11-27-91 Minutes)~]~'u'f.l~
1991
Mr.. ~. B, Sullivan, C~airma~
Mr. C. F. c~rin, Jr., Vice
~. G. H. Applegate
~r. Hurry G. Daniel
Mr. Jesse ~. ~ayes
Mr. Lane B. Ra~ey
cowry Administrator
Staff in
Mrs. Doris R. DeHart,
Asst. CO. Admin.~
Legis. Svcs. and
Intergovern. Affairs
M~. ~oan ~. bolezal,
Clerk to the Board
Fire Department
F~V. Bradford's. Hs~mer,
Deputy Co. A~i~.,
Management
~. Willia~ H. Howell,
Dir., General
Dir., Planning
Ms. Ma~ Lou Lyle~
Dir., Accountln9
~. Robert L.
Deputy Co.
~u~an Servic~
~. R. John
Dir., Transpo~mtlon
~. R~ard
A~inistratlve Analyst,
En~.
~. ~t~v~n L, Micas,
County Attorney
~, Pauline A. Mitchell,
D~r., News & ~blic
Info~ation
~. William D. Poole,
Chief, Oav. Revlmw,
Planning
~. Ri~ard F. sal~,
Deputy CO. Admim.,
Community Dev~lopm~t
Dir., Budge~ & Management
~. M. D. stlth, Jr,, Dir.,
~. David ~.
Mr. Sullivan =alled the rmgularly scheduled meeting to order
at 9~10 a,~. (EST).
1~, Sullivan introduced Reveren~ Hichsal Pools, Pastor
Webber Memorial Baptist Church, who gave the invocation.
Of
2~ 0~ALLEGXANCETO'y~FL~G OF 'r~NITED STATES OF
AM~_ICA
Chief Ean~E led the Pledg~ of Allegiance to the Flag of the
united status of America.
91-741 11/27/91
on motion of Mr. Curtis, seconded by F~. Mayss, the Board
approved the minutes of November 13, l~l, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
l~r. Ram~ey stated the County had sustaissd i~ "Aaa" Bond
rating with Moody's and had received an upgraded I'AA+" ~esd
rating from Btandard and Poor's. He further stated he felt an
upgrade in the County's bond rating was a significant
accomplishment due to the decline in the economy and expressed
appreeiatlen to the Board and staff in their commitment to
maintain the high quality of llfe for th~ County.
5. BOARD CO~REREPORTS
Mr. Daniel stated he had attended e_he arh~ual ~enricus
Foundation dinner and =he annual community services ~card
dinner meeting. ~e f~ther stated he ha~ attended a School
Boa~ Liaison co~ittmm meeting in which early projections of
for the Suhool Board t~ consld~r in devmlo~ing their budget.
Metropolitan Transportation 0rganization'a 9ubllc hearln~
regar~iDg the Secretary ~f Tran~portation'~ proposal for
coo~er~tlve highway fundln~ s%atin~ ~hey w~r~ o~possd %o local
construction and that other countie~ and cities within the
Youndation's ~nual Awards L~cheon in which ~pin~on had
~en honore~ with a preservation citation. Ee introduced ~s.
Mary Ellen Howe who stated she felt ~pington had the
~o~ential ~o ~ marketed and developed and could be a great
source of revenue fur the County. She presented the Boa~d
wit~ T~e Historic Richmond Foundation Prese~a~ion citation
for ~e acquisition of ~ppington in recognition of an
of historic property. Mr. Keyes ~ressed sincere
appreciation ~o M~. Howe for h~r co~en~ an~ e~fort
regarding ~pla~on.
~. Applegate =tat~d h~ had attended th~ Capital Region
Airport Co~is~ion m~e~ing wish Mr. Daniel and reported ~e
Cotillion had ~i$ou$~ed th~ e~ansion of the airside of the
Airport, hud r~vlewed mix plmn presentatlonm ~d had re~emt~d
the Co~ission's Chmi~an to send ~ letSer to the Megaport
s~eering comities to include Rio~ond'm findings in ~eir
final report regarding =on~idermtion of a megaport beinq
located in Eamtern Virginia as they felt i~ Gould present
Richmond wi~ an opportunity to expand its Sa=SlAty.
~. C~rin stated he had attended a Water Task Force meeting
with the county A~inistrator in w~io~ some of ~e o~e~
j~imdiction~ were e~ressing concerns. He ~ur~ s~ted he
felt positive gains were declining and re~ested t~e new Boa~d
~ apprimmd of ~ $itua=ion and, hoDe~ully, initiate ~he
fo~ation of ~e authority.
~. Sullivan grated he had attended the Youth Awards Night at
Bailey Brldg~ Middle $chool in which mi~een youth were
recognized for their valuable con~ibutionm to the County,
citizen~, neighbors and peer~ an~ felt it wa= ha~tenin~ to
recognize young people who had been good neighbors and
citizens. He submitted to the Board sopie$ of the Youth
6. ~O~TSTOPOS.T~O~_AC~iON, ~KRG~3~CYADDITIONS OR
On motion of Mr. Applegute, ~econded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
added Item 7.B., Ra~olution Recognizing December 1 - 15, 1991
as "~ger Awareness Week~ and changed It~ 7., Re~olution
R~c~nizing the 50th Anniversa~ of the Attack on Pearl
Section 2.1-34~ (a)(3)~ Code of Virginia, 1950, a~ amended, %o
follow Ite~ 8., ~ea~ings of Citizens un Unscheduled Matt~s or
~rs~unt to Sac%ion 2.1-344 (a) (7}, Code of Virginia, 19~0, as
~ended, for Consultation wi~h ~egal Counsel Pertaining
Settlement of Gregory v~us R~der; amended Item
Salisb~y, Hatfield Section - Phase II; and Salisbury, West
Ke~et= - Section Phas~ II; delstsd Item 10.C., ~bli~
to Consider the Issuance of $30,500,00~ of General Obligation
Bonds and $52,215,0~ of Refunding Bond~, am the
hearing was not re~ired on the opinion of Bond counsel; and,
?. ~OLOTIO~I~ AND SPECI~t5
o ~ECOG~IZI)IG 'l'n~ 50~ ~Y OF x~ A~A~ ON P~
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WH~R~, On December 7, 1941, wltho~t military
installations at Pearl Harbor, ~awaii; and
~E~AS, That attack kille4 ~,405 ~erlcan military
personnel and wounded 1~178 oth~E; and
~ER~S, ~e attack on Pearl Harbor carried our Nation
including the lives cf 10,342 Virginian~; and
~ER~S~ ~ericans fought and died to help defeat the
millions of people throughout the world; and
those who died at Pearl ~arbor an~ elmewhere during World War
II deserves our highest honor and praise.
NOW, TEEREFORE BE IT ~ZOLV~D, that the
and calla its si~ificance =o the at~ent~on of all
citizen~.
Vote; Unanimous
~. Sulllvan presented the executed resolution =o ~. John
Gunther and e~ressed appreciation for the zac~ifice made by
%ho$~ wh~ had Sou~h~ and/or given up their lives for
country.
91-743 11/27/91
On ms,ion cS t~s Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W~EREAS, The R~=hmond Assoc~atlcn of Realtors and
Richfood are sponsoring the Christmas CanTree P~eJeat, a
community food drive taking place during t~e week cf December
I - 1§, 1991, in cooperation with a number of other community
~pirlted orgen~zetlone; and
W~LEREAS, The Christmas CanTree ie a ~ymbcllc 25-foot
35,000 cans of food donated by Richfood; and
WHEREAS, The goal of the C~rietmae canTree Project is to
citizen~ to be distributed ts the needy tkrough the central
virginia Fosdbank.
NOW, TH=R~FOP~ B~ IT R~SOLVEO, that the C~es=erfield
Chesterfield, Virginia, an~ co~nd~ all tho~e a~oclated with
the christmae CanTrae Project for their co~mltment in the
figAt against hunger in the County of Chesterfleld and the
commonwealth of virginia, and calls its significance to the
attention of all our citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Sullivan etated the executed resolution would be presented
at a later date.
