10-23-91 MinutesBOAP. D OF SUPERV~SOI~
Ma. M. ~. Sullivun, Chaixnnan
~f. C. P. Currln? Jr.? Vice
M~. 8. M. Applegate
~Lr. Harry G. Daniel
}Lt. Jesse J. Mayes
~. Lane B. R~sey
Cowry A~inistrator
Staff in Attendance:
Ms. Barbara Bennett
o£fi~ on Youth
Ms. J. My Davis, Exee.
A~t. to Co. Admin,
Mrs, Doris R. De,art,
Legis. Svc~. and
In~rgovern. Af~alrs
Clerk %c ~he Board
Chief Robert L. Manes, ~r.,
Fir~ Department
Mr. Bradfo=d S. Ha~ml~r,
Qepu~y Co. Admin.,
Mr. William H. Howell,
Dir,, General
Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen,
Dir,, Planning
Mr. Robert L. ~Lasden~
Deputy Co.
~. R. John
Dir., ~anmportatio~
~. Richard M. McEl~ish,
Di~., ~v. Zngineer~g
~, S~ev~n L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mrs. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Di~., News & Public
Information Servlcem
Col. J, E. Pittman, Jr.,
Mr. William D. Puole,
Chief, Dev. Review,
Mlmnning
Mr. Richard F. Sale,
DeDuty Co. Admin.,
Co~uni~ Develo~t
Mr. Sames J. L. Steamier,
Mr. M. D. sti~h, Jr., DAr.,
Pa~ks & Recreation
Mr. David ~. Weluhons~
Dir., Utilities
Dir., Human Remour=~ Mgt.
~r. sullivan called ~_he regularly scheduled me~tinq to order
at 9:~5 a.m. (DST).
1. IN~(F. ATION
Mr. Sullivan in~roduced Benjamin J. Martin, Jr.,
Ettrick Baptist Church, who gave the invocation.
91-~79 10/23/gi
L
14r. Ramsay led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America.
3. At:,PROVALOPI~"Bu'z'z~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board
approved the ninute~ of october 9, 1991, a~ submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Ramsay intru~uoe~ chief Robert Banes who recognized the
following senior ~ire Department officers who are enrolled or
have graduated from the National Fire Academy's ~xeoutive Fire
Officers Program. They were: Senior Battalion Chief James E.
Graham; Fire 'Har~l%al Dennis C. TUrlington~ Oepu=y c~ie~ David
E. Barfield; Senior Battalion Chief Steve A. Elswlck;
Battalion Chief Richard L. BOther; Battalion Chief Oleo
"Butch" ~one~; Battalion Chief Dennis L. Robin; an4 Battalion
Chief David L. Palumbo. The Board reoognlzed the efforts and
commitment of the offioer~ in compl~tlng this ~rogram an~ als0
congratulated Chief ganem upon hi~ graduation from the Program
a~ well.
Mr. Jay Stegmaler pra~ented to the Board infor~a=ieo which had
regarding Chesterfleld County'~ Dositlon and need for capital
funding and, in particular, relating to schools. He stated
the Byrne Commission is studying various o~tions for financing
gro~Wah such as ~mpact fees, proffers, a~ well a~ transferable
development rights and adequate public £asilitles laws and the
County had discussed with the Commission the need for impact
fae~ and how impost fee authority world affect the County.
(It is noted a copy of the Statement in its entirety is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Mr. Ram~ey noted the ~hairman of the Subcommittee had
requested the county to submit impact ~ee legislation to then
in November+
Mr. Denial stated citizens are also paying for RMA and
requested sta£S to note this when sending this additional
information back to the SUbCommittee a~ hs felt it wa~ a
hidde~ tax in which county ¢itizen~ are pay~n~ that other
lecalitiem a~e not paying to the same degree.
Whe~ asked, Mr. Stegmaier ~teted the purpose of the Byrne
Commission was to address options for financing growth and
State mandates were currently being reviewed by the Joint
Legislative Audit and Review commission. He further stated
Phase I of the Study would be available later in the year and
the merits of approaching impact fens had been discussed am
well as optlon~, much as a Charter a~endme~t or a change in
the existing legislation, and would be fu~cher reviewed.
Mr. Daniel stated the Virginia A~ooiatio~ of Cou~tie~ w0~ld
also be lobbying with General A~=embly delegate= and local
officials acron~ ~he State for legislation for impao~ fees and
this would be a good opportunity for the Co~t¥~n ~eed~ to he
addressed.
Mr, sullivan stated he felt the proposed legialatlon should he
a high priority fo~ fha County. Mr. R~m~y thanked ~taff for
~heir e£fo~ts in preparing the report and felt the
Subcommittee had ac~ewledged the County ha~ an unusual
situation regarding high ~tudent ~ollment in the School
System.
91-680 10/23/91
~dr. Ramsey introduced Mr. Louis ~ammett Who had rsceived an
awar~ of recognition for outstanding community ~ervioe for his
involvement with the Concerned Black ~en of Richmond,
virginia, Inc. l'.'~, zannett mtated the organization was
dedicated to helping young black m~n in dis~res~e~ area~ by
setting role models for them and expressed appreciation to the
County for allowing him to partioipat~ in the Program and felt
the County had d~monstrated its commitment to the upliftment
of all in tbs community. M~. Mayes stated he was gla~
preblemm ~n the black co, unity were beihg addressed in an
effort to be resolved.
5. BOARD COM~ITTEERE~ORTS
)hl. Daniel stated he had attended the Rieh~0~ Regi0nal
Planning District Commission meeting and the Richmond A~ea
~etropolitan ~portation ~la~ing Organize%ion
meeting. He fu~er stated the ~0 meeting had been a
discussion 0n ~e idea of localiti~ funding twenty percent of
their meconda~ roadm and the idea had not been received
favorably across the State. ~ advised th~ virginia
A~sociation of Co~ties had inst~cted the ~0 to pr~par~ a
statement to ~ ~ubmltted at a p~lic hearing in
e~ressinq concern over ~e idea due to t~emendous financial
pres~ure~ on lo,al gov~r~nts at thio time and Be felt
have localitiem ammos ~is f~ding responmibility for rca4
conmtru=tion within a co~uni~ was unfair and could be
devastating.
~. Applegate stated he had att~nde4 %h~ Richmon~ R~gional
Planning Di~trict Co~im~io~ me~=ing; had chaired two
c~ittee meetings of the Capital Region A~rport
Branch Library. He f~ther state~ he had toured the Jamm~
River by boat in regards to the proposed Chesterfield County
Riverfront Plan and ~at he ~upported the Plan.
for the Eno~ Bra~ch L~b~a~ ~hich Was well attended.
on the Age,da a~d wo~ld re,ire the Board to appropriate
$~0,000. He noted it ha4 be~n incorrectly r~po~ed
Chattano~a, Tenne~mee Riverpa~ Plan had co=t that ar~a $~7~
million and should be reflected ~at ever $275 million in
private investment had been co~itted along the Tennessee
Ri~er since the adoption of the Riverpark~ster Plan in 1985.
~e ~tat~d th~ co~pt of the Riverfront ~lan was to maintain
involved and participate by providing input into the
~y a d~ri~ landfill opera,or/owner and the Buildinq
Insp~ctlon staff re~ardlng tb~ D~bris ~anifest sy~=em.
dinner in which %h~ S~creta~ of Education had given a
reqardlnq e~cellenoe i~ education.
~. I~T~ TO POSTPONEACTION. E~RGEN~YADDITIONB OR
On motion of ~r+ ~ayes~ ~conded by Mr.
adoptsd the agenda, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
Coffin, the Board
o ~I~G a~ ~ OF ~ 17 -- 23. 1991
~r. Robert ~sden introduced Reverend Ro~rt $a~er, Chaldea
of ~e Youth Service~ cotillion; M~. Litlian Duffle,
repres~ting signet Ba~ as well as being a me~r
Yo~t~ Se~vic~ Co~issio~; ~. Bill Wright, repr~s~ting
optimist club of James River/cBesterfield; and Ms. Barbara
Bennett, Director of the 0fficg on Youth, and ~tat~d the You~
se~i=as co~fsslon, wi~ c~-sDonmors in the cc~uni~,
conduGts ~pecial activities fur yQ~ r~cugnizing ~eir
contributionm to ~e
0n motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
~EREAS, The Board of sup~visors recognizes the nee~ for
ponitivg an~ h~a!thy youth dgvglo~ent in Chesterfigld County;
and
~EREAS, ~e Board of Supervisors created the Youth
services co,lesion to advocate ~ur yout~ by creating
condit~on~ ~n our ~o~un~ty to promot~ the w~ll-being of young
~Yt~ao~di~a~y talents, co~itm~nt and dedication of you~ and
a~d OO~C~S of our young people; and
~R~S, The Board of Supe=visors recognize~ the effort~
of the Youth services co~ission~ ~e Optimist c1~ of Jame~
River/~esterfield and Sight D=nk to stimulate =on~=ructive
yo~ activities; and
~S, The you~ of ~eate~field county give
exceptional =ime, ener~ and ~pirit to ~eir c~ity through
volt,teeming, ext~a~=ic~la~ activitie~ and individual
9rojeots; and
the uccomplls~ent~ and n~ds of their young people.
NOW, TH~EFOR~'B~ IT R~SOLVEO, t~t the ~es=erfleld
"Chesterfield County Youth We~" whereupon activities which
stre~s ~he ccntri~tionm 0f Coun=y you=h and enco~age
awareness upon i==ue~ which affect youBg peopl~ will ~ held.
~D, R~IT F~ER RESOLED, that Nove~er 19, 1991 will
De ~h~ Ninth Annual Youth Awards Night to ho~or young people
for ~.ir co~agp, compassion and se~ice by reco~izing them
with the "Outstanding You~ of Chesterfield County Award"
sponsored by the Youth ~ervi=~s Co~i~sion of ~e~erfield
county, ~e ~timist Club of James Rive~/c~esterfield and
Signet Ba~.
Vote: ~animous
~. Sullivan pre=~ted the ~ec~e4 r~ol~tion to Eeverend
Sa~r, M~. ~ffi~, ~. Wright and MS. Bereft
appreciation for their participation and efforts in t~e yout~
pro~ams.
There were NO hearings scheduled for citizens un unscheduled
matters ur claims.
91-6&2 10/23/91
On motion of F~r. ~aye~, se~0nd~d by ~r. A~lsgate, the Board
approved obtaining cost e~timatss for the installation of
~tre~t lights b~hind 33Q~ Main street and at an ingress
easement at 3302 Main Street, in the Matoaca Magisterial
District, due to health, safety and welfare reasons.
Vote: Unanimous
C ~RINGS
~$ 7.01-12 ~ 15.1-21 ~G G~Y
~0~ OF D~V,~ ~ ~C~OU~ ~
~. Mica~ s~at~d ~i~ dat~ and tim~ had b~n advertised
Dublic Aearing to consider an ordinance relating generally
the prohibition of disorderly oon~uct in p~lic Dlaces and
repletion of d%al~ in pr~ciou~ metals in order to bring it
in compliance with state law.
~en asked, Mr. Micas stated it was not mandatory
same ~ximum penaltie~ ~S the Stat~ but it wa~ mandatory for
the County not to mxcee~ ~=a=~
No one cam~ fox, rd to speak in favor of
ordinan=e.
