign to be used to identiiy
the various contractors on the site.
2. The only temporary construction signs permitted on the site
~hall he the 120 square foot sign announcing the proposed
Sheraton Hotel and the twenty (20) square foot temporary
~onstruction sign identifying the contractors. These signs
shall be removed prior to OCcupancy of the building.
(Note: Ail other temporary construction signs must be removed
from the site.)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. May~, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
85S125
In Bermuda Magisterial. District, E,H, CR~NSHAW, III requested
rescuing from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on a 23.3
acre parcel fronting approximately 727 feet on the east line of
Che~ter Road, also fronting approximately 550 feet on the west
line of Chester Road approximately 2,710 feat south of Centralia
Road. Ta~ Map 97-10 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Co~umission had recommended approval
of the request subject to acceptance of proffered conditions.
Mr. Hatcher Crenshaw wa~ present and stated the conditions were
acceptable. He stated that the proffered conditions address no
less than 32,000 sq, ft. for the average lot size because a large
amount of the property is in the flood plain and he can handle
that with this development but it may greatly affect other tracts
of land in the area.
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to acceptance of the following.
~roffered conditions:
.. Minimum square £ootag~ for homes as follows:
a. Eanchers - 1,400 sq. ft. finished;
b. Cape Cods and Tri-Levels - 1,600 sq. ft. finished; and
c. Two ~tories - 1,800 sq. ft. finished.
2. The property shall have no more than twenty-eight (28) lots
total.
The average lot size shall be no less than 32,000 sq, ft.
4. There shall be no more than ten (10) lots that are less than
13,~00 sq. ft. The remaining shall be 13,500 sq. ft., or
greater.
5. The following shall be ra~orded as restrictive covenants and
so noted o~ th~ deeds:
All structures to be built on amy lot shall be approved
by the Architectural Control Committee as to square
85-898
,,41
fo6tage, quality of workmanship, materials, harmony cf
exteriors, design and/or color with existing structure,
and'as to location with respect to topography and grade
elevation.
b. No single story main structure shall be of slab
¢onstructlon.
c, NO masonry, other than brick, stone or parging shall be
left exposed On any structure.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
85S126
In Dale Magisterial District, RUG~ J. AND JO ANN CARROWAY
requested renewal of a Co~ditional Use to permit a stock farm
{two (2) horses) in a Residential (R-7} District on a 5,0 acre
parcel fronting approximately 374 feet on the north line of
Jessup Road, approximately 940 feet east of Iron Bridge Road. I
Tax Map 52-6 (2) Henning Heights, Lots 32, 33A, and 33B (Sheet
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approvalI
subject to certain conditions. He stated the applicant had called
and indicated she had surgery and could not make the meeting
today but stated the conditions ware acceptable. Me stated that
there was no opposition at the Planning Commission meeting.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request subject to the following conditions:
1. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Hugh J. and
JoAnn Carraway, and shall not be transferable nor run with
the land.
2. No commercial activity, with respect to the keeping of the
animals, shall be permitted.
3. The pasture and corral area shall be cleaned and made free
from manure daily. Manure shall be stored in enclosed
containers. Manure shall be disposed of weekly and shall
not be disposed of by spreading on fields at this location.
In addition, fresh straw and disinfectant shall be applied
to eliminate the proliferation of odor and propagation of
insects.
4. This Conditional Use shall be limited to the keeping of no
more than two (2) horses.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. DodO.
85S128
In Midlothian Magisterial District, THE SH~A COMPANY, INC.
requested re=oning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O)
with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk (setback)
exceptions on a 1.85 acre parcel fronting approximately 253 feet
on the easb line of Huguenot Road, opposite 01de Coach Drive.