8. ~G$ OF CITIZENS ON UNSum~mUL~D ~A'r~'~S OR....~._
T~ere were no hearings schedules ~or citizens on unscheduled
matters or claims.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~-r. Hayes, the Board
went into Ex~cutlv~ S~s~ion, pursuant to ~ctlon 2.1-344
(e)(3), COde of virginia, 195~, as amended, to discuss
acquisition of res1 property for a public park and pursuant to
section 2.1-344 (a)(7), Code of virginia~ 1950, ae amended,
for consultation with legal counsel pertaining ts settl~ent
Vote: Unanimous
On ~etion Of F~. A~Dlegate, seconded by Hr. Coffin, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the ~oard o£ superviso=s ~as ~is day adjourne~
into Executive Sesmion in uccordance with a for~unl vote of the
Board, and in accordance with the provi~iene of the vi~inlm
Freedom of Information Act; a~d
~S, the Vi~ini~ Freedom of Info--arian Act
ef~ectlve July 1, 1989, provid~ for o~rtifioation that such
Exe~tive Session was conducted in confo~ity with law.
91-744 11/27/91
NOW, THEREFORE BE 'IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each
member.s knowledge, i) only public business matters 1.awfully
exempted fr~m op~ m6eting r6quirements under the Freedom of
Information Act were discussed in the ~xecutive Session to
which thi~ certification applies, and
ii) only such public business matters es were identified in
heard, discussed or co,side, ed by the Board. No member
dissents from t_his certification.
The Board being polle~, the vote was as follows:
~lr. Daniel: Aye.
Mr. Mayes: Aye.
Mr. Applegate: Aye.
Mr. Currln: Aye.
Mr. Sulllvan: Aye.
9. DEFE~k~D IT~M~
o ~IN$IDEFJ%TION o~ ~ ~RCHA~E ~O~I~A~T DR ~TI~ OF A
~. Mica~ ~tat~d consideration cf a land purchase contract
~or creation of a
Board's September
defer the matter ~tll
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayer, ~e ~oard
creation of a public park until December ~, 1991.
It was generally agreed to ~s~ for five
10.
,I~,~A~, ,,TO CONSIDER AN ~ TO TR~ FYg~ B~0G~T TO
~. St~ai,r stated this date and time had been
for a public hearing to consider an amendment to ~e FY92
Budget to appropriate $6~,~62 iB f~4~ral gran~ fun~s for
School ~ant Drog~ a~d no,ed no local dollars were involved
in ~e changes.
0n motion of ~. ~rrin, secon~ad by ~. AD, legate, ~ Board
i~creased the School Board Grant Funds by a total Of
accepte~ the changes as follows in %he Instruction and
Instruction appropriation by a lik%
91-745 11/27/91
FY9t Headstart - Increased federal revenue and the FY91
Headstart ~rant Instruction appropriation by $1~1,100.
¢, FYP~ Headstart - Increased the F¥9~ federal grant award
by $86,151 and increased the Instruction appropriation
for the regular program by $85,501, reduced the
Ins=ruction appropriation by $700 for the handicapped and
increased the Instruction appropriation by $1,35Q for
training.
d. FYP~ Titl~ II - Increased anticipated revenue from the
~ederal government by $22,488 and increased the
$22,480.
e. F¥91 PL94-142 Special Education - Approved additional
grant fua~s cf $30S,~00 for this Program and increased
federal funds in the Instil/orion appropriation by
~159,4Qo and in the Attendance ~ aeal~ appropriation by
$1~9,100.
Vote:
10,B.
TO ~N$ID~ AN AHk~ENT TO THE ]~92 ]WJI~Gk~' TO
A~RO/~J3~T~ $~,660,~4~ IN BON~ 9RO~EED~ AND I~TEi~T
~P~I~i-~G~ONDA~TI~IPA~ION~OT~$~
~, Ste~aie= ~tated ~i~ date and time had been ~dve~i~ed
for a p~blio hea~ing to conside~ an ~n~nt to the PYP~
Budget to appropriate $83,660,845 in Bond proceeds and
interest earnings for refunding l~a~ and 1~ Gen~ral
Obligation Bond~, Reti~in~ Bond Amticipation Not~, capital
Improvement Projects and ~suance =o~%~. He further stated
the p~ocuuds of ~= sale would be uuud to pay Off
ratea, it was now beneficial for ~e County to refund th~ 1985
and 19~6 General O~ligatlon ~on~s. ~e no~ed there WQ~i~
s~stantial savings to the County as a result of obtaining
~. George Beadles stated he felt the new Board should not be
ha~p~r~ or d~ied the opportunity in appropriating ~he
and authorizing t~e Bond sale.
~. Apptegate exoused Himself f~om t~e meeting.
~. Daniel stated he felt financing the bonds at a lower
interest rate was a ~ound financial decision a~ it would be a
s~stantial savin~ to the county and n~ad th~ action
constru=tion,
On motion of ~r. Daniel, s~conded by ~. Coffin, the Board
appropriated Bond p~ooeeds 0f approximately $52,215,000
a~d Day ~elatud issuunc= costs; uppropriat~d Bond proc~edx of
debt ~e~ice of $370,~00 from ~ool Capital ~rojectm to
~t~c~ation Notes; revised appropriations for capital
and appropriated interest earnings of $~0,~00 %o pay issuance
co~t=. (It ~= noted a cody of the 1988 R~f~rendum Co~nty
capital Projects Schedule of appropriations is filed with the
papers of this Doar~ and the exact amount of Bond preceed~ and
December 4, 1991.)
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currln, Hr. Daniel and ar. Hayes.
Ab~emt~ M~. A~legate.
11.A. ~OLuTIO~ I~EDUE~ING ASSISTANCE ~vl~I~
~ ~A~ OF ~/.~ ~I~ ON ~ID~
~. Sale ~t~ted staff had prepared ~0r oon~id~rution a
~eGol~tio~ directing stuff to contact Virginia Pol~ec~ic
Inztit=te (V~I) and $~atu university for assistance regarding
~he impact of ~hri~/~w~lI soils on residential footings
pr~rams relating to soils, construction m~nagement,
engineering and ar=hltec~ure and tho assistance re~ested
wo~ld be for vPI to review construction stand~d~ when
encountering nub-standards soils~ reviewing ~la~ review
inspection processes for adherence to the Virginia ~ifo~
s=a~wid~ Building code in reco~ending appropriate changes to
the Co~-, wh~ chang~ would primarily be ~irected toward the
co~=y and al~o wore raco~ending VPI review ~e ~ituation
throughout the State as well.
~. Applegate r~t~ned tO the
~ Daniel inquired a~ to the cost for the se~ioe. Mr. Sal~
stated ~taff wa~ requesting at this ti~e only to initlat~
a~ to oost a~d whether the service could be provided by ~I
funds through ~eir extension s~rvi=es.
~. Daniel stated he felt ~I should only be one of tho~e
involved and noted he had discussed the ~ituatio~ with
o~ %h~ Supe~isors-Elec= and f~lt they would add~e~ this
i~u~ in a compr~ensive approach which would in=lude
broad-based group. Ks requested the County A~inistrator
instructed to contact ~I and initiate dlscus~ions regarding
the proposal and the serv~ce~ they oould offer as he folt
would ~ inappropriat~ to consider adoption of ~ resolution
in whi~ only ~I wa~ involved at ~is time.
~. Currin stated h~ felt the item wa~ in response to
addressed 5y the ~oar~ at their meeting on ~ove~er 13, 1991~
in whi~ it had been di~u~ed appointing a co~ittee to stud~
had ~poken w~th M~. Jack ~cHal~, Sup~rvlsor-~lect for
i~ o~d=r for them to address. He noted he felt confident the
if desired.
~. Mayes stated he felt more persons should b~ involved
~e solution to .the problem than just VPI ~peoially those
issue should be deferred fo~ the Row
~. Sullivan referred t0 a bulletin a constituent had sent
a~d stated ~e new Board zhould add~z~ t~e Situation a~ he
the probl~. He further stated he felt the County ~ho~l~
b~o~e involve~ from a finanuiai standpoint.
91-747 11/~7/91
y~r. Daniel made a motion, seconded by F~r. Currin, to defmr
consideration of a r~solu%~on requesting u~istanOe from
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State univ~r~ity regarding
the impact 0£ ~07ink/mwelI soils on residential footing~ and
foundations until January, 1992 and, further, directed t-he
County Administrator to contact VPI to initiate discun~ions
~egarding the proposal for assistance.
Mm. Applegate ~tatsd he felt the new Board should meek a legal
opinion from the County Attorney's Office regarding th~
County's involvement from a financial standpoint.
Mr. Sullivan called for the vote on the ~etion made by Mr.
Daniel, seoondsd by Mr. Curr~n, for th~ Soard tu ~e£er
¢o~ideratio~ of a re~olution requesting assistance from
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University regarding
the impact of shrink/swell ~oils on re~identlal footings and
foundations until January, 1992.