On ~otion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~4r. Daniel, the Board
adopted the followin~ ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO A~END THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD, 197~, AS AMEEDED, BY A/~DING AND
REERACTING SECTIONS 7.01~12 AND 15.1-21 ~tELATING
G~kALL¥ TO THE PROHIBITION OF DISORDERLY G0~DUCT
I~ PUBLIC PLACES AND TK~ R~L~m%TIO~ OF
DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS
BE IT O~DAINED by the Board of Superviser~ of
Chesterfield County:
(1) That ~ction ?.0~--12 Of Chapter 7.01 of the Code of
the County of Chesterflel~, 1978~ s~ amended, is amended and
reenacted to read as follows:
C~A~TER
DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS
Sec. ?.01-12. Penalty.
A~y ~e~son Convicted of violating any of the provision=
of this chapter shall be guilty oZ a misdemeanor puni~habl~ by
confinement in jail for not more than slx (6) months and a
fine of net more than one thousand dollar~ ($1,0O0), either or
both, for the first offen$e. Upon co~vietioB of any
subsequent e~en~e he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by confinement in jail for not more than twelve
(1~) ~onths and a fine of not more than two thousand five
hundre~ ~ollar$ ($2,500), either or beth.
o e o
(2) That Section 15.1-~1 of Chapte~ 15.1 of the Code of
the County o~__Chesterfield, 1978, as amendsd, is amended and
reenacted to r~ad a~ follows:
91-683 10/Z3/91
CHAPTER 15.1
OFFENSES - MI$CELLkNEOU8
See. 15.1-21. Dis0rderlv conduct in bublic places.
It shall be unlawful for any person to ~ngage in
disorderly conduct. A pe~son is ~uilty o~ ~isorderly conduct
if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance
or alarm, o~ ~eaklessly c:eating a risk thereof, he:
(a] In any arrest, highway, public building, or while in
or on a public conveyance, or public placm ~ngages in conduct
having a direct tendency to Gauss acts of violence by the
person or persons at who, individually, such conduct is
dlrested; or
(D) Will£ully, or being intoxicated, whether willfully
or not, and whether such intoxication r~sult~ frC~ eelS-
a~ministurcd alcohol or other drug sf whatever nature,
dlmrupts any meeting of the governing body of any political
subdivision of this Commonwealth or a divisisn or agency
thereof, or of any school, literary society or place of
rellg~ou~ worship, if the disr~ptio~ (i) prsvent~ or
interfere~ with the orderly conduct of the meeting or (ii) has
a direct tendency to ca~e acts of violence by the person or
persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed; or
(c) Willfully or while in%oxlcated, whether willfully
not, ced whether s~eJa intoxication results from
self-administered alcohol er other drug of whatever nature,
disrupts the operation cf any school or any activity
or sponsored by any school, if t/%e ~isruption (i) prevents
interferes with the orderly conduct of the operation or
activity or (ii} has a direct tendency to cause acts of
violence by the person or persons et whom, individually, the
disruption is directed.
However~ the conduct prohibited under s%lb~ivision a, b or
c of this section ~hal% not be deemed to include the utterance
or display cf any words a~ to inslude conduct otherwise made
punishabl~ u~der ~hls title.
Th~ p~rson in' charge os any such building, place,
conveyance, meeting, Operation or activity ~ay eject therefrom
any person who violates any ~rovision of this section, with
the aid, if necessary, of any persons who may b~ called
for such pur~ose.
Any person vlcletlng the provisions of this ~e0tion shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable b~ a fine of not more
than two %housan~ ~ive hundred dollars or by imprisonment for
not ~sre tha~ twelve months, either or both.
Vote: Unanimous
On mo%ion of Mr. ~rln, seconded by ~. Mayes, the Board
approved Obtaining cost estimates for the i~tall~tlon of
Petersburg Street and in the vicinity of S919 Qui~ford
Boulevard, tn ~mu~a Magi~=erial District.
Vote: Unanlmou=
91-684 10/23/91
I~IDLOTHIAN lllDDF~E SCItOOL
On motion of ~. A~pleqate, ~econded by ~r- Daniel, ~ Board
t~a~sfe~ed $5,231 f~o~ the Midlo~iun Three Cent Roa~ Account
and appropriated $6,000 from %h~ ches=erfielt Bu~ines~ Council
for the conmtruction of a pocket park at Midlothlan ~iddle
S~ool. (It i~ noted funds in the amount of $5~969 have bean
the Beautiful ~rant Program and
11.B.2. IPi~ROVII~OFKI'I'm$ION OF TIli~TO~O~PL~r~TH~
~DI~ra~AN ~C~S~ATION ~ruml
On mo~ion of ~. Appl~ga%e, seconded by Mr. Daniel, ~e Board
approved an extension of time to complete the Co~ty/SG
Associates Agre~ent fo~ the Midlothian Transportation Study
from October, 1991 to June, 1992 iB order to allow SG
Planning District Co,lesion for their review.
11.B.3. AGRE~TEFORMAIN'rFz4ANCE OF ST~I~NWATERD~AINA~B
~MANDB~TNANAGIiNk~TP~ACTI~FACIL/TY ~R
On motion of ~. Applegate~ s~conded by ~. Daniel, ~e Board
au~oriz~d the County A~in~str~tor to e~ecute a Sto~ Water
M~ag~ment System and B~st M~nagement Practice
~aoilities Maintenance A~eement wi~ T~-Pa~t Manufact~ing
Company, Inc., with ~e County's only involvement being
approved by ~e County Attorney. (It i~ note~ a copy of
A~= and Dlnt ar~ filed wi~ the papers of.~i~ Board.)
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
ew~mi~tion of Ctear Springs Lane, Clear Springs cixcle and
Walthall Creek Drive in Walthall C~eek, Section 6, Be~Uda
Die'Jct.
~econded by Mr. Dani~l~ it is resolved that Clear Springs
Lan~, Clear Springs Circle an~ Wal~all ~mk Drive in
Wal~all Creek, ~ectlon 6, Bs~uda District, be and they
her~y are e~tabllshed
An~ be i~ ~ur~r resolve4, that the
Transportation, be and it hereby is re~ested to take into the
Secondary System, Clear springs Lane, beginning at the
~d go~ng ~outherly 0.07 m~le to th~ ~nt~r~ect~on with Clear
Springs Circle, th~ continuing southerly 0.06 mile to the
intersection with Walthall Creek srive; Clear Sprinqs circle,
be~ing at ~e interseotion with Clear Spring~ Lane and
going westerly 0.~6 mile to ~d in a cul-de-sac; Walthall
~e~k Drive, b~ginning a~ ~e inter~eotlon wi~ clear s~ring~
91-6s5 lo/23/91
Lane and going easterly 0.17 mils to end in a temporary
t%lrnaround. Again, Walthsll Creek Drive, beginning st th~
into=emotion with Cloa~ sp~inge Lane and going weeterly 0.09
mile to tic into proposed Wa!thall Creek Drive in Wal~hall
C~aek, Section 7.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
di~tanoe and designated Virginia bops=tmon= of Tran~portatlon
guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with neces~y ea~ement~ for
o~t~, fill~ aBd ~rai~ags for all mf these rcadm.
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made r~po~t in w~iting upon his
examination e~ Corryville Road, Kressri~ge Road, Krossridgm
Terrace~ Kro~ridge c~urt, sleepyhill Road and Providence
Tm=taco in Brandon, Section C and a portion cf Solar II,
Section A, Cleve~ Hill Diet,riot.
upon Co~eide~ation whereof, a~d ~ ~otio~ Of N~. Applegate,
seconded by ~. Daniel, it is resolved thst Corryville Road,
~rossridge Road, ~rossridge Terrace~ Krossridge Ce~rt,
Sleepyhill Road and Providence Tm=rase in Brandon, Section C
a~4 a portio~ Of Solar II, ~ection A, Clover ~ill District, be
and they hereby mr~ e~tabllmh~d a~ public roads.
~d b~ i= further resolved, that ~e Virginia D~partment of
Transportation, be an4 it h~reby is r~quested to take into ~e
secondary system, Corryville Road, begi~inq ~t ~e
intersection with sunset Hills Drive, state ao~te 2~31, and
goin~ northwest=fly 0.06 mile to the lnterseotion wi~
Krossri~g~ Roa~, ~n continuing n0r~we~terly 0.o3 mile ~o
end ut proposed Cor~ille Road, Brandon Section F; ~o~ridge
goin~ ~cuthwest~ly 0.03 mile to end ut pro,Deed ~o~sridge
Road, B=andon, Section E. Again, ~ossridgm Road, ~eginning
at the int%~%c~ion wit~ Co~i11~ Read and going northerly
0.04 mile to the int~=ec~ion wi~ Kro~=ridge T~rraue, then
Continuing northerly 0.06 mile to ~e inte~eCtiO~ with
Krossridgs COUP, ~en c0n~inuing northerly 0.03 nile, then
turning and going westerly 0.0] mile to ~e inter=action with
Sl~e~yhill Rood, then continuing westerly 0.04 mil=, then
turning an~ going northwesterly 0.03 hale to ~nd in a ~ead
end; ~os~ridge Te~ace, beginning at t~e intersection with
Kro~ridg~ Roa~ an4 going not,easterly 0.04 mil~ to ~nd in a
with Krossrldge Road and going northeasterly 0.07 mil~ to end
intersection with ~os=rldge Road and going northeasterly 0.13
mile, ~ tu~ing and going ~asterly 0.07 nile to en~ a= the
intersection wi~ Prov~denc~ Terrace; and ~rov~d~oe T~ace,
Route 678, an~ going southerly 0,04 mile ~o =he inter~$otion
with Sleepyhill Road, th~ cont~nu~n~ mo~erly 0.07 m~le to
end in a cul-de-sac.
di~t~nce and designated Virginia Department of Transpo~ation
drainage ~a~em~t~.
91-686 10/Z3/91
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-waY' of 50' with necessary easements for
cuts, fills and drainage for all of theme roads.
This section of Brandon is regarded ae follows:
Vote: Unsnlmouc
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in aoesrdance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~
Brandon, ~ection E, Clover Hill District.
[~pon conside~stio~ whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
~conded by ~r. Daniel, it is resolved that Krossridge Road
and Rressridge Circle in Brandon, Section E, Clover Hill
District, be as~ they hereby are established as puhlio roads.
And be i~ further resolved, that thc virginia Dc~ar~ent Of
TranSportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into th~
secondary System, l~reesrid~e Road, beginning at the existin~
Krossridge Road, Brandon, Section C, Ztate Route n~ber to be
ass~d, and going sou~wester~ 0.06 mile to the
intersection with ~ros~ridge circle, ~en continuing
southwesterly 8.05 mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; and ~om~ridge
¢irGle, ~ginning at the intersection wi=~ ~ossrldge Roa~ and
going northwesterly 0.04 mile to end in u cul-de-sac.
This re~e~ i~ inol~si~a of the udjuc~t slope, might
~ainage
T~ese ~oads ~erve 28 lots.
~arantees to the Virginia Departmant of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with ~ec~ary easements for
cute, fills and drainage for all of those reade.