Tax Map 16-4 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. David Shea was
present. Mrs. Girone inquired where Old Coach Drive would fit in
relationship to this driveway. Mr. Shea stated the
Transportation Department requested that they try to obtain an
easement with the next property owner to the south of this parcel
and they have negotiated a contract with that owner and are
85-899
picking up the additional land so that they can have acuess
directly across from Olde Coach Drive. Ne stated you will be
able to drive from 01de Coach D~ive straight into the property
rather than going up the street and then turning in. He stated
that another zoning request would be coming to the Board early in
1986 for property to the south. Mrs. Girone stated the Olde
Coach Village residents are concerned about safety. ~r.
McCracken stated the Board had previously requested the ~ighway
Department to consider signalization at several of the intersectioDs
along Huguenot Road and, if the intersection at Olde Coach Drive
is ever signalized, it would be beneficial to have the access for
this project directly across from Olde Coach Drive. There was no
opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following Conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J. Robert Carlton and Associates shall be considered the
Master Plan. (P)
2. All buildings shall be located a minimum of thirty (30) feet
from the right of way of Huguenot Road. Existing vegetation
shall be supplemented with additional landscaping and/or
berming between the right of way and the building. The
interior of the parking area shall be landscaped so as to
break-up the expanse of pavement. A conceptual landscaping
plan, depicting these requirement~ shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with sche-
matic plan review. Within thirty (30) days of rough clear-
ing and grading, detailed landscaping plans shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
3. NO building shall exceed a height of two (2) stories. In
conjunction with schematic plan review, architectural ren-
derings shall be submitted to the Planning Cormmission for
approval. (P&CPC)
4. Right of way and easements shall be dedicated along ~uguenot
Road according to the most current VDH&T plan for improve-
ments or in accordance with the General Plan 2000, whichever
is greater. This right of way shall bE dedicated prior to
the release of a building permit. (T)
5. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional pave-
ment and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Huguenot
Road in accordance with the plans for the Huguenot Road
widening.project. (TI
6. This development shall be limited to a ~ingle access point
to Huguenot Road. The access shall either align with Olde
Coach Drive or be relocated toward the northern property
line. If the access aligns with 01de Coach Drive, it shall
be designed and constructed to allow for shared use with the
adjacent property to the south at such time as it develops
for office/commercial use. (T)
(Note: Alignment with Olde Coach Drive may require that an
easement be obtained from the adjacent property owner to the
south.)
7. Lighting shall be low level and positioned so as not fo
project into adjacent properties. A lighting plan ~hall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in con-
junction with final site plan review. (P)
8. A single freestanding sign, visible to Huguenot Road, shall
be permitted. This sign shall not exceed an aggregate area
of fifty (50) square feet and a height of ten (101 feet.
This sign may be externally illuminated, but may only be
internally illuminated if the sign field is opaque with
translucent letters or symbols. The architectural style of
this sign shall blend with that of the structures to be
83-900
erected on the parcel. Other frsestanding signs, for direc-
tional and identification purposes, may be permitted within
the development, provided that their location does not
permit visibility from Huguenot Road or adjacent properties.
Ail other signs shall be as regulated in the Office Business
(O) District wi~h the exception that signs may be externally
illuminated, but may only be internally illuminated if the
sign field is opaque with translucent letters or ~ymbols.
Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
9. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installsd around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas.
0. If deemed necessary by Environmental Bngineering, additional
on-site easements, for possible future drainage improvements
by others, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to release Of any
building permits. (~)
~yes:. Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
~bsent: Mr. Dodd.
~5~]30
:n Clover Nill Magisterial District, W~LL~AM B. AND GENB N. DuVAL
7equested rezoning from Agricultural IA) to Office Business (0)
;ith Conditional Use Planned Devalepment to permit hulk
~ceptions (setbacks) on a 1.75 aero parcel fronting approx-
imately 149 feet on the east line of Bothers Road, approximately
;60 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 28-4 (1) Parcels
~4 and 25 (Sheet 8).
Ir. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
;f the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Delmonte Lewis
;as present representing the applicant and stated the conditions
~ere acceptable. There was no opposition present.