Vote: Unanimous
1991 ~ S~
~r. Ha~r stated staf~ was reco~en~in~ approvul of the
R~ol~tio~ of Sal~ to undertake the ~ale scheduled for
Dec~b~r 4, 1991 of both the Refunding and General Obligation
Bond~ and to authorize the County Administ~ato~ to conduct and
6.7 percent. He noted ~taff felt the interest rate would
On motion of the Board, the following re~olut~cn was adopted
and, further, the Boar~ authorized the County A~mini~trator
not to exceed 6.7 percent:
A ~SOL~ION A~ORIZI~G ~D ~ROVIDING FOR ~E ISSU~C~,
~ DELIV~Y OF ~ ISEUE OF G~E~ OBLIGATIO~ ~BLIC
~EST~RFIELD, VIRGINIA, FOR THE P~OSE OF REF~DI~G IN
G~E~L O~LIGATIO~ PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ~ONDS, S~IES OF 19~,
FOR T~E S~E OF SUC~ BONDS; APPROVING T~ FO~ OF SUCH ~ONDS;
SA~, A D~TAIL~D WOTIC~ OF SR5~ ~D ~ 0~FICIAL PROPOSAL
~ F0~ ~D T~ T~S, CONDITIONS ~D PROVISIONS OF A
REP~DING TRUST AGRE~E~, DATED AS OF DET~BER 10, 1991, BY
91-748 11/27/91
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
COUNTY 0~ CHESTERFIELd, VIRGI~IA~
SEC~ION'~'i': '~indlnqz and '~at'6~ina%ion~. (a)
Pursuant to Chapte~ 5 of Titl~ 15.1 of the Code of Virginia,
1960, as amended, as then in effect, elections duly called and
held in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"),
on November $, 19S1, Jane 12, 19S4 and Sovemhar 5, t985 and
Orders of the CircBit Court of the County dated De,ember
19al, October 2, 19B4 and December 17, 1985, and pursuant to
resolutions adopted hy this Board on December 11, 19s~
DecaYer 18, 1925, rempectiv~ly~ there were a~thorized to be
issued, sold and delivered the County's $62,300,000 prinoipal
~o~t of G~nural Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series
of 19S5, ~a~e~ D~o~b~r 15, 19~ an~ ma~uring in ~e principal
~o~t of $3,260,000 on ~anuary 1~ in the year 1988 and in the
~rinoiDal amount of $3,280,000 on January 15 in each of the
(b) Pursuan~ to Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code
of Virginia, 19~0, as amendsd, as then in effect, an electlon
duly called and held in ~e County on Nove~er 5~ 19S5 a~
Order of the Circuit Court of ~h~ County dated December 17,
July 23, 1986, there w~re au~horlzed to b~ i~ued, sold and
delivered the Connty's $30,000,000 principal amo~t of General
Oblige=ion Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 19S6,
July 15, 1986 and maturing in the principal amount of
~e principal amonnt of $1~560,000 on July 15, ~006, both
[c) Pursuan~ to Article 4 cf the Public F~nance Act
of 1991 (Section~ 15.~-~7.~ through 1~.1-227.51, both
inc~sive), th~ County is authorized ~o ~ua refunding
mubject to the approval of th~ State Council on Local Debt~ to
(d) On Nove~r ~0, ~991, the Stat~ Council
Local Debt, in accordance wi~ the provi~iomm of
15.1-~7.~6 of ~a Code of virglniar 19~0, adopted a
resolu~ion approvln~ the i~uance 0f an issue of ref~ding
bonds =o refund in advance of their =tared maturities the
1997 to ~006, bush inclusive (~e "Refunded ~955 ~un~s"), and
series of 1986 Bonds ~turing on July 15 in each of th~
1997 to 2006, both inclusive.
int~est of ~e County to a~tho~ize and provid~ for
P~lic Finance Act of 1991 of an ~m~ue of General
purpose cf refunding in advan=e cf their stated m~t~ritiss
Co~y'm se~es of 1985 Bonds ma=uring on January 15 in each
of the years ~997 to ~006, both inclu~ive, which series of
refaced to as the "Refunded ~985 Bonds"), and the Co~t~s
~rie~ Of ~9~6 Bon~s maturing un July 1~ in each of the y~ars
1997 to ~006~ both i~cln~ive, which series of 1986 Bonds are
ou~standln~ on the date of adoption of ~his resolution in the
principal a~ount of $15,780,000 (~e~%i~afte~ referred to a~
~e "Refunded ~986 ~onds").
On OCtO~ 11, 19~9, November ~R~ 19g0 and February 27, 199~
this Seato has au~orized the issuance of
principal ~ount General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds
91-749 11/17/91
authorized for issuance at e referend~ held in the County on
November 8, 198~ and deems it a~v~able and Jn %he ~est
interest of the County to provide for the issuance, sale and
delivery of $30,500,000 principal amount of the General
obligation Public Improvement BondB so authorized.
SECTION 2. Authorization of General obliuation
~ublic improvement and Refundinq Bonds. For the p~rpo~e ef
refunding in advance of their stated maturities the Refunded
19S5 Bonds and the Refunded 1986 Bonds, there are hereby
authorized to be is~ued~ ~old and delivered an issue of
general obllgatien refundln~ bonds of t~le County in a
principal amount not exceeding $55,000,000 ta De designated
and known as "General Obligation Public Improvement Refunding
Bends, series of 1991" (hereinafter referred to as the "1991
The 1991 Refunding Bonds shall be issued, Bold and
delivered us provided in Section 9 aS part of aB issue ef
general obligation bonds o~ the County :o be designated and
known as "County of Chesterfield, Virginia, General obligation
Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, scrims of 1991"
(hereinafter defined as the "Bonds").
SECTI0~ 3. Approval of the D~tails and Sale.of..~h~
Bands. The details of the Bonds as met fnrth in the De=a~lsd
~otio= of Sa1= of th~ County, dated ~ove~ber ~, ~991, are
hereby ratified, approved end confirmed. The Bond~ shall be
dated November 1~, 1991; shall be numbered frc~ ~o. R-1
upwards in order of issuance; sh~lt be i~ed in fully
registered form in the denomination of $5,00~ each or any
inreq~al multiple thereof; and shell mature on July 15 in each
of the year~ and in the amounts set forth below, with the
Bonds maturing in each of the yea~s specified below hearing
interest payable on July 15, 1992 and semiannually on each
Uanuary ~ and July ~5 thereafter, at the rate per ann~ set
forth opposite such
Ye~ of Year of
Maturity Principal Maturity Principal
199~ $1,635,00~ 2002 $6,52Q,0Q0
!997 6,690,000 2007 1,5~5,0QO
I999 6,745,000 ~009 1,525,000
*Frel~znary, subject to change as provided in the Detailed
Notice of Sale.
The County Administrator is hereby authorized to
confirm the final principal amounts of the Bonds as ~rovided
in the Detailed Notice of Sale and to approve the rates of
interest bo be borne by ~he Bonds, provids~ that the true or
Canadian interest cost determined in accordance with the
Details~ Notice of Sale shall net exceed seven percent (7%).
Anything in the Authority's Resolutions to the contrary
in the Detailed Notice of Sale.
The Bonds ~hall be iEEued only ~n fully registered
~orm wi%hou~ coupons. One Bond representing each ~at~rity
will be issued to and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as
nominee of Tbs Depository T~et Compan~ ~ew Yor~r New YOrK
("DTC"), as regiEter~d ewn~r of the Bonds and each ~uch Bond
91-750 11/27/91
shall be i~t~obilizsd in the cusfody of BTC. DTC will act as
se~urltie~ dspasitery far the Bends. Individual purnhase~
will be made im book-entry form only, in tho principal amount
Cf $5,000 or any integraI multiple thereof. < Purchaoers Will
not receiv~ physical 'delivery of certificates representing
%heir interest in thc Bonds purchased.
Principal, premium, if any~ and interest payments On
the Bond~ will Be mad~ by the ¢o~nty ~y wire %~ans~er ~e D~C
er its nemimee~ Cede & Co.~ as registered owner of the Bends,
which will in turn re, it such pa~rmants to the DTC participants
for s~bscquent disbursal to the beneficial owners of the
Bonds. Transfers OS principal, premium, if any, and int~ras~
payments to DTC participants will be the responsibility of
DT¢. Transfers of such payments to beneficial owners of the
Bonds by DTC participants will be the responsibility of s~oh
participants and other nominees of such beneficial owners.
Transfers of ownership interent~ in the Bond~ will be
accomplished by book entries mede by DTC nnd, {n tnrn, by the
DTC participant~ who act On behalf of the indirect
participants of DTC and the beneficial 0w~ers of the Bonds.