~is section of ~randon is rec0~ded as follows:
vutu: Unanimous
This day ~/~e County ~nvircnmental Engineer, in accordance w/th
directions from this Board, made ~eport in writing upon hi~
examination of Lumlay Road, Dianawood Drive and Marylou Lane
in Mayfair E$tates, Section F, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of ~r, Applegate,
seconded by ~r. Daniel, it is resolved that Lumlay Road,
Dianawoed Drive and Narylou Lane in ~ayfair Estates, ~ectios
P, clover Kill District, be and they hereby ere a~tablished ae
public ~oads.
A~d be it further resolved, that the Virginia De~art~e/]~ o~
TransDertation, be and it hereby ie requested to take into the
Secondary System, Lumlay Road, begi~ni~g at ~e intersection
0X ~xisting oxbridge Road, State Route 2080, going easterly
91--687 10/23/91
0,04 mile to the intersection of proposed Dianawoo~ Drive,
the~ continuing eesterly 0.01 mile to end in a deed end;
Dianawood Drive, beginning at the intersection with L%t~lay
proposed Maryleu Lane, then eont~nmlng southerly 0.07 male to
end in a cul-de-sac; and Marylou Lane, beginning at the
intersection with Dianawood Drive and going northwesterly 0.04
mile to snd in a cul-de-sao.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent $lepe, sight
distance, clea~ zone and designated virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
~ese roads serve 16 lets.
And be it further received, that the ~oar~ of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with neoeseary eae~mente for
el%ts, fill~ an~ ~rainag~ for all of the~e reeds.
section ~. ~lat Book ~S, ~ages ]2, september =~, 1989.
Vote: Unanimous
ROAD, HIC~ORY~0~%D, GRANG~STRE~TP/~D ~_~
~o~)
On motion of ~. Appl~gate, ~econded by ~r. Daniel, the Board
adopted ~ followinq resolution:
~S, Constru=tlon of the Route 36 bridge, Project
00S6-020-~02,C~01,B601, has been completed an~ approved by the
S~ate ~ighway C~i~sloner~ ha~ neues~itate~ chan~s ~n
NOW, ~RE~0~ ~ IT RESOLVED, that portion of ~e old
location of secondary Route 628 (Hidko~ Road), i.e., Section
8 as s~own in green on :~e sketo~ ~i=led, "change in the
Primary and Secondary Syst~ Due to Relocation und
Construction on Route 3~ Projeot;
dated at Richmond, Virginia, Janua~ 9, 1991, a total distance
of 0.o9 mile, ha= ~een ml=~ed and a new roa~
which serves ~e same citizens as the old road and is to
to Section 33.1-15~ of ~e Cods of Virginia of 1950,
~D ~, ~a= portion of 01~ looa%i~n of Route
(Wo~pecker Road), i.e., Section 9 ~ho~ ~n yellow on
sketch titled, "Chun~e in ~e Prlma~ and Secondary system D~e
to Relocation and Con, true, ion on Route 36,
9, 1991, ~ total distance of 0.06 mile i$ not required
~ F~ ~ha% per%ion of =he old looation of Route
1107 (~a~t RAver Roa~), i,$,, $~otion ~Z shown i~ y~llow
the sketoh titled, "~anga in ~e Pr~a~ and secondary Syst~
Du~ to R~looation an~ ¢onstruotion on Rout~ ~6,
0~36-8~0-102,C501,B601," dated at Ri~ond, Virginia, Janua~
9, 19~, a total ~istanc~ of 0.02 mile is not r~ire~ for
public convenience and i~ to be discontinued f~
· econd~ System of State Highway pursuant to Section
of the Code of virginia of 1950, as amended;
91-688
AND FURTHER, that portion of the old locatiou of Route
1107 (East River Road), t.~., Section 13 shown in yellow on
Due to Relocation and construction on Route 36, Project:
0036-0Z0-102,C§01,BS01," ~ated at Richmond, Virginia, January
9, 1991~ a total distance of 0.04 milo, is not required for
public convenience and is to be discontinued from the
seoondal~; System of State Highway pursuant to Sectio~ 33.1-150
AND FURTKER, that portion cf the old location oX Route
1121 (~ranger Street}, i.e, Section 14 us shown in yellow on
the sketch titled. "Change in the Primary and secondary System
Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 36, Project:
9, 1991, a total distance of 0.0~ mile is Bet required for
public convenience and is to be discontinued from the
Secondary System of State Highway pursuant to Section 33.1~150
of the Code of virginia of 1950, as amended;
AND FURTHER, that portion cf the old location of Route
ll~l (~ranger Street), i.e., Section 15 shown in yellow en =he
to Relocation an4 Construction on Route 36, Project:
9. 1991, a total di~taaoe of 0.04 mile is not required for
Secondary System o~ State ~i~hway pursuant to section 33.1-150
AND FURTheR, that per,ism of the new location
Secondary Route 628 (~ekory Road), i.e.~ seotion 16 show~ in
red on the sketch titled, ,Change in the ~rimary an~ secondary
~roject: 003~-020-102,C§01,B601," dated at Richmond,
Virginia, January 9, 1991, a total distance of o.os mile, be
and hereby i~ added to the Secondary System of State Highway
pursusnt to section 33.]-229 of the Code of Virginia of
AND FURTHZR, that portion o£ Relocated Woodps=ker Roa~,
i.e., Section 17 shown in red on the sketch titled, "Change in
the Primary and Secondary System Due to Relocation and
dated at Richmond, v~rqinia, January S, 1991, a total distance
of ~.28 mile, be a~d hereby is added to the ~e=ondary System
AND ~URT~R, that portio~ of Relocated Woodpecker Road,
A.a., section 18 as shown in red on ~he sketch titled, "Change
in th~ Primary and Secondary System Due to Relocation and
Construction on Route 36, Project: 0036-020-10~,C5Q1,~601~
of 0.04 mile, bs and hereby is added to the secondary syete~
of ~tate ~igh~ay pursuant to Sgotion $$.1-2~9 of the code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended~
to Relocation and Construction on Route 36, Projest:
0036-020-102,C501,B601," dated at Richmond. Virginia, January
~, 1~1, a total distance of 0.04 mils, be and hereby i~
Secondary Route 1121, i.e., ~ection 22 as shown in red on the
sketch titled, "Change to the Primary and secondary system Due
to Relocation and Construction on Route 36, Project:
0036-020-102,C501,B60i." dated at Richmond, virginia, January
91-689 10/23/91
9, 1991, a total distance of 0.~2 mile, be and hereby is added
to the Secondary System of State Highway pursuant to Section
33.1-229 of the code of virginia o~ 1950, as amended;
AND FURTHER, that portion of the new lonation of
Secondary Route 1121, i.e., Section 23 as shown in red on t~he
sketch titl~d~ "C~ange in the Primary and Secondary System D~e
to Relocation and Construction on Route 36, Project:
0~36-020-102,C501,B601,~ dated at Richmond, virginia, January
9, 199X, a total distancn of 0-04 milo, be and hereby is added
to the secondary system of state Highway pursuant to section
33.1-229 Of the Code Of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
A~D FU~T~, that per=ion of a new connection to Granger
Street, i.e., Section 24 as show~ in red on the sketch titled,
"C~angs in the Primary and Secondary System Due to Relocation
and Con~tructlon on Rout~ 36, Project: 0036-020-102,
CS01~601~" dated at Richmond, virginia, January 9~ 1~91, a
total distance cf 0.06 mile, be and hereby is added to t_he
seoondiry System of stats Highway Dursuant to Section 33.1-229
of the Code of Virginia of 19~0, as a~ended;
~D FITRT~, t~hat portion of a n~w co~ectlon with
Woodpecker Road from 0.0S mile we~t of Laurel Road to
Relocated Woodpecker Road, i.e,, Section 19 as ~how~ in brown
on the sketch titled, "Change in the Primary and Secondary
Syste~m Due to R~looa~ion and Constr~ctiou on Route $6,
Project: 0036-020-102,C501,B601," dated at Richmond,
virginia, January 9, ~99I, a total distance of 0.0~ mile, he
and hereby i~ added to the secondary system of state Highway
pursuant to Section 33.1-2~9 of ~he code of Virginia of 1930,
a~ ~endsd;
AND FURTHER, that portion of a new ooPdaeetien with
Granger Street, i.e., Section 20 as shown in brown on the
sketch titled, "Change in the Primary and Secondary System Due
to Relocation and Construction on Route 36, Project:
9, 1991, a total distance e£ 0.03 mile, h~ and hereby le adde~
to the Secondary System of State Highway pursuant to Section
~2.1-229 of the code of Virginia of 1950, a~ amnndnd;
Woodpecker ~oad, i.e., section lo as shown in orange on the
s~eto~ titled, "chan~e in the Primacy and secondary system Due
to Relocation and Construction on Route 3~, ~roject:
9, 199i, a total distance of 0.0~ mile, be and hereby is
renum~ered in the Secondary system of state Highway pursuant
to Section 33.1-229 of ths code of virginia of 195Q, aa
amended;
Woodpecker Road, i.e., section 11 as shown in orange on the
to Relocation and Construction on Route 36, Project:
o03s-o20-lo~,c~o1,Bs91,,, dated at Ricb~oed, Virginia, ~anuary
9, 1991, a total distance of 0.14 mile~ be and hereby is
renumbered in the Secondary System of State Highway pursuant
amended.
After brief discuss/on, on ~otion of ~. A~leg~te,
~ ~. Daniel, the ~Qard au~urized ~e County A~inistrator
to execute a co~tract with IDS Financial services, Inc.
91-690 10/23/91
subject to approval by the County Attorney, for a financial
planning program for employees. (It is noted ~here ie no cost
or liability to the County.)
Vote: Unanimous
11.B.9. APPROPriATION OF RZRMODA DIS~TJ~T 3 C~O~D~8
On motion of Kr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, t. he beard
appropriated $1,000 from the Bermudu District Three Cent Road
Fund £or placemen~ e£ stone on Miller Read.
vote: unanimous
On motion cf the Board, ~he new Chesterfield County Juvenile
GTom~ ~e~e wa~ deciphered the "John H. Thomas Building" in
honer ef his service as a Judge in the County's Juvenile an4
Domestic Relations District Court from 1974 to 1989 a~d for
his lifelong service to th~ youth of ~esterfiel~ county.
ll.B.8. I~}.~.O~ON l~RSTIN~ ~r~R~IN~% DP{ 0F
~ATION ~D~ RO~E 36~ ~ ~O~
After brief discussion, on mot~on of ~ ~oarO, ~he ~ollowin~
re~olut~on wan adopted=
(~OT) current six year prima~ improvement plan includes a
~roject to widen Ro~te 360~ in 1992, from Turner Road ~rough
the Walm~ley Boulevard i~ter~ectlon; and
~S, The plan includes a project to widen Ruu~m 360,
in 199~, f~om 8em~to Road through the Co--house Read
i~ 1995, from Walmzley Boulevard tu Courthou=e Romd~ and
significantly improve traffic flow on Route 360 from
Road to ~rne~ Road; and
int~sm=tlon through thm Rout~ 2~8 interchange, i~ a ori~ical
~nuddressed congestion problem in the County.