)n motion of Mr. Apptegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
[Dproved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Lewis and Associates, dated August 14, 1985, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. The structures to be erected on the site shall have an
architectural style, as depicted in the elevation prepared
by Edward H. Winks, Architecture. (P)
3. The site shall be landscaped, as depicted in the Master
Plan. In conjunction with final site plan review, a de-
tailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. (P)
4. The first phase of development shall consist of the east-
ernmost structures adjacent to Clovsrlsaf office Park and
any required parking and driveways to accommodate those
structures. (P)
5. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter o~ all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall bs designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic. (RE)
6. In conjunction with the approval of this request, a twenty
(20) foot exception to the thirty (30~ foot rear yard set-
back along the eastern property line shall be granted. {P)
7. Prior to the release of a building permit, thirty (30) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Ruthers
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chester-
field, free and unrestricted.
8. The access to Ruthere Read Shall be designed and constructed
to allow shared access with future development of adjacent
property.
9. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed
along Ruthers Road, as deemed necessary by the Transporta-
tion Department and VDB&T. (T)
[0. A maximum of 2,500 gross square feet shall be permitted for
medical use unless additional parkin9 is provided to accom-
modate additional medical uses. In conjunction with site
plan review, the area to be used, if any, for medical space
shall be designated.
In conjunction with the approval of this raquest, the Plan-
ning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the
Master Plan subject to the conditions stated herein. (P)
%yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
%bsent: Mr. Dodd.
~5S131
[n Bermuda Magisterial District, EDIT}I PERKINS requested a Condi-
tional USe to permit a second dwelling in an Agricultural (A)
)istrict on a 1.0 acre'parcel fronting approximately 165 feet on
the north line of Brinkley Road, approximately 300 feet west of
)orsey Road. Tax Map 81-7 (2) Squarefield ~ark Farms, Lot 3A
Sheet 23}.
Ir. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
9f the request subject to certain conditions. He added that the
applicant was not present at the Planning Commission meeting and
is not present at this time but was notified of today's meeting.
gr. Mayes stated Mr. Dodd did not have any objections to the
request. Mr. Foole stated the applicant lives on the property
~nd wants a second dwelling for her son to line there but there
is a possibility that instead cf building a second dwelling they
nay purchase a mobile home but are not sure at this time. He
~tated she did elect to keep the application current. ~e added
further that she would have to make application for a mobile home
permit whether this application i~ approved or not. There was
mo opposition present. Mr. Applegate suggested deferral until
December 11, 1985 when Mr. Dodd would be present. Mr. Peele
indicated the advertising schedules could not be met to
accommodate that deferral.
~fter further discussion of the matter, it was on motion of Mr.
~ayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved that the Board approve
this request subject to the following conditions:
1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited,
exclusively, to family members of the property owner. At no
time shall the unit be rented. (P)
2. This use shall be granted to and for Edith Perkins, exclu-
sively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land.
3. Individual well and septic tanks shall be used. Approval
shall be obtained from the Chesterfield County Health
Department prior to obtaining a building permit. (H)
4. The existing structure labeled "Old House" on the site plan
submitted by the applicant, shall not be used for residen-
tial purposes. (P)
85'-902
5. The applicant shall use asphalt shingles on the roof of the
new structure. (p)
6. The applicant shall provide an "A" frame roof over the
entrance of the new structure. (p)
7, The applicant shall install brick veneer over the founda-
tion, or shall submit landscaping plans tO screen the foun-
dation of the new struoture. (p)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
85S132
In Midlothian Magisterial District, INVESTORS SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION requested an amendment to a previously granted
Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 74S040) to permit bulk
(setback for drives) exceptions in a Convenienoe Business (B-i)
District on a t.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on
the north line Of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting
approximately 150 ie~t on the east line of Sycamore Square Drive
and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
these roads. Tax Map 15-12 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approva
of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ron Goldson
was present representing the applicant and stated th~ conditions
were acceptable. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request subject to the following conditions:
i. The plan ~repared by Clower Associates, Inc., dated August
15, 1985, shall be considered the Master Plan. (p)
2. Between Rou~e 60 and the proposed drive, ornamental trees
and shrubs shall be planted to minimize the view of the
drive from Midlothian Turnpike. In conjunction with site
plan submission, a detailed landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to ~he Planning Department
for approval.
3. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Plan-
ning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the
Master Plan. (P)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
85S134
In Clover Nill Magisterial District, NOAH C. PURKEY requested a
Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling in an Agricultural
(A) District on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 118 fee~
on the north line of Courthouse Road, also fronting approximatel~
257 feet on the east line of Claridge Drive, and located in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map
64-5 ~2) Estridge, Block A, Lot 2 (Sheet 21).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approva~
of the request subject to certain conditions. He also
distributed an addendum to the Board which eliminated conditions
%4 and %5 as recommended by the Planning Commission. He noted
that the Utilities Department now feels the conditions are
unnecessary i~ the other condition~ are imposed. He stated a
similar case is scheduled for today which does not include these
two conditions and staff felt the conditions should be
comparable. Ne stated staff will not recommend these types cf
conditions in the future under similar situations. Mr. Purkey
stated he was in agreement
85-903
with the conditions, eliminating #4 and #5. Mr. Applegate
inquired how this fit in with the dedicated right of way. Mr.
Peele reviewed the site plan and layout. There was no opposition
present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girene, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited,
exclusively, to family members of the property owner. At n
time shall the unit be rented.
This use shall be granted to and for Noah C. Purkey and
wife, exclusively, and shall not be traneferable nor run
with the land. (P)
Public sewer and water shall be used. (U)
The applicant shall dedicate forty-five (45) feet of right
of way, measured from the centerline of Courthouse Road, to
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, for
future road and utility improvements. (T)
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Hedrick stated that if at some later date this is converted
to rental property, a connection would be required and at the
prevailing rate. Mr. Pattermon stated that if it were converted
it would alsu require amendment~ to other conditions as well.
85S136
In Bermuda Magisterial District, FReePORT ASSOCIATES requested
rezoning from Residential (R-9) to Light Induetrial (M-l) of
103.0 acres with a Conditional Use Planned Development
encompassing this tract and another 10.7 acre tract zoned Light
Industrial (M-l). This property fronts approximately 1,200 feet
on the southeast line cf Meado~r~ille Road approximately 2,600
feet east of Bermuda Hundred Road, also fronting approximately
200 feet On the north line of Bermuda Hundred Road approximately!
5,300 feet east of Meadow~ille Road, Tax Map 118 (1) Parcel 10
and Part of Parcel 5 (Sheet 33).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had rouen%mended approvai
of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Bob Roop was
present representing the applicant. He stated they would like
Condition %3 modified so that a planted buffer between 1-295 and!
any outside storage would be sufficient. He stated the conditiog
would read that "landscaping screening" rather than "screening"I
would be required. ~e asked that Condition %14 he modified so
that exposure to 1-295 not be architecturally treated but be
maeunry block or metal facade that is of a uniform, subdued colo~
with a landscaping buffer for screening and the buildings to have
something other than a decorative masonry that is normally on the
fzont Of buildings. He stated they would like to modify
Condition %16 so that they not be required to exclude service
areas from the 1-295 are~ as it creates difficulty in designing
buildings unless you go into very special building
configurations which impose difficulties in marketing the
property. He stated in the staff report there is reference to
the development of 1-295 and the impact it will have on the floc(
plain adjacent to the property and they would like to request
that the Board contact the Virginia Department of Highways and
TranSportation and ask that they design their drainage structures
so that the runoff during the 100 year storm does not increase
the 100 year flood plain. He stated if the ~ighway Department
designed for the land as the conditions exist, that being farm
land, and the site is developed accordingly to
85-904
this zoning request, they will have a problem, He also stated
the Utility Department indicated there may net be sufficient
water pressure and they have suggested that the developer may
have to run two miles of 16 inch water lines to get the proper
pressure. He stated this is a very large financial burden on th
developer.