The County will not be responsible or liable for
sending transa=tion statements or for maintaining, supervising
or reviewing record~ ~aintained by DTC, its participants o~
person~ acting through such participants or for transmitting
Da!rmento to, communicating with, notifying, or otherwise
dealing with any beneficial owner cf ~he sends. Sc long as
the Bonds are in book-entry only form, the County Treasurer
will s~rve as ~egistrar and Paying Agent £or the ~onds. The
County reserves the right to d~ig~ate a $~¢¢es$or Reglatrar
and Paying Agent Bur the Bcnd~ if the Bbnds at any time cease
to be in book-entry only form.
The Bonds maturing on and before ~uly l~, 200Z shall
not be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities.
The Bonds maturing on and after July 1~ 100? (or porticn~
=hereof in inotallments of $5,000) shall be subject te
redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated
~aturi%ies on or after July 1, ~I, ~n whole at any time or
in part on any interest payment date, in such order as may be
determined by the County (ex~e~t that if at any time less than
all of the Bonds of a g~ven maturity are oalle~ for
redemption~ the particular Bends or portiom~ thereof shall be
selecte~ by lot), upon payment of the following ~edemption
Dr~ceo (expressed as a percentage of principal amount of Bonds
to be redeemed), roger/tar with the interes~ accrued on the
pTimcipal amount to be red~e~ed to the date fi~ed for the
redemption thereof:
E~demution Dates
July 1~, 2001 ts JUly 14~ 2002
July 15, 200~ to ~uly 14, 2003
J~ly 15, 2003 and thereafter
lO0
Tb~ Bonds ~eturing on and after July
subject to mandatory sinking ~and redemption
the Detailed Notice ef Sale.
15, ~001 may be
as provided in
If any Bend (or any portion of the principal amount
thermal in installments u£ $5,000) shall b~ called for
redempt~on~ ~ctice of the redemption thereof, mp~cifying the
date, n~mber and ~aturity of such Bond, th~ date and plase o~
plaoe~ fixed for its redemption, the premium, if a~y, payable
upon such redemption, and if leas %ham the entire principal
amount of such Bond i~ t~ bs redemmmd, that such Bond must be
surrendered in sxehange for 5~e principal a~oL%nt thereof to be
redeemed and a mew Bond or B~nd$ las=ed equalling in prinelpal
a~ount that portion o£ the principal amount thereof not to be
redeemed, shall be mailed no~ less than thirty (30} days prior
9i-751 11/27/91
to fhe date fixed for redemption by first class mail, postage
prepaid, to the registered owner of such Bond ah his adclress
as it appears on the books Of registry kept by the Registrar
for the ~onds. The Registrar ~hall not b~ required to
~xchange or transfer any Bond later than the close of business
on the forty-fifth (45th) day next preceding the date fixed
for redemption of ~ueh Bond or any portion thereof. If notice
of the redemption of any Bond shall have been given as
aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount Of SUCh Bend
(or the portion of the principal amount thereof =o be
redeemed] and of the accrued interest and premium, if any,
payable upo~ such redemption shall h~vs been duly ~ade er
provided for, interest on such Bond ~hall cease to accrue from
and after the date sc specified for redemption thereof. So
long ae the Bonds are in book-entry only form, any notice of
redemption will be given only to DTC or its nominee. The
County shall not be responsible for providing any beneficial
owner of the Bonds with notice of redemption.
SECTION 4. Appointment of Registrar: Payment of
(a) A~uoin~ment o~ R~istrar. The Ce~nty Treasurer
at his office at Chesterfield, Virginia, i~ h~r~by appointed
Register for the Bonds (hereinafter referred to as the
"Registrar").
(b) Pa%rment cf Bond~. (i) At any time during which
the Bonds of any s~ries shall bs in fully registere~ form, the
Xnt~r~t on th~ Bonds of such ~ri~m shall be payable by check
or draft mailed by the Registrar to the registered owners of
on the beo~ of registry as of the record date for the payment
of interest on the Bonds of such series, and the principal of
and premium~ ~f eny~ on the Bond~ shall be payable at the
prinelpal office of the Registrar.
(ii) At any ~ime ~uring which ~he Bon~S er any
series shall be Xn book-entry fox-m, the principal of and
premium~ if any~ and interest on the Bonds of such series
shall be payable in accordance with the arrangements made with
the depository for the Bonds of such series.
(iii) The principal of and premium, if any, and
interest on the Bond~ ~hall b~ payable in ~uch coin or
currency of the united States of America as at the respective
dates of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.
(¢) Books of Registry: Ea¢han~es and Transfers of
Bond~. (i} At all time~ during which uny Bond remains
outstanding and unpaid, the Registrar shall keep er cause to
be kept at its principal office in the Chesterfield, Virginia,
books of registry for the registration, exchange and transfer
cf the Bonds. Upon presentation at the principal office of
the Registrar for such purpose, the Registrar, under such
reasonable regulations es it may prescribe, shall register,
exchange, transfer, or cause to be registered, exchanged er
transferred, on the books of registry =he Bonds as herein set
forth, provided, however, that the Registrar shall sot be
required to do so with respect to any Bond offer the clos~ of
b~$iness on the forty-fifth (45th) day nex~ preceding any dare
fixed for the redemption of such Bond or any portion thereof.
(ii) Any Bond may be exchanged at the principal
office of the Registrar for allks a~re~ate principal amount
of such Bonds in other authorized principal amounts of the
s~me interest rate and maturity.
(iii) Any Bond nay, in accordance with its
terms, be transferred upon the books of registry by the person
in whose name it ~e registered, in person Or by his duly
91-75~
authorized agent, upon surrender of such Fond to the Registrar
for cancellation, accompanied by e written instrument of
transfer duly executed by the registered owner in person or
his duly authorized agent, in form ~atisfuctory to the
Registrar. ' ~
(iv) Ail tranafer~ or exchanges pursuant to this
Section 4(c) shall be made without expense to the holder of
that the Registrar shall require the pa!n~ent by the holder of
other governmental charges required tc be paid with re~psct to
4(C) shall be cancelled.
EECTIOB 5. Execution and Authentication o~Fonds~
(a) ~xecution of Bp~. The Bonds ~hall be
execute4 in the name of the coun=y by =he manual or facsimile
the corporate seal cf the Board cf supervisors shall De
impressed, cr a facsimile thereof printed, on th~ Bonds,
(b) Authentlcat~on of Bond~. The County
Administrator ~hall direct th= Registrar to authenticate the
Bonds and ne Bond~ ~hall be valid or obligatory for any
purpose unless and until the certificate of authentication
endorsed on such Bond shall have been m~nually executed by an
authorlz~d ~ignatory of the Registrar, ~pon the
authentication of any Bond the Registrar shall ince~t in the
certificate of a~thentication 5he de~e as of which such Bond
i~ authenticated a~ folle~: (i) if the Be~d is a~thentieated
prior to the first int=re~t payment date, the certificate
~ald Sot by the initial purchasers thereof; (ii) if the Bond
le authenticated upon an interest payment date, the
(ii~) if the Bond is authenticated on or after the record 4ate
for the payment of ia~erest on the Bonds and prior to such
sno~ interemt payment date; and (iv} in all other instances
the certificate ~hall be dated th~ dat~ upon which tho Bond is
authenticated. The execution and authentication of the Bond~
~nff~cient authentication of the Bcnd~
(c) CUSIP Identification Numbers. CUSIP
idantlfloaticn numbers may be prim=ed on the Sends, but
any error or omission with teepee= thereto, shall o~n~tiguge
Bonds to accept delivery of and pay £er the ~onds in
accordance with the terms of it~ proposal to purchase the
part of any Bond or a pert cf the contract evidenced thereby
and ne liability shall attach :o ~he county or any of i~m
or any use mad~ thereof.
agrees to ¢~mpty with the provisions of Sections 103 and
141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the
applicable Treasury Regulations p~omulgated the=sunder
91-753 11/27/91
SBCTI0~ 7. Sources of Payment of Bonds. Tbs full
faith and credit of the County shall be and is hereby
irrevocably pledged te the punctual payment of the principal
of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. There
shall be levied and collected annuallyt at the sa~e time and
collected, ad valorem ta~e~ upon all property ~ubject to
taxation by the County, without limitation as to rate er
amount, sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal
of and interest on the Bonds as the same respectively become
du~ and payable.