NOW, TH~E~ORE B~ IT R~SOLVED, %hat the
County Boar~ of Supervisor6 re~ests the Virginia Department
of Transportation to wi~en RoUte 360 from the R~ute 288
ll . B. f O. C~ESTERPI~.~ COURTY RIVERFRONT PLA~
On motion of the ~sard, $50,000 in County funds was
appropriated f~o~ the General Fund ~alaDce =ontingent u~on the
private se¢~or raising an additional $150,000 to $250,000;
authorized that when the funding is secured, the Plannin~
Department is d~rected to prepare the Riverfrent Plan -- a
comprehensive plan and implementation ~rogram for tho James
91-691 10/23/91
and Appomattox Rivers Corridor which plan will aim to preserve
aesthetic and environmental quality, fearer public access and
enjoyment, protect the existing indumtrial base and
accommodate approprlat~ water oriented d~velopment along the
James and Appomattox Rive~s$ and, further, the Beard approved,
contingent on funding, a t~mporary Urban Planner position in
the Comprehensive section of the Planning Department to
facilitate data collection and logistical ~upport together
with the hiring of appropriate technical con~ultantm. (It is
noted a copy of the tentative outline of the Plan ia filed
with the papers of this Board.}
Vote: Unanimous
ll.C. ~TI~I~IES D~PART~]9~ ITg
ll.C.1. P~BLIC }{~%.I:{[TN~ TO CONSIDER ~ ~ OF ~I~R~LUg COUNTY
Hr, Currin disclosed to the Board that he is affiliated with
the adjacent property owners regarding this request, declared
a potential eon£1io~ of interest pursuant =o t~e virginia
Comprehensive Confllc~ of Intreat Act, and ~cu~ed himself
along Route 10.
~r. william walker ~tated he wa~ the high bidder who would
purchasing the property and was ready to move fo~ard with the
proposal.
0n m~tAon of ~. Applegate, ~e~cnded by Mr. Daniml, ~ Board
a 27' strip along Route lQ), on ~e north line of Route
approximately 10,16~.6~ feet west of Kingston Avenue
(Relocated), to William M. Walke~ in ~e ~o~t of $5,280;
authorized the co~ty Administrator to sign ~e necessary
con,act; and authorized ~e chairman of the Board and the
County A~inistrator to sign th~ d~ ~Don approval by th~
County Attorney.
Ayes: ~. Sullivan, Mr. Apple~ate, Mr. Daniel and ~.
~smnt: Mr. Currin.
After brief diecussion~ on motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded
by Mr. ~yes, the Board authorized the County Attorney to
proceed with e~inent demain on an emergenoy ba~i~ and e~reise
immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the
Cede nf virginia for t~he eo~sition of a 5 fool slope
ea~ent and a variabl~ width ~lope ~ent a~o~ the
property of the Esta=e of Ha~ Jefferson~ located on Warboro
Roa~, Tax Map 4~-7(1)~, for roa~ improvements needed in
connection with the Northern ~ea. Landfill Project and
authorized ~e County A~ini~trator to notify ~e o~er by
certlfi~d ~ail on October 24, 1991 of ~e County's intention
the plat is filed with ~e papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
91-692 10/23/91
Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that on Item
Approval of C~nge 0rder~ for Bermuda ~undred Sewer Service
Survey, that he owns a piece Qf property which would be served
by thi~ llmn, declared a potential Conflict of
pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Confllc~ cf
survey, that he is ~ployed by Philip Morris and the Philip
Morris Park 500 ~ite would be served by this line, declared a
potential conflict of interest pursuant te the Virginia
Comprehensive Con£1iot e£ Interest Act, and excused
from the meeting.
~RINKING WA~ ACT A~D~ENTS" WIT~ HAZ~
On motion of Mr. Applegate~ seconded by ~. ~yes, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute a Chang~ Order,
Ayes: ~. S~lli~an, ~. Apple~ate and Mr. Mayer.
~sent: ~r. ~rrin and ~=. Denial.
On me, ion o~ ~. ~pplegat~, seconded by ~. Mayer, the Boa~d
authorized the County Admln~trator to exe¢~t~ Chan~ Order
Nu~r 1, in the amount of $2~,250, for addlt~onal engin~ering
services re~ired for ~e Be~uda Hun~e~ Sewer Servicm Area,
Projec~ (89-~771), which will cover the bidding and
projuct and Change Order ~ber 2, in the amount of $20,000,
for a ~has~ II ~chaeologi=~l Survey. (It i~ noted said funds
for this projeot are a~p~opriated in th~ c~rent capital
Improvement Budget.)
Ay~: ~. Sullivan, Mr, Applegate and ~. Mayes.
~sent: ~. ~n and M~ Daniel.
On ~otion of ~. Applegate~ seconded by Mr. Mayes~ th~ ~oard
~u~orize~ the chef,an of the Board and the cowry
Co~onweal~ Gms ~e~ices, Inc.~ A Vir~fnia Corporation, to
install a gas pipeline and appurtenances wi~in u 10 foot
easement at Kidlothlan M~ddte School for Service to ~e
School. (It is noted a copy of =he 91ut is file~ with ~e
paD,tm of thi~ Board.)
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, ~. Applegate and ~. Mayer.
~s~nt: ~r. ~urxla and Mr. Daniel.
91-69a 10/23/91
After brief di~cussionf on motion of ~/r. Applegater seconde~
by ~. Kayos, the Beard a=thorized ~e Chai~an of the ~uar~
and ~e County A~inist~ato~ to ex,cute a quitulaim de~d ~o
vacate a 16 foot sew~ easem~t and 10 foot ~porary
sewer ea~emenu, which are no longer neoes~ in oonjuno=ion
with the Genito Estates Sewer Project, acro~ property o~ed
by L. L. Caudle an~ R. E. Collie=, Inc. (It is noted a cody
of the plat i~ filed with ~e pap~r~ of this Board.]
Ay~: ~r, Sulllv~n, ~. Appl~gate and~. M~yes.
Absent: ~r. ~rrin and Mr. Daniel.
DA%r~S ~IGHWAYFR~MALLAME~I~ANB~T~ERS
On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
A~mi~istrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
=o~y of the plat i{ ~ilad with the ~a~arm of th{= Board.)
Ayes: M~. Sullivan, Mr. Applega=e and Mr. Mayer.
2~%0MD.D.P. GROUP
On motion of Er. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
accepted~ on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 20 foot
p&rcel o~ land along ~ull street ~oad from ~.D.~. Group, A
virginia General Partnership, and aut/%c~ize~ the County
A~minietrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
cs~y of the plut is filed with the pup~r~ of this Board.)
Ayes: Fir. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and~r. Mayas.
Ab$~=: F&r. Currln andHr. Daniel.
11. C. 4. R~ORT~
Kr. Sal~ presented the Board with a report on the developer
Administrator.
11.D. RElY)RTe
Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Balance; Reserve Sar Future Capital Projects;
District Road and Street Light Funds; and Lease Purchases.
M~. Ramsay stated thc virginia Department of Transportaficn
has formally no~i£ie~ ~e County o£ ~e acue~anco o~ t~o
following roUd~ into the State Secondary System:
WOODLAND POND, SECTION S - (E£f~ctive~0~--91)
Route 3~7~ (Waterfowl Flyway) - From 0.05 m~le
East Route 9672 t~ 0.~8 nile East Route 3672 0.43 Mi
91-594 10/23/91
Route 3690 (Weterfowl Court) - Fram Rout~ 5671
to 0.07 mile South Route $671 0.07 Mi
Rd=to 3691 (Water£owl Place) - From Route 3671
to 0.04 mile Southwest Ro~te 3671
0.04 Mi
TILLERS~IDGE -(Effective 10-15-91~
Re~t~ 3910 (Tillers Ridge Drive} -Erem Route 663
0.20 mile North Route 663
0.20 Hi
Route 3911 (Tillers R~dge Court) - From Route 3910
,to 0.04 mile East Route
0.04 Mi
Route 391~ (Tillers Ridge Terrace) - From Route 3910
to 0.04 mile East Route 3910
11.E. & F. TO~R OF DU~ON~ FACTLTTT~S ~
The Board recessed at 10:~ a.m. (DST) to travel to DuPent £er
a tour of ~he ~oilities end for lunch.
Reconvening:
91~0~80
In Bermuda Maqi~te~ial District, ~ W. ~ requested
a Residential (R-7) District. The danfity of the proposal
aD~rox~ately 0.30 unit,/acre. Th~ Comprehensive Plan
designates the property for residential use of 1.51 to 4,00
units/acre, Thi~ property fronts ~e nort~ line of King~Iand
Road, approximately 400 feet west of Chenter Roa~,
~etter known as 2924 ~ingsland Road. Tax Map 81-3 (~) Parcel
10 (Sheet
~. Peele presented a ~u~ary of Ca~e 91SR02~0 and stat~
There was no oppositio~
On motion of ~. Coffin, ~econded by ~, Applegate, ~m Board
roll,lng standard cond~tiO~n~
1. Th~ applicant ~hall be ~he o~er and o=cupan~ of the
No lot or parcel ~y be rented or lma~ed for
mobil~ hom~ =itc, nor =hall ~y m~bil~ home be used for
~ental property. Only one (1) mobil~ home shall be
~itted to be parkmd on an individual lot o~
3. The minimum lo~ mize, yard setbaoks, re~ired f~ont yard,
and other 2oning re~irem*nt~ of th9 applicable zoning
residence.
4. NO additional p~rmanent-t~e living ~pao~ nay be added
onto = mobile home. Ail mobile homem ~all
but xhnll not be placed o~ a per~anent foundation.
5. ~ere public (County) wat=r and/or sewer are available,
they shall be
91-695
Upon being granted a ~obile Home Permit, t/la applicant
shall %hen obtain ~he necessary p~z~uits from the Office
of the Building Official. Thi~ ~hall he done prior to
the installation or relocation cf the mobile home.
Any violation of the above ~ondltlons shall be grounds
fs~ ~evoeatien of t~e Mobile Home Permit.
In Matoaca Magisterial Distrle~, 'r~ CWR~T~FIELD CO~PY
P?~NING ~SION re,mEted rescission of a previoumly
~anted conditional Use Planned Dewelo~ment (Case S2S~41)
which pe~its a hoarding house in a Residential (R-7) District
and rezoning fTom Residential (R-7} =o ~ei~orhood Office
(0-1]. The density of such amen~ent will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Compr~ansive
Plan ~esig~ates ~$ propsrty Xor residential use of ~-~ to
4.00 un~t~ p~r a~e. ~i~ r~e~t lie~ on a 0.46 ac~e parcel
fronting ap~roxi~tely 85 feet on the nor~east 1lam of Third
Avenue, approximately 325 feet northwest of Boisseau St=eat.
Ta~ ~p 18~-10 (~) ~oi~s~au, Lot 35A (Sh~e~ 53).
Planning Co, lesion race--ended ~e conditional u~ pla~ed
development (ca~e 82SQ41), which hermits a boarding houze, be
rescinded and approval of 0-1 zoning and acceptance of the
wm~ opposition to ~e request, it would be placed in it~
r~gular ~e~no~ on th~ agenda.
9~0~37
In Matoaea ~agisterial District, WINDY 0AE~ STABLE requested
Conditional Use to p~rmit horse shows in an Agricultural (A)
Distriot~ The don~ity of ~ch amendment will b~ controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property for residential use of 0.5 units
per acre or less. f~nis re,est lies on 4.11 acre~ fronting
approximately 1,684 feet north of Reedy Branch Road. Tax
Planning Commission recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Jerry silvarthorne, representing the applicant, stated the
reeO~endation was acceptable. There was no opposition
present.
on motion of Mr. Mayms, seconded by Mr. Applegate. the Board
approved Case 9~SN0~$7 subject to the follewing condition~;
1. The following oondi~ions notwithstanding, the plan
~re~ared by Jon~ Jamss nnd submitted with the application
shall be considered the p~an of development.
additional structures shall be constructed on the
property to accoI~edate this u~e.