Mr. David Sauers stated that the applicant had met with the
citizens on two different occasions, answered questions, include
what the citizens requested and was totally supportive of having~
the input of the community and they are still consulting with th~
residents. ~e stated he felt this was the ideal way of bringing
a development to a community right from the very beginning.
Mr. Mayes inquired what staff felt regarding the modifications
requested. Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission discussed
these questions and the County's concern is that this is One of
the most important pieces of property in the County as it is
the gateway into the County. He stated these conditions would
provide the most positive image to the County and for the
developer as well. He stated the Planning Commission indicated
they understood the applicants' concerns and indicated they would
work with them as much as possible during schematic plan
approval. He suggested that rather than changing condition #3 ac
the applicant requested that it remain as is and add language
"that the Planning Commission could modify this Condition during
schematic plan approval". He stated at that point, much more
detailed information would be available and the Planning
Commission could make their decision on facts rather than
supposition. He stated staff would be concerned with the
modification requested by the applicant because, on the
northwestern side of the site, they are receiving permission to
have contractors shops, storage yards, potteries, etc. which
could have outside storage which would not be desirable to view
from 1-295. He stated it might not be necessary to provide
additional screening of outside storage if the developer plans it
properly when they are laying out the site, designing the
building, etc. Mr. Beep stated that would be acceptable. Mr.
Peele stated with regard to Condition ~14, the Planning
Commission understood the applicant's concern and would not
necessarily make every building look like the Taj Mahal from all
four sides. He Stated the Planning Commission could also have
the option to modify this condition through schematic plan
approval. Mr. Roop stated he did discuss this at the Planning
Commission meeting and felt it was extremely broad and the
Planning Commission could say they want brick and glass
everywhere. Mr. Mayes inquired if the Planning Commission
decided to the extreme, was the Board still the arbitrator. Mr.
Micas stated that was not the case. Mr. Applegate stated the
Planning Commission had an opportunity to deal with this when
they had the case and they saw fit to approve the conditions as
written and he is afraid that if it is a concern to thc developer
or builder that this net be agreed upon then the Planning
Commission has no reason to go back and change it as they have
already approved it as written. He stated if any change is
desired you would have to look at the schematic but the idea is
to screen it and not use the decorative masonry glass, etc. Mr.
Beep stated he felt there could be metal or block fascades that
are properly painted one color so that it gives the presence of
a continuous color or wall and you would not be able to
distinguish the a0cess points. Be submitted a list of changes
proposed tc the Board which he read and included a statement that
there would be a landscaped buffer to the rear of the
buildings--the entire strip adjacent to 1-295. Mr. Peele stated
he was not comfortable with the changes proposed. He stated
driving down 1-295 you may net be able to see details about the
building but if it is painted metal building, etc. that is what
it will look like. He stated he felt it was too important to the
County not only because of the quality perspective we want to
introduce to the industrial con, unity but there is significant
residential development that has occurred and that is likely to
continue to occur in the area and he felt
85-905
Lt was important that the developer go beyond a metal or block
~ainted building. Mr. Mayes inquired about the request to modify
iondition #16. Mr. Peele crated the condition is already written
)y the Planning Commission whereby they indicate they will
:onsider modifying the screening of service areas through
~ohematie plan approval. Mr. Roop stated they are concerned with
~he definition of "screening" and they are providing a
kandscaping buffer realizing you put in trees at 6-8 ft. in
%eight and they grow to 20 feet. He stated that is fine as far