SECTION
substantially the form set forth below with such necessary er
appropriate varlation~, omi~sions and in~ertion~ as are
incidental to their numbers, interest rates and maturities or
as ~re obherwlse permitted or required by law or this
re~alution:
UNITED STATES OF AI~ERICA
COM~ON~ALTM OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF CHeSTeRFIELD
SERIES OF
REGISTERED
NO. R- $
INTEREST RATE:MATURITY DATE:ORIGINAL ISSUE DATe:CUSiP N~.:
REGISTERED OWNER:
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
The County of Chesterfield (hereinafter referred to
as the "County"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
cf Virgln~a, for value received, hereby promi~e~ to pay to the
Registered Owner (named above), or registered assigns, on the
Haturity Date (specified above), unless this Bond shall have
been duly called for previous redemption and payment o~ the
=ademption p~ice uhall ha~e been duly made e~ p~evided
the Principal Amount (specified above), and to pay interest on
such Principal A~ount on , 19__ and
semiannually on each and
thereafter from the date hereof or from the interest pa~rment
date next preceding the date of authen=ioation hereof ts which
interest shall have been paid, unless such ~ate of
authentication is an interest payment date, ~n which case from
such interest payment date if interest has been paid tO SUCh
date, or unless such dace of au=hen=ice,ion is within the
period from [inse~t appropriate language depending on Whethe~
interest paymen~ da~e is first or fifteenth day ef ~al~ndar
month] to such interest payment date, in which case from such
interest payment date if interest has been paid to such date,
until the payment of such Principal Amount (each sUCh date is
hereinafter referred to as an interest paymenf date) af t~e
Interest Rate (specified above) per annum, by check er draft
mailed by the Registrar hereinafter mentioned ts the
Registered Owner hereof at his address a~ it appears on the
books of registry kept by the Regi~t~ar~ at the close of
business on [insert appropriate language depending on whether
interest payment date is first or fifty,nth day of
month.~
The prlnclpal of and premium, if a~y, on
are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the
principal office Of , in the
(the "Registrar"). The principal of and
premix, if any, and interest on this Bund are payable in such
coin er o~rreney of the United States of America as et the
respective dates of payment is legal %enter for public and
private debt~.
91-754 11/27/91
This Bond is one of a duly authorized imsue of Bends
(herein referred to a~ the '~Bonds"I of the aggregate principal
amount of Dollars
($ ) of like date and tenor herewith, except for
number, denomination, intsres~ rate, maturity and redemption
provisions, and is issued for the purpose Of financing the
costs of various capital improvement projects in end for the
County, under ~nd pursuant to and in full' compliance with the
Constitution and statutes of the commonwealth of Virginia,
including Chapto~r §.! of Title 1~.1 of the Code of virginia,
1950 (the same being the Public Finance Aet}~ as election dmly
held in the county under saoh chapter ~.1 on ,
__~ and resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Supsrvisorx
of the County under such chapter ~.1 on , and
The Bonds of the series of Bonds of which this Bond
is one maturing on er h~fsre , __ shall not
he ~ubject to redemption prior to their stated maturltie~.
The Bonds of =he ~eries of Bsndm of which thi~ Bond i~ one (or
portions thereof in installments of $5,000) maturing o~ and
after shall be subject to redemption at the
option of the County prior to their ntatsd maturities on or
after ., in whole at any time, or in part from
time to time on any interest payment date in such order as may
be determined by the County (except that if at any time less
than all cf the Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption,
the p~Jctioular Bond~ or portions thereof to be redeemed shall
be selects4 by the Registrar by lc~), upon payment o£ the
following redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of the
principal ~mount of Bonds to be redeemed), together with the
interest accrued on such principal amohnt to tbs date fixed
for the redemption thereof:
Redemption Dates
fBoth Dates Inclusive% ~pmpticn Prices
If this Bond or any portion of th~ principal amount
hereof ~hall be ~alled for redemption~ notice of t_he
redemption hereof, specifying th~ date, number and maturity of
thi~ Bond, the dat~ and place or pla~es ~ixed fer its
redemption, the premium, if any, payabl~ upon such redemption,
and if less than the em=ire principal amount of this Bond is
to be red~nm~d, that this Bond must be surrendered in exchange
for the principal amount hereof to be redeemed and the
issuance of a new Bond e~ualling in principal amount that
portion of the principal a~onnt h~reof not redeemed, shall be
mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the da~e fixed
for redemption by fi~t claus moil, postage prepaid, ~o the
Registered owner of this Bond ab his address am it appears on
the bookm of registry kept by the Registrar. if notice o£
redemptien of T/Ifs Send shall have been given as aforesaid,
und puyment of the principal amount of this Bond (or the
~o~tion of the principal amount hereof to be redeemed) and of
the accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such
~edem~ion shall have been duly made or provided for, interest
hereon (or on the portion of th~ principal amount h~reof to be
· redeemed) shall cease from and after the date so specified for
redemption.
Zubj~o~ to the limitations and upon p=yment o£ the
charges~ if any, provided in the proceedings anthoriztng the
Bonds cf the series of which this ~sn~ is one, this Bond ~ay
be exchanged at the principal office of the Registrar for
like aggregate principal amount o~ Bonds of the series of
which this Bond is ene~ of ether authorized principal amounts
of the same interest rate and maturity. This Bond is
transferable by t~e Registered Owner hereof, in person or by
his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal
91-755 11/27/91
office of the Registrar but only in the manner, subject to the
llmi~a%~:ns and upon payment of the chs~qes, if any, provided
in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the series of
which this Bond is one, and upon the surrender hereof for
cancellation. Upon such transfer, a new Bond or Bonds of the
series ef which this Bend in one, of authorized denomination~
and Of the ~ame aggregate principal amount, will he issued to
the transferee in exchange herefor. ~otwithstanding the
foregoing, the Registrar shall not Be required to exchange or
transfer this Bond later than the close of business on the
forty-fifth (45th) day next preceding any date fixed fee the
redemption o~ thi~ Bond or any portion hereof.
The full faith and cred~ of the County are hereby
irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and
This Bond shall nut be valid or obligatory unless
the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been
manually eiqned by an au~orized siqnator of the Regis=rat.
It is ~ereby certified, recited and declared that
all act~, conditlong and thingm required to have happened, to
issuance o~ this Bond and the ~erie~ of which it i~ one, do
due t/me. fsr~ and manner as required by law, and that this
not exceed any ¢onstitutiunal ur statutory limitation of
indebtedness.
or £aosimile signature of the Chairman of such ~oard~ a
facslm~le of the corporate seal cf such Board to be imprlnted
Cl~rk of such Board; and thi~ Bond to be ~ated a~ of
Clerk of the Board of Chairman of the Board of
suDervisors supervisors
C~RTIFICAT~ OF AUTheNTICATION
This ~ond is one a~ the Bonds ~el~vered 9ursuant to
the within-~entioned proceedings.
., Registrar
By:
Date o£ Authentication:
A$SIGN~tENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby
assign(s) and transfer(s) unto
(Please print or type name and add~ens, including postal zip
91-756 11/27/91
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
OR OTHER TAX I~NTIF¥ING N~D~R
OF TRANSFEREE:
the within Bond and all ~i~hts thereunder, ~n~ hereby
irrevocably constitutes and aDpolnts ,
atter~ey~ to t~a~afe~ such Ecnd on the book~ kept for the
registration thereof, wit~ £ull power of substitution in the
pre~ises.
Dated:
~ignature(s) Guaranteed
NOTICE~ signature(e) mu~t be (signatu~e(u) of Registered
guarantee~ by a member firm of Owner)
The New ¥o~k Stoe~ Exchange, NOTICE: The eignatu~e(s)
Inc. or a commercial bank o~ above must correspond with
t~ust company, th~ na~e of the Registered
front of this Bond in every
particular, without
alteration or eh!argument
or any change whatsoever.
SECTIO~ 9. 0zficial Statement: Certificate
Concernin~ Official Stat~m~Q~; Ratification. The chairman of
T~is Boar~ and t~he county Administrator ar~ hereby au~orized
and directed to execute and de~iver 'to the purchasers an
Official Statement of the County~ dated December 4, 1991,
relating to th~ BOD~, in substantially the fo~ o~ the
~eliminary Official Statement, draft thereof pre~nted to the
m~$ting of this ~oard a% w~io~ this resolution is
adop~ed~ (~e "Official Statement") after ~ same has
completed by the insertion of ~e maturities, interest ra~es
A~i~ist~ator, based on the advic~ of the County'~ financial
advisors and legal ¢ounsul (including Bun4 Counsel), deems
necessary or appropriate; and this Board hereby a~thorizes the
Official Statement and the information uontaln~d ~ein to be
u~d by th~ purchasers in connection with the sale of =he
S~nds. The Preliminary official Statement i~ "dee~ed final"
for pu~os~s of Rule I~C~-~ promulgated by the Se~ities
a~d ~ange Co~isslon pursusnt to the Securitie~ ~xchang~
Act of ~934. The County Administrator and =he Director of
Accounting are hereby authorized and directed to execute on
be~lf of the County and 4eliv~r to' ~ ~urchasmrs a
certificate in substantially the fo~ ~eferred to in the
Offlclal ~tatem~nt under the caption "Certificate Concerning
Offioiai State,at".