~. T~is Cenditlonal Use shall be restrlctsd to the operation
of horse shows, plus e~stomary and incidental activities
associated with horse shows. (P)
3. Hours cf operation shall be restricted to between
a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
91-696 10/23/91
4. Lighting shall conform to the re~uirementm of the Zoning
Ordinance, Section ~1,ltZ40.
5. The outdoor publis address system shall not exceed a
volume of five (5) decibels above ambient baokground
noise levels, measured st the property beundaries of the
Conditional Use area+ (P)
6. Any sign shall comply with the requirements of the ~oning
ordinance, sections 21.3-265, 21.1-266 and 21.1-267 (e).
Within twelve (12) months notice to the property
from the County that the east/went freeway right of way
has been determined by the County to encompass the
subject property~ this Conditional Use shall =xpir~. (T)
In Bermuda Maqist~rlal District, THOMAS W. PAYN~, aR.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community
Buslnsss (B-2) to Neighborhood Business (c-2). Thm dmnnity of
such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
ordinance standards, The comprehensive Plan designates t~e
property for natural conservation and neighborhood commercial
use. This request lies on 5.6 acres fronting approximately
347 feet on the west llne cf Ch~ter Road~ approximately ~,000
feet south of Centralia Road. Tax Map 97-6 (1) Parcel 67 and
~art Of Parcel 6~ (Sheet ~).
~r. ~oole presented a summary of Case 915N0244 and state~ the
Planning Commission recommended approval and acceptance of the
proffered eendi=ions.
/~r. Jeff Collins, representing the applicant, stated the
reeomm=ndation was ucceptabl%. There was no opposition
present.
On me,ion of ~r. currim, seconded ~y I~T. Daniel, the Board
approved Case 91SN0244 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a building pernlt, one of the
followlnq shall be accomplished for fire protection:
A. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the
county $150 per 1,000 square feet of g~ose floor
area adjusted upward Or downward by the same
percentage that the Marmhall Swift 'Building Cost
Index increased or decreased between June 30, 1991~
and the date of pa~ent. With the upproval of the
County's Fire chief, the owner, ~evelcper cr
assignee(s) shull receive a credit toward the
required payment for the cost of any fire
suppression system not otherwise required by law
which is included am a Dart of the development.
OR
B. The owner, developer and amnignee(s) shall p~ovide a
fire suppression system not otherwise required by
law which the County's Fire Chief determines
substantlally reduces the need for county facilities
otherwise necessary for fire protection.
Prior to site ~lan approval, forty-five (45) feet of
right of way on the west side of State Route 144, Chester
Road, mannered from the centerllne of that p~rt of State
91-697 10/23/91
Route I44, Chester Read, i~ediately adjacent to the
property, shell be dedicated, fre~ and ur~restrlcted, to
and for t/~e benefit of chesterfield county.
To provide for am adequate roadway system at the ti~e of
complete development, the developer ~hall be responsible
for the felloNing:
Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit~,
additional pavement shall be constructed along
Che~ter Road to provide a right-turn lane at the
permit for more than 10,000 square feet of specialty
retail center er squlvalent density as determined by
the Transportation Department~ additional payment
shall ~e cons~ructs~ along C~es~er Road to provide a
left-turn in addition to the right-turn lane at the
(NOTE: 'construction of the left-turn lane may require
recon=tructlon of the existing bridge structure on Chester
Road.)
In Dale ~a~is~erial District, FLOYD R. nu~, Ult. requested
~a~oninq from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9).
Residential use of up to 4.~4 units per more is permitted in a
Re~idential (R-9) District. Th~ Comprehensive Plan de~ignats~
the propertyI for resid~ntlal use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per
acre. This request lles on a 0.39 a=re p~ro~l f~onti~
approximately 1~0 feet on the north line of Beulah Road,
approximately 280 feet we~t of Salem Church Road. Tax Map
M_T, Peele pre~e~ted a ~m~ary sf Case 91SN0245 an~ stated the
~lannlnq Commission recommended approval and acceptance of the
preffared conditions.
Mr. Floyd 'Huband stated the recommendation was acceptable.
There wa~ no opposition present.
On me,ion of Mr. Daniel, secon~e~ by Mr. Mayas, the Board
conditions:
1. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the
following to the CoUnty of Chesterfield at the time of
building p~rmi~ application £0r infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the
~roperty:
a. $~,000 per lo%~ if paid prior to January 1, 1992; or
The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not
to exceed $3,000 per lot, if paid between January 1,
1992 an~ ~une 30~ 19~2~ inclusive; or
c. The a~ount approved by the Beard of supervisors net
to exceed $4,~00 per lot, if paid h~tween July
199~ and Jnne 30, 1993, inclusive; or
The a~o~nt approved by the Board of Supervisors not
to e~=eed $4z000 per lot adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall end Swift Building Co~t
Index between July 1, 1992, and July i of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made if paid after June
30, ~99~.
91-698 10/23/91
In conjunction with r~cord~tien of a subdivision plat, a
forty-five (45) foot right of way on the north side of
Beulah Road, measure4 from the oenterllne of that par~ of
Beulah Road immediately adjacent to the property ~hall be
dedicated, free and unrestricted, %e aa~ for the benefit
ef Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
amendment to Conditional U~e Plannod Development (Case
89SN0108) relative ts build~n~ h~ight cf an expansion to a
Comprehensive Plan designates ~hs property far rem~dent~al uso
of 1.51 to 4.08 units per acre. This request lies in a
Remldential (R-7) D~str~ot on a 0.6 aero parcel fronting
approximately 135 feet on thm north l~n~ of TOt~y street,
approximately 50 feet east of Pannil Street. Tax Map
(4) o~ange Rill, BiOC~ D, Lot § (Sheet
Mr. Pools presented a summary of Cane 9~ZN0~48 and stated the
proffered condition.
MS. Colostlne Hicks stated the reeem~endation was acsep~able.
There was ne opposition present.
oendition~
Th~ existing principal structure and any subsequent
addition shall have Compatible arehlte~tural treatment.
Any addition ~hall ~ot exceed two (~) ~teries in height.
(NOTE: This proffered condition supersedes the proffered
condition o£ Case
vote: Unanimous
In Matoaca Magisterial District, WILLIAM B. AND GEN~ ~. ~09~
requested amendment to a pToffered condition of ~o~ing (Ca~e
~9~W0~A~) reletive to drainage, erosion ¢ontrnl and ~best
management pract~cem." ~[he density of such a~e~dmunt will be
controlled by zoning condition= or ordinance ~tan~ards. The
Compreh~iv~ Plan designates t~e p=ope=ty for residential ~s$
of 1.~0 unlt= par acre or less. This re.es= lie~ on = 336.4
acr~ paroel fronting approximately 580 feet on the south line
of River Road, approximately 1,710 ~ut west of Sa~dlebrook
Road. Tax Map 158-11 (1} Parcel ~6 (Sheet 4~).
~. POOLS presented u sugary of Case 91SN0~7~ and ~tated ~
Planning Co~ission reco~ende~ approval and aooeptanoe of the
proffered conditions.
~e cm~ ~ pieced in its reeler sequence on the agenda as
one of the parinhioner$ of Union Baptist Church had re~ste~
additi0~al info,atica. Mr. Sullivan stated the request would
be placed in its r~lar ~equence 0n the agenda.
In Matoaca Magisterial District, OLECE E. p/~ICE, JR. reguested
(C-5}. The density of such ansndmsnt will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance s~andards. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property for neighborhood commercial use.
~hls request lies on 0.34 acres fronting approximately
feet on the west line of Chesterfield Avenue, also fronting
approxii~ately 1~0 feet on the north lin~ of Randolph
and loon=ed in ~e not.west qua~ant of the intersection
and 10 (sheet 53).
proffered condition.
~. Olyc~ ~rice stated the reco~datio~ wa~ acceptabl~.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of ~. Mayas, ~ecomded by ~. ApDlegate, the Board
approved Case ~tsmo~7~ an~ accepted the following 9roffere~
To minimize ~e t~affie impact, ~e ases allowed shall be
restricte~ to those permitted by right or with
re~triction~ in thR co--unity Business (C-~) D~trict
Dlu~ motor v~icle ~ale~, se~icm, rmgalr, r~ntal an4
~ublic ga~age~.
Vote: Unanimous
91SN0143 (Amended)
Is Natuaca ~agizterlal District, ~ u~T~RFLELD
PLANNING O0~M~S$ION requested rescission of a previously
grante~ Conditional U~e Plm~ed D~v~lopment (Ca~ 82~04I)
whi~ p~its a boarding house in a Resld~tial (R-7) District
and rezoning from Residential (R-~) to Neighborhood office
(0-1). The density of suGh amen~ent will be con~oll~ by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
4.00 ~its per acre. This re.est lies cna 0.46 acre parcel
Avenue, approximately 3~5 feet northwest of Boisseau Street.
Tax ~a~ 182-10 (2) ~oi==eau, Lot 35A (Sheet 53).
Pla~nin~ Co~i~io~ ~eco~d t~ conditional ~e pla~d
developmmnt (came szso41), which 9e~i=s a boarding houme,
Droff~ed condition.
~. oliver Ruby, repressn%ing ~e property ~ner, s=a~ed ~he
reco~endution was acceptable. ~e further state~ th~
concerns by s~mitting the proffered condition and re~ested
because h~ f~lt ~ang$~ in 9rope~y o~hip shoul~ b~
cam~ wa~ heard by the Board.
csncerns cf ~e neighbo~ regarding compatibility and,
91-700
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded hy ~JC. Daniel, ~he board
approved Case 91SN0145 which re~c~nd~ Came 828041 for a
boa~dlng hous~ in a R~identiml (R-7} zoning ~istrict and
rezones t/%e s~hje~t p~spert¥ to NeighborhcQd Office
zoning and accepted the following proffered oooditlon:
The ~ollowing uses shall n~% te p~rmi%ted:
~, ~rou~ care facilities.
~. ~ublio and private forests,
conservation areas; amd
S. Travel agencies to in~lnde
transportation services.
Vote: Unanimous
~ropagaticn and cultivation of crop~,
shrubs which are not offered for sale.
wildlife
flower~ tre~s and
preserves and
arranging and
91SN0272
In Mateaca Magisterial District, ~;ILLIAM ~. AND ~4E
requested amen~ent to a proffered condition of zon~n~ (Ca~e
89SN0142) relative to drainage, erosion control and "test
m~agemen~ practices." The denmi~y of much ~an~en~ will
controlled by zoning Co~ditiohS or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan ~e~gnat~ ~e property for resid~tial use
of 1.50 ~its per acre or le=~. Thi~ r~qu~t li~s on m ~.4
of River Road, approximately 1,710 f~et west of Saddlebrook
Read. Tax Map 158-11 (1) Paroel 26 (sheet
~r, Peele presented a m~ary of Ca~e 919N0272 and stated th~
proffered conditions.