~s screening is concerned but if we are talking about completely
~creening Out the areas, they feel that is unreasonable because
{co have to have access somewhere unless you make a building
~hich is horseshoe shaped, etc. and this imposes a hardship on
~evelopment in the industrial area. Mr. Daniel stated he felt
~he latitude was built in when it indicates it can he modified at
=ime of schematic plan review. Mr. Roop stated that was correct
~s long as the Planning commission agrees they do not have to
~ompletely screen it. He stated they are looking for a very
~efinitive method of screening as they feel this is vague at this
)articular point and he did nut know how the Planning Commiesien
~ould interpret this a year from now. Mr. Applegate stated
~verything they were concerned with dealt with 1-295. Mr. Roep
~tated that they felt there had to be a rear to some of the
~uildings and they do want to minimize the impact on 1-29~ but
fca don't have to treat the rear of the buildings like the front
~f the building. Mr. Applegate stated that perhaps Conditions
~14 and #16 could be modified to indicate that all buildings or
~ervloe areas visible from public etreets should be of an
aesthetically pleasing quality as approved by the Flanning
20m~ission. Mr. Roop explained the road alignment and the
~uildings for the proposed development as well as their
~andscaping plans. Mr. C. F. Currin stated they are as concerned
~s the Beard that this be a quality development. He stated they
~id not want to back themselves into a corner with the Planning
~ommiezion who might say what must be done and they not have any
cecourse. He stated if everyone is a little concerned, and
:ecause he wants to be happy and hu wants the people to be happy
~ith the project, they could live with a 30 day deferral. Be
~tated what h~ wanted was to hays flexibility to have different
=ypes of material that everyone would be happy with. Be stated
~hey do want this project to be successful and be pleasing to the
~eighborheod and he felt common sense was necessary. Mr.
~pplegate crated the Board was just trying to protect the area
from development which is not appropriate, Mr. Mayes inquired
~hat bargaining posture the applicant would have during the time
Df schematic plan of approval. Mr. Peele stated the
~pplicent will have the detailed information available and will
0e able to advise the Planning Commission of actual grades,
~uilding construction, landscaping plans, etc. Mr. Mayes
inquired what if the Planning Commission makes too many demande.
~r. Peele stated the Planning Commission has the final decision
~nles$ the applicant amends conditions of zoning. He stated the
2ounty i~ becoming involved with a lot of road construction,
[-295, Powhite, Route 288, and the staff is talking with a lot of
0otential developers about these types of projects and they feel
~hat is being recommended today is consistent with what is being
suggested for other developers, therefore, no one developer would
~ave an economic advantage over another.
9n motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
~pproved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, titled, "Freeport Centre"
and the Textual Statement, submittud with =he application,
ehall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
85m906
2. A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the entire
length of the westarn property line, between Bermuda Hundred
and Meadowville Roads, and along the northern property line
adjacent to Meadowville R6ad. These buffen widths may be
reduced by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic
plan review if documentation is submitted which proves that
sufficient screening may be accomplished in a lesser width,
or if adjacent property has been zoned or developed for a
compatible use. Public roads may cross these buffers at
approximately right angles. These buffers shall consist
of ex%sting vegetation, new vegetation and/or topographical
conditions which screen the development from the adjacent
property. In conjunction with each schematic plan
sion, a conceptual landscaping plan depicting this require-
ment shall be submitted tO the Planning Commission for ap-
proval. Within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grad-
ing, a detailed plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (p)
(Note: The collector road intersecting sermuda Hundrad Road must
be relocated to the east to conform to this condition.)