A~r~em~nt an~ Te~s. ConditiR~%...and ~rovi=ion~
AD,ointment of ESCrow A~ent: Authorization of
fo~ S~S. {a) The fo~ of the Refunding ~us% Agreement,
date~ a~ of December 10, 1991 (the "Refunding Trust
Agreement"), by amd b~tw~n the County and' ,
~ucr~ Agan~ (~he "Emcrow Agent"), presented to and filed
th~ minute~ of the meeting of this Board at which this
resolution ~s being adopted, and the terms, conditions and
p~ovisions thereof, are h~reby approved, ratified
confi~ed by this Board~ and the County A~ini~trator and
Deputy Co~%y Ad~ini~tr~Cor, or either of them, ar~ h~r~by
au~orized and directed to execute ~nd del~vsr to the Escrow
Agent the R~funding Trust Agreement in substantially su~
fo~, toge~er wi~ such chanqes as shall be approved by
91-757 11/27/91
County Administrator an~ the Deputy County Administrator, or
either of th~, upon the advise of counsel (includinq Bond
Counsel), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by their
Agent under the Refunding Trust Agreement io hereby apprcved~
ratified and eon~ir~ed by this Board.
(c) The County Administrator and the Deputy County
Administ~ato~ of the County~ or either of them, are hereby
aur/~o~ized to execute, on behalf of the county, Subscriptions
for United State~ Treasury Obligations - State and Local
Government Series, to be purchased by the Escrow Agent from
moneys depooited in the 1991 Refunding Trust ~und created and
established under the Refunding Trust Agreement. such united
States Treasury obligations State and Local Government
Series so purchased ohall be held h~ the Escrow Agent under
and ~n accordance with the provi~icns of the Refunding Trust
Agreement.
SECTION 1I. Application of Pmoceeds of 1991
th~ County'~ ~an~ral obligation Bend Anticipation Note~,
Zerle= of 19~1, 4a~ed June 13, 1991, shall be applied on
Decembe~ 13, 1991 to t~a pa~ent t~e p~incipal of such
No=es at ma~ur~=y.
(b) An amount equal to thc inter,st mocked on the
Bonds from their date to %he date of the dellv=r~
and pa~ent ~refor shall be deposited in the County's
~neral F~nd an~ applie~ on ~uly ~5, ~99~ to the pa~ent
of a portion of the ~nt~re~t payable on ~e Bonds on =u=h
date.
(c) Such amount of the proceeds of the Bond~,
~hall De necessary to provide fo~ the pa~ent of the
Bonds shall be deposited with the ~scrow Agent under the
~erein.
(d) The balance of the proceeds of the Bonds shall
Resulution~.
SECTION 12. Desiqnation of the Refunded 1985
the S~ies of 19~ Bonds maturing on ~anuary 15 in each of the
years 1997 t~ 2006, both inclusive, f~r redemption on January
1~, 1996 ~t r$dsmption pti=ss ~qual t~ th~
principal amounts of t~e Serie~ of 1985 Bond~ to De redeemed~
of ~uch respective principal amounts for each twelve
the respective mtated maturity date= of much Z~em of
Ben,m, bus no~ to exceed two peroent (Mt) of such principal
amo~t. ~e County Admln~mtrator im hereby authorize~
direot~d to deliver to .~ a~ Escrow A~ent ~der
incisions to give notice, in the name and on behalf of the
~t~ing on January 15 tn each of ~e years ~997 to 2006~ both
to b~ given at the times and in the ma~ and at the ti~e
times provided in Section 4 of the resolution a4~te~ by
91-758 11/27/91
Board On December 11, 1985 authorizing the issuance of
Refunded 1Pa§ Bonds and to be in substantially the form set
forth as ~hlblt III ~o the R~fundlng Trust Agreement.
(b) This B~sr~hereby d~signa~s the Series o£
Bo~ds maturing e~ July 15 in each of the years 1997 to 1006,
both inclusive, for redemption on July ~5, ~996 at
prices equal to the respective principal amounts cf the
~ie~ of 1996 ~ond~ to be redeemed, together with the
interest accrued thereon to such redemption date~ pl~
premium of one-quarter of one percent (i/4 of 1%) of such
respective principal amounts for each twelve (12) month p=riod
or part thereof between such redemption date and the
respective stated maturity dates of such Refunded 1986 Bonds,
but not to exee=~ two percent (z%) of such ~rincipal amount.
The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to
deliver to , as Escrow Aqent under the
Refunding Trust Agreement, irrevocable written instructions to
give netice, in the name and on behalf of the County, to tho
holders of the Series of 1~$6 B~nds maturing on July 15 in
each of the years 1997 to 2006, both i~clu~ive, of the
redemption of such Series o~ 19~6 Bonds, such notice to be
~iuen at the times and in the ~anner and at the time Or
provided in Section 4 of the resolution adopted by this Board
on July 23, 1986 authorizing the issuance of the series of
1986 Bonds and to be i~ substantially the form sot forth as
Exhibit IV ts the Refunding Trust Agreement.
SECTION 13. ~i~inq of This Resolution. The County
Attorney is hereby authorized and directe~ %e file a co~y of
thi~ r%solution~ certified by the Clerk of thi~ Board to be
true and correu~ cu~ hersof~ with th6 C~rcu~t Cou~t of the
County of Chesterfield.
SECTION 14. Invalidity of Sections, ~araqraphs~
Clauses or Prnvlalens. If any section, paraqraph, clause or
provision of this resolution shall be held invalid or
unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or
unenforceabillty of s~ch ~ection~ paragraph, clause or
provision ~hall not affect any of the remaln~ng port~ons of
this re$01ution.
SZCTiON 15. Headincs of Sections. The headings of
the sections of thi~ resolution shall bo ~olely for
convenience of =clarence and shall not a~ect the
don~tr~tie~, i~terpretaticn or effect of such sections or of
this resolution.
SECTION 16. Effective Date. Thls reeolutlon shall
take effect upon its adoption.
V~te: Unanimous
ll.C. AT~ROI~JATION OF FONDS FOR iNSTALLATION OF TZI~;ISION
~r. Hammer stated staff was requesting the appr0pria~ion of
$115,000 to a special reserve account to pay for the
installation cf a television arraignment system for the courts
system located at the County's Courthouse. ~e further stated
funds would be reserved until the operational details were
worked out with the Sheriff's budget to handle the system once
installed and, at tha~ point in time, staff would proceed with
completing the p~oj~et.
Mr. Daniel inquired if bidm had b~n r~ceived for thim prejeot
and as ~o t~e opera~ing costs. Mr. Hammer stated bids had not
been received but e~ttnate~ had been received approximately
e~ghteen month~ a~o and the recommendation wac based on the
estimates and felt comparable numbers wsuld he received. ~e
further stated operating ¢o~t~ would be worked out with the
Sheriff and the television consultant to d~ter~in* how much
support would be required ~o operate tho system. He noted if
there was a difference in opinion regarding the personnel
needed to operate the systeM, staff would address the matter
with the Soard.
~. Daniel stste~ ha would suppur~ the item, huweYer, if costs
did not come within budget and the n~w Board doe~ not fund the
actual operation e~ the television erralgnmen% system, the
item could be set aside.
F~c. gellivan inquired if the installation of the television
arraignment system would require additional personnel and
stated he felt the item ~hculd b~ deferred until
information regarding the system was available for reviow.
/~_r. Eammer stated the item presented did not re,ire
additional personnel, ~owever, t~e Sheriff had indicate~ h~
may request additional personnel to support the system and,
th~efore~ ~taff wa~ requesting an opportunity t~ discus~ with
~e Sheriff, a system which would not requir~ additlonal
personnel. He noted the work flow of ~e Sheriff'~ Department
no,dad to b~ clarified before addressing what would ~ct~ally
be necessary.