~. Edward Will,y, Jr., representing the applicant, ~tated
reco~andation was acceptable. He further s~ated the
applicant was re~e~tinq an amendment of a proffered
to a previously granted zoning r~lative to provision of best
~anage~a~t p~actices to include use of wet detention basin~
and ~m~anent pools to control nutrient loading~ o~ Lake
Chesdln and the Appomattox River. ~ noted ~ey had met with
the surrounding property o~er~ in order to address their
Dimcummlon, c~ent$ and ~estionm enmu~ r~lativ~ to
~ke Chesdin and whether th~ standards of the
Upper swift Creek Drainage ~asin; why ~e Plan for Lake
Chesdin wa~ not prepared at the same timm as the ~per
creek ~lan; and whether thexe ~ad ~een any ~
· ~ed p~ior to thi~ request which may have had dlffmrmnt
Swift Cre~ Plan; etc.
~en asked, ~. ~oole stated ~ ~viro~ental Engineering
De~artm~n~ reviewed all requests and made reco~endations
which would provid~ protmotion to the water quality.
~. Currin gtat~d h~ f~lt a plan for L~e Chesdin should harm
been ad~e~sed at the same time as the upper Swift crees Pla~
a~ a pr~=edent could now be met in d~ciding thi= came.
91-?ol 10/~3/91
There was further discussion relative to the project;
ordinance standard~ b~ing impo~ed along Lake Che~dln which
case; whether the request could be amended to bring it in
oompliance with new stasdards at a later date if required~ and
whether staff would be imposing the ease standards for the
U~per swift Creek Drainage Basin an t~e Lake Chesdfn Drainage
Basin fo= futura zoning
/4r. Zayes inquired as to the use of public water and sewer for
this request, whether the proffer would still protect the
water quality in L~ke Cheedin and stated he was opposed to the
nee of septic systems in the Lake Chesdin area. Mr. Peele
stated public water and septic systems would be used and the
proffered condition would protect the water quality for Lake
Chesd~n the sams as if the developer was u~etream from the
Swift Creek Reservoir.
inquired as to the laud being conveyed to the Church to
enlarge its cemetery.
Mr. Willey stated the applicant had a'lready deeded land to the
used and the developer had agreed to notify propa~y owners in
the area at the appropriate rime in order for the~m to have an
Opportunity to connect to t/~e public wate~ ~ystem if desired;
that the septic systems would he in accordance with County
standards and felt there would be no intrusion o~ the water
~uali~y for Lake Chemdin.
Mr, Mayes restated he was opposed ~o the u~s of septic systems
in the Lake Chesdin area a~ h~ f~lt it would eventually have
an impa~ on the quality of wa%ar for Lake Chesdln bah
the request would not allow him to address the use of septic
systems~ he would recommend approval.
Mr. George Beadles stated he supported the request as
presented; that he felt the applicant had addressed the
concerns of ~he area by submitting the proffered conditions;
and that he felt thi~ r~que~t was an opportunity to observe
and determine the effect cf large subdivisions in the Lake
C~esdin area.
O~ ~oti~n of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Ap~legate, the ~oa~d
approved Case 91SN0272 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
Sections 21.1-~29.11 through 21.1-~29.16 except that
reference "Lake Chesdin."
Prior to final ~ubdivi~ion approval, the developer shall
record a rsstrictlvs covenant which regulres thau all
houses built in the subdivision have gutters.
a, Thi~ condition supersedes Proffered Condition 10 of
Cass 89SN0142.
h. Except as noted herein, all ether conditions of
zoning approval for Ca~e
Vote: Unanimous
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~d~L~S W.
requested ro~oning from Office Business (o) to Corporate
office (0-2). The density ef such amendment will bo
eentrollod by zoning eondi=ieee or Ordinamoe standards. The
C~mprehensive Plan designates the property for residential
of 1.51 to 4.o0 unite per acre. This request lies on a 2.71
acre parcel fronting approximately ?$0 £eet on the ~euth lima
ef West Hugeenot Road, approximately 380 feet east Of Cranbeck
Read. Tax ~ap 9-9 (1} Parcel ~ (Sheet
Mr. Peele presented a sumumary ef Cas~l~0232 a~ ~ta~ed
Planning Co~ission reco~ended approval and acceptance Of
~roffere~ oondi%ions. He no%ed =~is ra~es~ was oarried
~. ~ew Scherz~r, representing the a~Dllcant, sta~ed
reco~endation was acceptable and premented a brief sugary of
the conoe~n~ which had bee~ e~re~s~d by providing additional
info~ation relative to the hourz of operation for
railroad, the ~eparation between the Tail=sad track and the
~ro~osed 91ayground area and the traffic oonc~rns regarding
~uguenot Roa~.
Mr. and Mrs. Mike Fu~t stated ~ey ~eside in Chesterfield
County, are o~urm of two child cars centers in the County~
are active in ~ild care and are the parent~ of tWO
centers were needed in the proposed area aBd in the Co~ty
the County; that they are privately owned and would Dot risk
Board to give favorable consideratio~ to the
Mr. George Beadles stated he wa~ in f~vor Of %h~ ~ro~osal and
felt t~ere Wo~ld be mere train traffic adjao~t to the site
but ~e proximity of the railroad ~huuld not deem th~
M~. F~ance~ N~adow~ ~tated she was o~o~ed to the r~est and
hud researched addltiunal info,arise since a~earin~ before
the Beard at its meeting on s%ptembe~ 25, 1991. S~
=tated =he ha~ be~n info~e~ by tha Norfolk sou~arn Railroad
they had not been notified of th~ p~op0~ed =e~est; that she
ha~ ~en ad~is~d by staff only 9ro~erty owners on the =ax
a~ notified; ~at ~he felt the railroad would have more
financial liability in the event of derailment than any other
property o~er along the site and should hav~ b~en notifie~;
~at she ha~ various safety hazar~ conce=n~ regarding the
re,est and outlined h~ concern~ about the road~ and the
railroad cru~ing in the ~u~enot/Roblous ar~a; that
analysis provided ~ staff indicated sufficient wat~ flow and
pr~==ure ~y no= b~ available =o mee~ fir~ flow needs for the
propozed u~; that 0ue to th~ p0~entiaI insufficient fire
~e Fire Department could control it; tha% ~he di~ no%
~e t~affio liqht which Wa~ to be installe~ ~t eli G~ Ro~d
would h~lp the traffic situation for %his site bu~ a
by the Virginia Department of Transportation a light ooul~ not
be installed on ~anbeck Road because it was too close to
~el~a~e; that she felt ~e residents in the area ha~
b~co~e i~volv~d beca~e they felt the Board of Supervi=ors had
was concerned ~out the Emf~ty of the chi]~ an~, therefore,
a petition from resident~ in th~ Cranb~Qk Su~i~ision opposing
9i-703 10/~3/91
Dimcussion~ comme~t~, and questions ensued relative un
flow needs for ~h~ proposed use and the proffered condition
submitted by tl~e
Mr. ~cher~sr stated the applicunt would be extending a twelve
inch waterline to establish two ~irc hydrants which w0ul~
the fire flow needs for the propomed mite and *~he playground
would ~e a minimum o~ ~i~=y-five away from ~nm railroad.
Ms. Meadows stated ~he had be~n informmd by the Norfolk
Southern Railroad the hours of operation for the trains in
thi~ area could not be determined and noted more rmcen~ly,
trains had traveled th~ railroad during the morning rush hour
traffic times.
W~en asked, Chief Eanes stated the conditions proffered by the
applicant relative to fire flow needs satisfied the
rec/uirements of th~ Fire Department.
l~r. Sullivan ~tated he ~hared Eafety concerns for all requests
and, in partlcular, when children were invslved but £elt in
this case, the r~ilroad was Hot heavily ~sed and the traffic
concerns for the proposed r~que~t were no different than
experienced in other ureas of the County. He fnrther stated
with the installation of a traffic signal at the inter~¢ction
the request.
Mr. Daniel stated he did not support the request as he felt
the site was inappropriate for a day care center due to
whether public er private, had been excluded from the
permitted uses.
M~. Mayem state~ he was opposed to the requemt due to the
safety concerns associated with it.
1991 Board maetlng when ~he requeut wau heard, he was familiar
originally been zoned. He further stated the request wa~ in
sites in the County to the proposed site.
~r. Currin inquired am to the speed traveled by the trains in
thirty-five miles per hour which was reduced to twenty miles
p~r hour near Rookaway Road! th~rm wer~ only two local trainm
on the s~hedule and the railroad was a minimum of fifty-five
feet away fro~ the playground.
~r. Currin statel he had not been contacted by any parties
involved regarding thim request prior to voting at the last
meeting, that the applicant could be permitted to place
another facility relating to children such as a pediatric
facility on the property and, therefore, supported the
oondition~:
I. All buildings shall he constructed in a t~adition&l,
colonial, or victorian ar0~iteotural style and of a
quality level equal to, or better than, the Huguenot
Plaoa and/or Huguenot Commons projects.
91-704 10/23/91
0-2 use~;
(a) Art School, gallsry or mussum.
(b) Funeral homes or mortuaries.
(¢) Hotels.
(d) Post Offices.
(e) Schools/colleges - public and private.
(f) Schoolx - business.
(g) TSlSphOnO exchanges.
3. The denelty shall not exceed 9~000 e~uare feet per acre+
No buildln9 shall exceed 9,000 square feet nor shall be
highsr than one story. There ~hall be no more than two
buildings on the par¢~l.
4. To provide for an adequate roadway sys=em aD the ~i~e
complete development, the deYelopcr shall be remponsible
for the following:
a. Construction of additional lane along the northbound
lanes of Ru~enot Road f~o~ the approved access to
approximately 400 feet south of the approvsd access.
Thi~ improvement shall be provided prior to the
issuance of any o~eupaney permit.
Dedication~ free and unrestricted~ to and for
benefit of c~esterfield County, any additional right
of way {or easement) required fo~ the improvements
identified above. This dedication ghall 0sour prior
to site plan approval.
5. Pr~or to obtaining a buildin~ pernit, one of the
following shall be accomplished for fire
a. For building psrmits obtained on or before June
1991, ~e owner/developer s~all pay to the County
$1§0.00 per ~,000 square feet of gross Sleet area.
If the building permit is obtained after J%/ns 30,
1991, the a~ount of thc require~ Dayment shall be
adjusted upward or dow~ward by the same percentag~
that tho Marshall Swift Bu~l~{ng Cost Index
increased er decreased between June ~0, 199~ and
the date of ~aymsnt. with the approval ef the
Ceunty'e Fire Chief, the owner/developer shall
!~ceiYe a oredit toward the required payment for the
cost of any fire suppression symte~ ~ot
required by law whioh is included am a part Of the
development,
Ayes:
Nays:
or
The owner/developer ~hall provide a fire suppression
system not otherwise ~equired by law which the
County'~ Fire chief determines substantially redmee~
the need for County facilities otherwise for the
protection.
sullivan, F~. Currin and Mr. AD, legate.
Daniel endear. Nayes.
~9~N0354 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial D~str~ct, %rf~INIA I~%RD
requested rezonlng fr~ Agrlcultural (A] to
(R-15). Residential ume of up to 2.9 units par
permitted in a R~identlal (R-i~) District. The com~r~ensive
per acre or less. Thi~ request lies on a 256.8 acr~ parcel
f~o~ting approximately 1,637 feet on the west lin~
~n~e4 Road, agproxlmately 3,700 feet nor=hwest of Otte~dale
Road. Tax Map a~ (1) Parcel 3~ ($heet~ 5, 5 and 12).