3. In conjunction with each schematic plan submission for any
use having outside storage, a conceptual plan for screening
the areas from adjacent properties, both within and outside
the development, and from public roads, shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission for approval. In conjunction
with final site plan review, a detailed plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval. {BS)
(Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, Freeport
Centre, Restrictions, Condition
4. Prior to the first schematic plan submission, a detailed
hydraulic analysis to determina the available capacity
within the existing sewer lines, pump station and force mai~
lines shall be performed, and submitted to the Utilities
Department for approval. (U)
5. The developer shall be responsible for, and bear the cost
of, e~tending public sewer from the Johnson Creak/Railroad
right of way intersection along the natural drainageway to
this development, unless an alternative route is approved
the Utilities Department. (U&CPC)
6, The developer shall be responsible for, and bear the cost
of, installing sewer lines under Proposed Route 1-295. '(U)
7. Driveways and parking areas shall he paved. Concrete curb
and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all
driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed
as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (EE)
8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, forty-five (45)
feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of
Meadowville Road and thirty (30) feet of right of way,
measured from the centerline of Bermuda Hundred Road, shall
unrestricted. (T)
be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
9. Prior to any access to Maadowville Road, additiunal pavement
shall be constructed along the entire length of the property
abutting Meadowville Road. (T~
i0. Other than public roads, there shall be no access to either
Bermuda Hundred or Meadowville Roads. (9}
11. The north/south collector road shall be designed and con-
structed with a minimum ~ypical section of four lanes with
85-907
curb and gutter. The north/south road shall have a minimum
right of way of sixty (60) feet. (T)
A stub road, having a minimum right of way of sixty (60)
feet, shall be provided to the adjacent property to the
southwest. (T)
A comprehensive sign package, to include typical colors,
styles, lighting, etc., shall be submitted to the ~lanning
Commission for approval. Signs shall comply with require-
ments of the Office Business (O) District. Signs shall be
located such that proliferation does not occur along public
roads and 1-295. (p)
Note: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, Freeport
~entre, Restrictions, Condition 3.)
.4. All building exposure visible from public streets should
employ decorative masonry, glass and/or other ornamental
architectural treatment. All building exposure visible from
Route 1-295 shall be of painted er colored block or metal
facade, utilizing subdued colors with trim doors and ex-
terior walls all of the same color. In conjunction with
schematic plan, reviewed architectural renderings or eleva-
tions shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval. (BS)
Note: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, Freeport
entre, Restrictions, Condition 3.)
5. Within the twenty-five (25) foot parking setback from right
of way lines (the setback proffered in the Textual State-
ment), ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted.
Detailed landscaping plans depicting this requirement shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with each final site plan review. (p)
NOte: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, Freeport
entre, Restrictions, Conditions 1 and 2.)
6. Retail uses normally accessory to or supportive of indus-
trial land uses shall be permitted in Parcels 1 and 2. (P)
Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, Statement of
Qndltions, 1. Conditional Case Exceptions, Parcels 1 and 2,
Dndition 3.)
u, Mudrick reminded the Hoard that staf~ ie working to obtain a
ajor interchange at Meadowville Road and 1-295 which is
~mediately adjacent to this property and this being the first
~velopment in the area, will set the basic tone for what you can
(pect in that entire quadrant.
{es: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
~sent: Mr. Dedd.
~S143
Clover Hill Magisterial District, TNELMA HENS~L~W requested a
:nditional Use to permit a second dwelling in a Residential
{-7) District On a 0.41 acrs parcel fronting approximately 100
~et on the north line of Kayvee Road, approximately 450 feet
ist of Vickilee Road. Tax Map 27-15 (3) Forest Acres, Section
Block ~, Lot 12 (Sheet 8).
Peele Stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
the request subject to certain conditions. MS. Henshaw was
~esent and stated the conditions were acceptab].e. There was no
)osition present.
85-908
n motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
pproved the request subject to the following conditions:
Occupancy of the Second dweliing unit shall be limited,
exclusively, to family members of the property owner. At no
time shall the unit be rented. (P)
Ail future deeds, transferring ownership of this property,
shall contain a deed restriction indioating the requirements
of Condition 1.
This use shall run with the land. (P)
es: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
isent: Mr. Dodd.