There was brief discussion r~g~rding the detuil~ for the
in,folio=ion of ~e television arraign=n=
w~ ~e Circuit Court Judges to dlscus~ the completion of the
new Co, ts Building and f~l~ the installation of
wonld not re, ire additional personnel but would
which would complete the Courts Building and re~ested the
8oar~ to ~upport the request contingent on the op~ational
co~ts being addressed.
~ere wa~ discussion regardin~ the f~d~ bein~ appropriated
for ~e installation of ~he ~elevis~on arraignment
what would happen if the funds were appropriated but the
required after the installation of the ~ipment.
~. ~ulllvan stated he felt the needed space for th~ system
and the operational cost~ should be addressed b~fore
appropriating the
of operating cost~ with the Sheriff, which ~y~t~ will
eliminate the need to transport pri~oner~ from the County jail
to ~e Co,ts ~uilding for arraig~ent p~oses. (It i~ noted
the funding will be held in reserve until final co~ts and
operating issues are resolved.)
Ayes: ~. C~rin, Mr. Applegat~, Mr. Daniel and ar.
Nays: ~. Sullivan.
On motion of ~r. saye~, seconded by DIr. Applegate, the Board
approved obtaining cost estimates for the installation of
street lights at the intersection Of Crookod Creek Drive and
Qualla Read and =t the intersection of Oak RiMer Drive and
Talon Point Co~r~, in sa~oaoa ~agisterial District and,
91-760 11/27/91
further, the Board deferred uotil Uanuary, 1992 obtaining coat
estimates for the instal]etlon of a street light at 5725
Beechnut Avenue, in ~atoa~a ~agi~terlal Di~riet.
Vote: Unanimous '~ '~
Kr. Sullivan requested the outstanding street light estimates,
including thoss from the Board's meeting on November 13, 1991~
be brought back to the Board at its nex~ regularly scheduled
11.E.1. AWARDING OF CONTRACT FOR GEOGP2~PHIC INFOB~(ATION
S~ST~ (G~S) PROPERTY FFJkTUR~R DATA t~N%~TO~
On motion of ~r. Mayer, ~onde~ by Mr. Currin, the Boar~
authorized the County Administrator tn ~×ecute a contract
between the County and Westinghouse Landmark Geographic
I~for~ation services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed
$921,860, to provide property f~atures data conversion to
create the base map for ~he County's Geographic Infor~tion
System (GIS]. (It is note~ said fund~ will come from the
County~Dping system Fund.)
11.E.2. STATE ~OAD ACCEPTANCE
Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made r~port in ~rriti~g ~pO~
examination of old cheshire Drive, old cheshire court and old
Cheshire Lane in Cheshire, Bsrmuda District.
UpO~ consideration whereof, and on mo~ion of M_r.
seconded by Mr. Currin, it is re~clved that Old Cheshire
Drive, old Cheshir~ Court and Old cheshire Lane in Cheshire,
Bermuda District, be and they hereb~ are e~tablished us public
reade.
And be it further re,civet, :hat the virginia Department of
T~an~ortatien, b~ and it hereby is requested to take into the
secondary System, old Cheshire Drive, beginning at the
inter=action with Che~ter Road, State Rout~ 144, and going
easterly 0.07 mile to the intersection with old C~eshi~e
Court, then continuing ~ast~rly 0.O? mile to the intersection
Old C~shlr~ Lane, then continuing easterly 0.04 nile tn end
i~ a cul-de-sac; 01d Cheshire Court, beginning at the
intersection with Old Cheshire Drive and going northerly
mile to end in m cul-de-sac; an~ 01d Cheshire Lane, bsginning
at the ~ntsr~ection with Old cheshire Drive and going
northerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again, Old
Cheshire Lane, beginning at the intersection with Old
Qrive an~ going Southerly o.o~ mile to ti~ into propose~ old
Cheshire Lane~ H~mlin's Reach Subdivision.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
dlatance, clear zone end designated Virginia Department
Transportation drainage easements.
These roads serve 26 lots.
A~d be it f~rbher resolved, that the Board of
guarant~es to th~ Virginia D~partment of Transgortation an
unrestricted right-of-way of §0~ w~th ~ce~ary easement~ fen
Cheshire is rscorded as relicts:
Plat Book ~4, Page ~4, October 29, 1986.
This day ~he County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination o~ Key Deer Drive, Key Deer Court, Key Deer
circle, Roedeer Drive, Deer Run Drive and Flag Tail Drive in
Deer Run, Section 4, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof~ and on motion of Mr. Kayos,
seconded by Mr- Currin, it i~ r~solved that Key Deer Drive,
Key Deer Court~ Key Deer Pirate, Roedeer Drive, Deer Run Drive
and Flag Tail Drive in Deer Run, Section 4, Matoaca District,
be end they hereby are established as public roads.
A~d De it further ~esolved, that the Virginia Depar~en= of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary system~ Key Deer Drive, beginning at existing Key
southwesterly 0.03 mil~ to the intermectien with Key Deer
Court, then continuing southwesterly 0.9~ mile tc the
inter~¢ction with Key Deer Circle, them continuin~
Drive, then continuing southwesterly 0.02 mile to end at Key
Deer Drive, Deer Run, Section 5; Key Deer Oeurt, beginning at
the intersection with Key Deer Drive and golmg southeasterly
0.~5 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Key Deer Circle, beginning
et the intersection with Key Deer Drive and going
southeasterly 0.06 mile, then turning and going sonthweste~rly
0.~ mile to end at Key Deer Circle~ Deer Run~ ~ectlon ~;
Roedeer Drive, beginning at the intersection with Key Deer
Drive amd going northwesterly 0.03 mile to end at existing
Roedeer Drive, state Route number to be assigned; Deer Run
Drive, beginning at existing Deer Run Drive, State Route 4?00,
and going southeasterly 0.12 mile to end at the interee=tien
with Buck Rub DriYa, S~a~e SouSe 4713; and Flag Tail Drive,
beginning at the ~nterseotion with Buck Rub Drive, State Route
4713, and going northwesterly ~.03 mile, then turulng and
going northerly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance~ clear sene and designated V~ginia Department cf
Transportation drainage easements.
The~e road~ ~rv~ ~ lot~.
cuts~ fills and drainage foe all these roads except Dee~ Run
Drive which has a 70~ right-of-way.
This ~ectlon of Deer Run is recorded ae ~ollcwe:
Section 4. Plat Book 67, Pages ~2 & 83, September 6, 1989.
Vote: Unanimous
Thi~ day the County Environmental E~giueer, in accordance with
directions £~om t~is ~oard, made report in writing upon his
examination of Evergree~ East Parkway in Evergreen East
Parkway, Section 3, Matoaca District.
Upon eoneldera~ion whereof, and on motion of ~r. ~ayee,
seconded by Mr. Coffin, it im resolved that ~vergreen ~ast
Parkway in ~vergreen ~aet Parkway, Section 3, ~ateace
siutrict, bc and it hereby i~ established es a public road.
And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
S~ondary ~ymtem, Evergreen East Parkway, b~gir~ning at
existing Evergreen East parkway, State Rsu~e 3970~ and going
southwesterly 0.1Z mil®i~6' end in a dead end.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent elope, sight
distanced clear zone and designated Virginia Depal~cment of
Transportatlom drainage easements.
and a County school site.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia DeDartment of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 60' with necessary easements for
cutm, fills =nd drainage for this road.
This section of Evergreen East Parkway is recorded as follows:
Section 3. Plat Book 60~ Page 73~ May 11~ 1989.
Vote: Unanimous
Thim day the County Environmental Engineer, in aeoordaneo with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Timber Trail Erivu (formerly o'sara Drive),
White Manor Lane, Tall Pine Road and King Cotton Lane in Glen
·ara, Section ~-A, Matoa¢~ Dis~rlc~.
Upon consideration whereu~, an~ on ~stios of Mr. Mayas,
seconded by Mr. Curtis, it is resolved that Timber Trail Drive
(formerly O'Hara Drlvs)~ white M~nor Lane, Tall Ping Rea~ and
King Cotto~ Lane i~ Glen Tara, Section 5-A, Matoaca District,
be and they hereby are established as public reads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it h~r~by is r~qu~ted to take into the
Secondary System, Timber Trail Drive, beginning at existing
Timber Trail Drive, Sta~¢ Rcut~ 4~60, and goln~ westerly 0.03
mile te the interseetioh with Whit¢ Manor Lane, then
continuing westerly 0.0~ mile to the intersection with Tall
Pine Road~ than continuing westerly 0.05 mile, then turning
an~ going northwesterly 0.04 milo to the intersection with
King Cotton Lane, then continuing northwezterly 8.03 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; white ~ancr Lane, be~inelng at the
intersection with Timber Trail Drive and going northerly 0.03
mile to end in a dead end; Tall Pine Road, be~innlng at the
intersection with Timber T~ail Drive and going southerly 0.03
mile to tis into existing Tall Pine Read, State Route 20S8;
amd King Cotton Lane, beginning at the intersection with
Timber Trail Drive and going Ssuthwssterl~ 0.03 mils, then
t~rning and going southerly 0-08 ~ile to end at preps=ed King
Cottom Lane, Timbermill West Su~dlvision.