Mr- Pcole presented a s~&~y of Caee 89SN0354 and stated th~
~ta~n~ng Commlss~on had recom~ended denial of t~e request. He
noted subsepuent tu the Planning Csmmissien'e last public
heart~g, t/%e applicant had ~et with ne~g~rhood lead.s and
· ad~ m~veral chang~ to ~hm re~m~t whi~ %he nei~orh~ now
supported. ~. Poole stated staff reco~ended approval of the
request and aoo~ptan=~ of ~hs proff~re~ conditions in the
the Augumt 28, 1991 Board meeting in order to allow fha
condition had been proffered prior to thi~ publi= hearing.
~. ~hil Gar~er, representing the applicant, stated they were
in agre~ent with ~e s~rounding neig~orhood and ~he
on ~e proposal; ~at it was their intention to use p~llc
water and u=wer; that he felt t~e R-15 zonin~ ~elative
density would re~ire ~e use of ~ublic water and sewer; that
due to concerns expre~=d by ~c Board ut its meeting
condition relative to the u~e of public water and ~ewer but
since ~m Dropsied ~e~ a~en~m~s ha~ no~ been =~opt~d, the
fee to do so would be $1~,165; and re~ested th~ Board to
use of publi~ wa~er and s~w~: as h~ di~ not feel it was
appropriate =o pay the re~i~ed fee under ~e
~. ~g~ Woo~le stated ~e was representing the adjacent
property o~; ~mt the neighborhood originally wm~
applicant; ~at ~ey had rea=hed agreements in ad~ition to the
proffered condition~ su~itted by the applioant to the County;
~at they had b~zn assured ~he a~plica~t would use public
water and sewer and also did not feel it was appropriate
cha~ge the applicant the fee required in o~der to submit the
proffered condition relative to the use of paoli= water and
~. George Beadles stated al~ough ~e applicant'e intent was
to u~e public ~at~ and ~ewer, he felt the proffered condition
should be su~itted in order to protect ~a County from the
u~e of ~eptic ~y~t~ and
~. Gardner stated it was ~ir intention to u$~ p~blio water
f~ he had anticipated and, ~erefore, re~ested ~e Board to
consider imposing a condition which would re~ire him to usa
fu~er re~ested if the fee could not be waived, he be
granted additional time in or,er to allow for him tu raise ~e
funds needed to Day ~e fee.
Hr. ~yes stmt~d he felt the request had not b~en voted on at
the Au~st 28, 199~ Boar4 meeting da= to a technicality but
had instead been deferred to all~ the applicant an
opport~ity to $~bmlt a proff~re~ oondltion relative to ~e
use ~ public wat~ and ~ewer even though ~u applicant had
b~$n r~ady ~o ~ubmit the ~rof~ered condition at the August 2~,
Hr. D~niel stated h~ felt the applicant would not have
~e~ting for approval unless the proffered condition relatlve
to th~ u~a of D~llc water and sewer had ~en s~mitt~d; that
he had rec~tly been contacted by ~e applicant info~inq he
advised by ~taff ~ey could not accept the proffered condition
unle=s ~he fee wm~ paid a~ well. H~ in. ired if ~e fee for a
p~off~d COndition could be waived when th~ Board has
indicated the proffsr8~ condition needed to be s~itted prior
to voting on the re.est.
Mr. ~icas stated the fee for the proffered condition could not
he waived nor could the Board compel the applicant to submit
the proffered condition. ~ advised the Board was obligated
to collect the fee for submitting proffered c0n~itions as
stipulated in tha zoning ordinance. Mr. Daniel stated when
the zoning Ordinance was recently addressed by the Board, they
had failed to change the Ordinance to reflect these types of
situations.
When asked, M~. Micas advised the request could not b=
applicant because the fee had hot been paid. He stated the
risk sf acsepting tho proffered condition at this point in
ti~e would be on the applicant because if concerns were
furtheM stated State law limit~ flexibility regarding cash
de~ig~ed to protect developers from feeling compelled to
proffer ccndi:i0n~ to governing bodies during meetings.
After considerable d~scuesion, it was determined under the
Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would have paid the sane fee
for submitting a proffered condition relative to the use of
public wat~ and sewer when the application was originally
proffered condition would bm the same regardless of the number
proffered conditions. F~r. ~eele noted the Zoning ordinance
weul~ exempt the applicant from paying an extra fee if the
applicant was proffering tO donat~ to the County real property
o~ proffering $2,000 per lot.
F~. Mayas stated ~taff had previously advised if the use of
public water and sewer was nc~ a proffered uondltlon, staff
would not have the ability to require the applicant to tie
th= applicant hud not submitted the proffered condition but
request, staff could require the u~e of publi~ utilities.
Mr. Peele stated if the applicant wa~ to ¢reat~ larger lot
sizes ~nd the lots did not fall within the parameters of the
County's Utilitie~ Ordinance, ~taf£ would not have the ability
to enforce the applicant's intention tn t~e into the public
water and sewer system.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to changing
the zoning request by ~rantinq the applicant a conditional use
planned development versus Agricultural and whether the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances would permit the change. ~r. MiCas
Zoning ordinance regarding the fee for proffers.
There was considerable discussion relative tO the appropriate
manner in which to address this request; and the a~0~n~ of
time naede~ to amend the aching 0rdinanoe relative to fees for
proffered conditions; etc.
Mr. Sulllvan stated he felt the appllc~nt had avolde~ the
Eubmltted before th~ Cc~%y had the legal authority to accept
them. ~e noted the request world 9¢nerate over $1 million in
infrastructure charges including 2S0 school children ~eing
generated and~ therefnre, felt the request should be denied.
Mr, Curtis stated although the applicant ~ad aebmitted the
the appropriate procedure had been followed. ~e noted tho
applicant was dedicating right-of-way and agreeing to
construct two lanes for th~ proposed east/west and north/south
arterials for transportation needs.
91-707 10/23/91
~r. ~ayes state~ he felt a deferral would be in tbs best
interest of the applicant and the County in order to provide
staff an opportunity to bring to the Board for consideration a
paper ad~lressin~ the zoning Ordinance fees relating to
proffers.
M_~. Gardner stated since the proposed ehange~ in the fee
schedule had not been adopted by the ~oard, he ha~ not
anticipated paying such a high fee to submit the proffered
condition relative to =ho ~$e ef public water and sewer and
although he felt the a~ount of the fee was not fair, he would
he willing to pay the full amount of the fee if the Board so
desired. Mr. Mayas stated he felt the amount of the fee was
inappropriats since the applicant had already agreed to submit
the proffered condition r~lative tu the use of public water
There wa~ dlscuss~on relative to ~eferring this request in
order to give staff an opportunity to bring to the Soard for
consideration a paper addressing the fee echedule for proffers
and the time frame in which the issue could be addressed. Mr.
Gardner ~tated although the request had been in existence for
a lengthy period of t~me and he would llke to resolve the
appropriate in regards to the time
After brlsf discussion, ~4r. ~ayes made a motion, seconded by
order to give staff an opportunity to bring to the Board
ooneidenetien an amendment to the Zoning 0rdinanee relating ts
Mr. Applegate stated although he disagreed with the amount
the fee~ he felt the applicant should be aware by deferring
the case until February, there was a possibility o~ the
request belnq presented to a different Boar~ at that time and
inquired if the a~pli~ant would prefer to pay the fee at this
time. Mr. Gardner ~tated he wouid prefer to pay the fee st
this time.
M~. Applegate offered a substitute motion, seconded by Mr.
~aniel, to defer case s~$~o~4 un~il November 27, 19~1 in
order to allow the applicant an opportunity to pay the fee for
the pro,fared condition relative to the use of public water
~r. Sullivan called for the vote on the substitute motion ~ade
by Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Danlel, to defer Case
89SN0354 until N0vembe~ 27, 1991 in cedar to allow the
applicant an opportunity to pay the fee for the proffered
condition relative to the use of public water and sewer.
Aye=: Mr. Currin, Mr. Appl~gate, Mr. Daniel and Mr.
Nays: Mr. Sullivan.
It was geuerally agreed to recess for five minutes.
Reconvening:
91~02~1
In Ber~a Hagi~terial Distri=~, TkU~ ~W~T~FX~.~ COU~T~ ~
OF S~IS0~ requested Conditional Use to pe~it a
poliom/fire training center in an Agri~lt~al (A) District.
The density of such a~endment will b~ co~t~olled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance m~andar~s. The Comprehensive Plan
designates ~e Drop~ty fo~ 100 y~ floodplain and light
91-7~8 10/23/91
industrial use with density ts be det~--mlned by develoDment
regulations. This request lies on 198 acres fronting
approximately 4,s00 f~et On the we~t line of Allied Road,
approximately 1,~0 feet north of East Hundred Road, also
located at tho northern terminus of Spruce Avenue. Tax Map
lZ6 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (sheet 431.
F~. Beverly Rogers, Planning Administrator, presented a
summary of Case 91SN0221 and stated the planning
recommended approval subject to conditions.
MT. C~/'rin disclosed to the Board that he owns a piece of
with could have potential financial son~ideratio~ declared
potential conflict of interest p~rmuant t~ the Virginia
comprehensive cenftiot of Interest Act, and eXCused himself
from the Board.
Mr. Daniel disclosed to th~ Board that he iz ~ployed by
Philip Morris and the Philip Morris Park S00 Site wa~ located
qu~ti6~ and hi~ company would not be affected by this
re~e~t.
~. Ken ~gdzi~, representing ~e aDplicant~ prem~nted a
su~a~ of the request including ~ background info,erich of
~he re~=. ~e n~d for =he publio ~afe=y training facility,
the a~p~cts of the site, and tbs fire an~ police training
greatly needed in order to provide trai~ing to police
regardinq driv~ training and fire~rm skill~ and ~tated he
felt the training ~acility would bm in the ~amt interest
favorable consideration to the
would hamDer the re, ifad night %imm trmining for polic~.
further stated s~nce ~ majority of volunteers hold full ti~e
jobs d~ing the day, vol~teer ~lice officers were trained
Chief Eanes re~ested the Board ~o giv~ favorable
fmGility was not ads,ate enough to train the firefightmrs,
re, ire contlnuou~ training, a~ stated the current training
facility had been built by volunteer firefighters with nc
of County f~ndS in the l~te sidles, ~alning was one of the
training facility was also the hourm of oD~ration which
would restrict training for volunteers.
~. Magdx~ pre~ented a slide pre~entatlon reviewing
mi%e, ~he concept drawing of the ~alnlng facility, and the
e~ipm~t and training De~ded for th~ site. He stated he felt
they had worked wi~ th~ ~o~nnity in addressing
facility; that the training facility was greatly needed and
county~ and ~equested the Board to give favor~le
consideration to the r~qu~t. He noted there were some
10/23/91
revised conditions which had hssn agreed tc by the residents
iN the area regarding the hours of opera%ion and noise level;
the installation of a security fence around the training
facility~ the installation of buffer~ ag det~rmlned by the
Planning Departa~ent after clearing and grading; and the
firing range.
Ms. Patricia Frazier stated she was an adjacent property
owner; that she had recently been informed of the changes in
the conditions as proposed by ~taff; that the neighborhood had
worked with staff to reach agreements regarding the conditions
for the request; that they had concerns regarding the noise
level, hours of operation and the firing range; that they had
~aOe ~ugge~tlon~ regarding the~e concern~ especlally the noise
level; that she felt their concerns shoul~ be taken into
consideration and at some later point in time, if the training
facility prayed not to he s deterrent and was a good neighbor,
the issues could then be readdressed; etc.