5S150
n Dale Magisterial District~ THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD 0P
UPERVISORS will oonsider rezoning from Agricultural (A) to
esidential (R-9} of 7 parcels totaling 12.43 acres and fronting
pproximately 1,i00 ~eet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road,
pproximately 250 feet north of Cogbill Road. Tax Map 52-10 (1)
arcels 9 and 30; TaT Map 52-13 (1) Parcel 4; and Tax Map 32-14
1) Parcels 1, 45, 46, and 47 (Sheet 15).
r. Poole stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
pproval of the request. He stated that in September there was a
oning case before the Board O~ a portion of the request site for
commercial purpose. He stated the Board considered that case,
card the neighborhood's concerns and recommended denial of that
equest. He stated the Board directed staff to prepare an
Dplication to consider to rezonlng the agricultural property in
he area to a residential classification. He stated the
pplication has been prepared and the recommendation is
onsistent with the draft of the Central Area Plan.
r. Carl Dickerson, Owner of a portion of the property under
onsideration, stated there was no one present representing the
Case at the Planning Commission meeting but he felt since the
osrd submitted the request and since the Planning Commission
oted on the item, that it might be e conflict of interest. He
tared that Route 10 is changing and there is a traffic problem
hlch exists that needs to be addressed before other problems are
orrected. Ne stated the property was listod incorrectly when he
ought it es having water and sewer which it does not. He stated
e bought the land to use it for commercial purposes. He stated
he traffic lights, the need for four laning Route 10 from
hippenham to Cogbill, the count of vehicles per day was 14,200
n 1984, were all reasons why he did not feel this should be
onsidered e residential area. ~e stated he purchased the
roperty for $100,000 bucause ha had a use for the land and
anted to grow plants and he felt this request was not
sasonable. He stated he felt the County could be going against
tare or federal laws by rezoning this property without his
onsent and violating his rights. He stated the land off of
oute l0 is residential but the picture is changing ior Route 10
nd the people who live along Route 10 stated they feel one day
he property will be sold for business or rental property. He
tared that there are several backyard businesses alruady in
xistence in the area. He stated he felt the Board should have
enied the zoning for the garden oenter and stopped theru rather
hen rezoning the propurty without his concurrence.
r. George Angriotus, owner of three parcels of property in the
rea stated that he wa~ ~ f~vor of the change. ~e ~tated
hat he has a letter from the Planning Department dated
ovember, 1984 stating that a portion of what was then Tax Map
2-9 Part of Parcel 1 which is now Tax Map 52-14 Parcel 1 is
oned B-3 currently. ~e stated that this is not part of this
ezoning request and he did not want any conf~sio~ as to whether
r not it was zoned B-3 or R-9. He stated he is in favor of the
ounty's application.
85-909
~r. Daniel stated for the rs~0rd he did not ever advise the Dale
bistrict Planning Commissioner how to vote on issues and that has
~een his policy since he has been in that position. Re stated he
~as never observed this from other Board members and Planning
~ommission members either. Me stated he agreed that Route 10
should be widened and it was one of the items discussed in the
)reposed bend referendum but the size of the re£erandum was
~educed and that was one of the projects removed. He stated
~oute 10 is still on the priority list for improvements and he
~ould imagine that the next bond proposal would include that
)ortion of Route 10 being widened. He stated that as far as the
Land use question was concerned, in September when the last case
vas discussed at a public hearing the Board elected to deny
:ommercial zoning alon~ this portion of Routs l0 and directed
~taff to prepare an application to consider zoning the property
~orth from the intersection of Cegbill Road which was not currently
~ened ~-3 to a residential classification. He stated this is in
~onformity with a previously granted zoning case for Mr. Rowe
~hich was considered two years ago, Me stated in that particular
~oning case, it was pointed out that the Justice house should
lave been part of the overall zoning request and should ba R-9
~nd it was led to believe that it would come back as a residential
I$oning request to conform to the entire zonin9 in the area. He
~tated at the September meeting the citizens suggested that the
land use on the parcels in question today should conform to wha~
~xists in the area.
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
~his request,
~yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, M~. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
~bsent: Mr. Dodd.
ADJOqRNMENT
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
~djourned at 4~00 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on December 11, 1985.
~yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
~bsent: Mr. Dodd.
lchard L Hedrlck
ounty Administrator
Chairman