Mr. ~ruee Vecchloni, Chief cf the Enon Volunteer Fire
Department, stated the fire departments and rescue equads were
extensively traine~: that training in general wa~ don, on a
continual ba~; and that the p~pe~d hou~ ef epe~atlon for
the ~raining facility would be =co restrictive to volunteers
as they were trained in the evening or on the weekend~
their daytime
Mr. Jim ~ishap state~ he was an a~jacent property owner; that
he sUppOrted the training facility wit5 the c0nditionz as
needs of the fire and police departments and felt a compro~ise
could be reached regarding tho hours of operation at a later
date; an~ requested the ~oard not to deviate from the proposed
conditions when deciding the rec£uest; etc.
M~. Sonny Currln sta~ed he wa~ ad~ras~ng the ~oard as a
¢iti=en; that he felt there was some confusion over the
in the past, the whole neighborhood had keen willing to work
with the county in reaching a compromise concerning the hours
of operation and the other concerns expressed. He suggested
the latest amendments might be more acceptable if they were
When asked, Mr. Ramsay stated he had met with two of =he
neighborhood representatives; that he felt at the time of the
meeting, a position had been reached re~ar~ing the request in
which the neighborhood and County could support; and due to
those circumstances, he requested the ~oard to consider his
recommendation extending the ho~rs of operation as opposed to
stated the Planning Commission'= proposed csndition relating
to t~e hours of up=ration would prohibit volunteers from using
the training facility ond proposed the hourm of operation
could De set up under a two year sunset previ~ion in whiol~ the
hours would then be reviewed. ~e noted staff had worked with
the community in addressing their concerns and had also worked
with the police and fire departments in identifying their
needs and aspeoially with regard to volunteers beleg able to
use the training facility.
F~r. ~/agdziuk stated they had worked diligently with the
co~munity regarding tho conditions a~d re~/ested the Board to
give favorable consideration ts the request.
after two years, whether the provision was a part of the
conditions and if not, the appropriate manner in which to add
it to the conditions. Mr. Ransey stated the sunset prevision
ha~ net been included as a part ef the conditions as he felt
91-710 10/~3/91
staff had ~eadhed an agreement with the neighborhood regarding
the proposed hours of operation. He further stated the sunset
provision would include the hours of 7:00 a.m. until
p.m. during the weekr 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 plm. on Saturday
and 12:00 noon until 7:00 p.m. on Sunday with ne use cf the
firing range or driving facility on Sunday.
DIr. Daniel stated he had stayed abreast of the ~eqUest, had
reviewed th~ proposed conditions and felt the sunset provision
should be added to reflect the Board of Supervisors would
review and approve deolbel levels and hours of operation
contained in conditions four and five prior tc continuing use
beyond two years from beginning full operations. ~e further
stated he felt the provision would address the concerns
e~presse~ by =he neighborhood and would protest them by
providing an opportunity to have their concern~ r~adOre~sed if
necessary. He commended all in working together on the
project as he felt public safety was a high priority which
needed to be addressed.
Discussion, oa~z~ents and q~estio~s ~n~u~d relative to the
noise level and sound issues; the noise level for residential
sommu~itiez; whether the changes ~ad been discussed with the
community; and the proRcsed changes requested by the county
Administrator.
/~. Meye~ ~tated he felt he could ~uppert the request with the
County Administrator's propo~ed
~r. Applegat~ inquired as to why the neighborhood
representatives who had met with staff had OhOSe~ net to
Kr. Juetln ~urkey stated h~ was an adjacent property owner;
that not all of the residents were able to be present at the
meetln~ but hs had met with staff; that he was not
representing the neighborhood'~ 0ouoern$ at this time bus
had oonserns ~elative to the residents' hc~es on Spruce Avenue
regarding the proposed
Discussion, ¢o~ment~ and questions ensued relative to tho
proposed oanditlon regarding the driving course being ah an
elevation of at least thirty-five feet below the western
buffet a~d the proposed amendment to that condition and to th~
proposed condition regarding the sound studies which are to be
performed prior to clearing and grading in ord~r to determine
the customary decibel level at the western property ~oundary.
~ir. Applegate stated he felt he could ~upport the request as
recsmmended by the County Adninistra~or provided the concerns
of the neighborhood were mst regarding th~ buffers and the
~eise level.
When asked, Chief ~anes stated the flru training fasility
would not be a reglonal training center and would only p=e~idu
programs for the County'~ fir~ departments and ressue squads
and would also be closed at certain times.
There was brief d~cu~ien relative to the noise level and the
review of the noise level and hours cf operation after two
years.
~. Burkey ~tut=d the neighborhood had not k~en fully aware of
the training schedule regarding the limited use for the
volunteers and had a~rssd the training facility OO~ld be used
sn Sunday strictly for voluntesr~ but did not want the firing
range or the driving course u~d on Sun~ay. Mr. Ramsay
elarifie~ there would be no use of the firing range or the
driving source on Sunday.
Hr. Daniel e~ated although the najority of the training on
Sunday would be for volunteers, he felt professional staff
should not be excluded from using the training facility os
Sunday as well.
~. ~urkey stated he felt the hsu=s of operation =hould r~ain
at 9:80 p.m. during the week until reviewed in two y~ar~ and,
at that point in time, could be extended and requested the
Board to keep the hours of operation the sa~ a~ proposed by
the neighborhood.
Mr. sullivan stated although the need for police and fire
traininq was qreater than in the past, he felt the training
facility should not be pla=ed high on ~m ~riority list. He
f~r~her stated he felt the County has ~xcellent police and
on a regional basis. ~e indicated he had several concern~
res~ctlons being imposed on the facility was t~itin~ its
use and capabilities and wa~ also concerned about ~he
a~d ~mpact th~ no,se level and hour~ of operation would have
on ~e proposed projeot. He fu~er ~tate~ because of
regarding th~ public training fa¢ility were to the ~te
and not to the actual facility.
imp!~m~te4 which wuul~ have the authority to make
Mr. Mayes, the Board appTov~d Case 91SN0121 ~ject =o the
following conditions:
shall bm considered the plan of development. (P)
ruquiruments of the Zoning O~dinance for Light Industrial
(I-l) Di~=rlcts in ~=rglng Gru~h Ar=a~. (P)
entire western property boundary. This buffer shall
the site plan review process. (CPC)
4. D~ing pe~itted outdoor hours of operation and exclusive
of ~andom, unique or infrequent incidents, facilities
~hull be designed and opiated so as not to gesture
property ~undary ~t the pein= clo~est to the sour=e of
noise- D~ring all oth~r aimed, ~ facilitie~ mhall
designed and operated so as not to generatm noise levels
~e point close=t to the =curce of noi=e.
5. ~our~ of ~peratlon for outdoor training op~rat~on~ ~hall
b~ restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:0~ p.m., Monday
~ough Friday, ~elu~iv~ of re~ir~ ~et-up a~4 ol~an-up
uctivitles. Hours of operation for outdoor training
]0:00 D-m. on Saturday, exclusive of ~e~i~ed set-up and
=1=an-u9 activities. S~day out,ocr training activities
shall ~ res~icted to use of the fire
facilities by volun=eers b~=ween ~e hours o~ 1~ noon and
91-712 10/23/91
activities. There shall be ne Sunday use cf the firearms
training facility and the driver ~raining =ourse. ~oth
conditions 4 and 5 shall be reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors ne later than two (2) years after the
beginning of operation of this facility. (BOS)
(NOTE~ This condition does not restrict the hours of
operation for indoor training activities.)
Peliee an~ fire equipment vehicles shall be ~rohibited
from using external Sirens during training exercises.
vehicles.
7. A maturity fence having barbed wire on top, a wall, or a
com~ination of the two shall be installed around the
entire facility. The ~xact treatment and location cf
these security elements shall be approved through the
site plan review process.
8. Burning, for fire fighting activities, shall be limits4
natural materials and fire suppression methods shall be
dry-chemical, foam and helen. (P}
9. Prior ts site plan approval, forty-five (4~) feet of
right o~ way on the west side of Alllad Road~ measured
from the centerline of that part of Allied Road
immediately adjacent to the preper~y shall be designated
for road improvements.
10. The developer shall be responsible for the fei!owing:
Construction of additlonal pavement along Allied Road ts
provide a left-t~rn lane at each approved access.
In conjunction with ~ite plan submission, an
environmental impact ~tudy, which addresses the impact of
the police/fire trainin~ center upon surface water,
ground water, and air quality, shall he submitted to the
Plannlng Department for review and approval, T~reugh the
site plan review process, additional condition~ may he
impezed to minimize the ~mDact om air and water ~uality.
te a citizens advisory csmmitte~, which mhall be
appointed by adjacent property ow~er~.
Poplar Hills Su~ivislon, Spruce Avenue, Hubert Lane or
Johnson's Road. (CPC)
13. In the event that the ~00 foot natural buffer and
tralnlnq course from view of the adjaeen~ residential
propertie~ to the we~t, a te~ (10) foot wall, ten
foot high berm, or ten (10) foot high conifer tree
previde~, if it is determined by the Planning Department
after rough clea~i~g and grading that such improvements
within the buffer are necessary to provide adequate
screening.
14. USe of driver training facilities shall b~ restricted to
Department~ of Che~ter£ield County, Hsnrico Co~uty and
the City of Richmond. (BAS)
91-713
(NOTE: This condition does not preclude guests of the County
when e~¢ertedby Chesterfield 0ffloial~.)
Ume of the police firing range shall be ~est3tieted to the
programs o~ chesterfield County ~01i¢o and Sheriff
Departments, exclusivmly. (BOS}
18. Use of fire training facilities shell be restricted to
the programs of Chesterfield County Fire Department and
Chesterfield County industries/businesses, subject
approvsl by the Chesterfield County Fire Department.
(~CS)
17. With the exception of berms, landscaping and fencing,
site improvements shell be designed so as mot to Da
t{me cf mite plea review, cross sections depicting this
requirement ~hall be submitted for approval.
18. Water used for fire trelnlng exercises shall be contained
on-sit~ and r~cycl~d. (CPC)
(NOT~: This condition does not precludm the use ~f
County weter.)
1~. Prior ~o occupancy o~ th~s mite, that Dor~ion of
Avenue not currently in the State system, shall be
constructed te State standards and be accepted into the
dedicated t~ the County of Chesterfield~ free and
unrestricted, within ninety (90) d~ye of being requested
to do se by the County. (CPC)
20. A citizen advizory committee, consisting of three (3)
~embers selected by adjacent property owners, shall ~e
established. Th~ applicant's ~eprementative shall notify
mubmis~ien. The applicant's representative shall meet
with the committee to resolve concerns relative to site
d~sigu~ construction activities and overall operations
t-hroug~out the life o£ the development. (CPC)
Ayes: Mr. sullivan, Mr..ADDlogat~, Mr. Daniel and Mr.
Absent: Mr. Currin.
~r. CurriD returns4 to the
On motion of M~. Danlel~ ~econded by Mr- Mayem, the Board
adjourae~ ~t 5;40 p.m. until ~oveaber 13, 1991 et 6;30 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
91-714