Thim request i~ inelusiv~ cf the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
And be it further re$olYed, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Doper=meat of TransDcrtat~en an
cut~, fills and drainage for all of these roads.
and Plat Book ?~, Page 56, May 20, 19~1.
'11/27/~1
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
dlrect~o,~ ~rom this Board! mode ~epo~t in writing upon hi~
examination of Ben Air Station Lane and Ben Air Station Court
in Bun Air Station, Kidlothian District.
seconded by Mr. Currin~ it i~ re~olvod that Ben Air Station
Lane and Ben Air Station Cour~ in Ben Air Station, Midlothlan
District, be and they hereby are established as public
A~d be it furt~ ~olved, t~st t~e Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System~ Ben Air Station Lane, beginning at the
intersection with Forest Hill A~enus, S~ats Route 6S3, and
going ~outh~a~t~rly 0.0~ mile to the intersection with Boa Air
Station Court, then continuing southeasterly 0.05 mile to end
in a cul-de-sac; and Ben Air Station Court~ beginning at the
inter~ectinn with Ben Air Station Lane and ~oing westerly 0.04
mile, then turning and going northwesterly 0.06 mile to end in
a cul-de-sac.
T~is re,nest is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and ~emigDate~ Virginia Department of
~uarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportatie~ an
right-of-way for Ben Air Station Court.
Ben Air Station is recorded as follows:
vot~: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Luuren Luna, Cedar Crossing Trail, Cedar
Crossing Circle, Cedar Crossing Court and Walton BlU~ Par~way
in Cedar Crossing, Section l, Nid!othian District.
Upon consideration ~hereof, and on motion of
aeconde~ by Fir. Currin, it is r~aolved that Lauren
c~e~zing Trail, Cedar Cr0~ing Circle, Ceda~ C~oz~ing Court
and Wal=on Bluf~ Parkway in Cedar ~o~eing, Sec=ion 2,
Midlothian District, be and they hereby are e=tabli=hed as
public reade.
A~d be it further resolved, that the Virginle Department of
Transportation, be an4 it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Lauren Lane~ beginning at existing Lauren
Lane, State Route 3~01, and going easterly 0.07 mile, then
turning and going southeasterly ~.05 mile to the
with Cedar Crossing Trail, then continuing southeasterly
mile to end at the inter~actio~ with Wal=e~ Bluff Parkway;
Cedar Crossing Trail, beginning et the inter=action with
Lauren Lane and going mo~thwe~erly 0.03 mile to the
int~rsectlon with Cedar Crossing Circle, t/lea going
0.06 ~ile to the intersection with cedar crossing court, then
going southwesterly 0.~6 mi~ to e~d in · e~l-de-$ac; Cedar
C~e$sing Cirole~ beginning at the into~sectlon with Cedar
o~l-de-sac; Cedar Crosslnq Court, beginning at the
inter,action with ~edar Crossing Troll an~ going westerly 0.04
mile to end in a col-ds-sac; and Walton Bluff Parkway,
beginning at tko intersection with Lauren Lane and going
91-764 11/27/91
~outh~t~rl~ 0.10 ~ile to end at
Parkway, Walton Bluff Subdivision. Again, Walton Bluff
going northeasterly 0.0s mile to end at proposed Walton Bluff
~arkway. : ..
This request is inclusive of the adjacent' slope, sight
distance, clear zone amd designated Virginia Department of
%~nese roads serve 30 lots.
And he it further rasolved~ that the Board of Supsrv~sor~
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 these roads except Walton
Bluff Parkway which has a 60' right-of-way.
This section of Cedar Crossing is recorded as follows:
Section 2. Plat Book 57, Pag~ 48, June l?, 1989,
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions fro~ this Board, made report in ~rriting upon his
examination o~ Thornl~igh Road, M0rmandstone Drive and
Chartstone Drive in Roxmhlre, Smction ~l and a portio~ of
Roxmhire, Section 7, Midluthlan District.
U~cn consideration whereof~ and on ~otion of F~r.
seconded by Mr. Currin, it i~ re~olved that Thornleigh Road,
Normande=one Driv~ and chartstone Drive in Roxshire, Section
ll and a portion of Roxshire, Section 7, ~idlothian District,
be and they hereby are established a~ publi~ roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Tran~poxtatioo, be and it hereby is requested to %aks into the
secondary system, Thornleigh Road, beginning at the
intersection with Corner Reck Road, State Route 728, and going
westerly 0.O~ mile, tken turning and going southwesterly 0.11
mile to the intsrseution with Nor~andstone Drive, then
continuing ~o=thw~terly 0.~$ mils, then turning and going
southerly 0.08 m~le to the inter~ection ~i~ ~a=tsto~e Drive,
~en continuinq ~outh~ly 0.~S mile to end in a d~a4 ~nd;
No~andstone Drive, beginning at the intersection with
Road and going son,easterly 0.07 mile, then turnln9 and
~outherly 0.16 mile to end in a dasd end; a~d
Drive, beginning at the intersection with. Thornl~igh Road and
going westerly 0~¢6 mile to end in a dead end.
~is re~e~t i~ inclusive of the adjacent ~lop~,
distance, olear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Trannpor~ation drainage easements.
And b= it f~ther reeD!red, tha~ the ~oard of
unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with n~ceszary ea=ement~ for
o~t$, fill~ and drainage for all of these
S~ction 11. Plat Book ~9, ~ag~ 81 & $~, F~bru=ry 14, 1990.
Vote: Unanimous
91-765
T~is day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from thi~ Roard, made report in writing upon his
examination of Saybrssk Court in Sunrise Valley, section A,
Mi~lc~hisn District.
Upon conslderatien whereof, and on motion of Mr. Muyes,
~conded by ~r. Carrie, it is resolved that saybrook Co%Lrt in
sunrise valley, ~ec=icn A, ~idlothian District, be and it
hereby is established as a public road.
A~d be it f~rthsr re~olv~d, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, bs and it hereby is requested to ta~e into the
Secondary System, Saybro~k Court, beginning at existing
Saybroek court, state Route 252~, and going southeasterly 0.02
mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of th~ adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
T~is ~oad serves 4 lots.
And be it further =SSO1Ve~, Chat t~e Board cf superviuors
g~arantees to the Virginia D~partment of Tranmportation an
%%r~ce~tr~ctod right-of-way of 5Q' with necessary easements ~or
cut=, fills and drainage for this road.
Thi= meotioe of ~unrisu Valley is recorded a= follow~:
Section A. Plat ~ook 66, Pa~e ~, Kay 4, ~9~9-
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance w{th
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Alder~mead Road and Aldersmead Place in sunrise
valley, section s, ~idlothian District.
Upon consideration whcree~, ~nd on motion o~ F~. F~yes,
seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Aldersmead Road
and Aldersmead Place in Sunrise Valley, Section B, Midlo~hian
District, be an~ they h~r~ny ar~ ~tablished an publia road~.
And be it further resolve~, that the virginia D~parta~nt of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to ta~e into t~e
Secondary system, Aldersmea~ Aced, beginning at existing
Alder~mead Road, State Route 2521, and going southeasterly
0.05 mil~ ~o the intersection with Al~ersmead Place, then
continuing oout~easterly 0.05 ~ile to end in a oul-de-~&o~ and
Aldersmead Place, beginning at the intersection with
Alders~ead Road and going southwesterly ~.06 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac.
This r=qusu~ is inclusive of the adjacent slo~, ~ight
diRtance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transpor=ation drainage easements.
These roads serve 12 lots.
~arant=~s to the Virginia Departm~nt of Transpo~ation an
cuts, fills und drainag~ for thes~ road~.
This ~ectlon of ~unri~e Valley is recorde~ as foll~:
Section B. Plat Book 66, Page 36, May 4, 1989.
This day the Co~tnty Environmental Enqineer, in accordance with
direotiens from this Beard, made report im writing upen his
Lake Way and Misty lak~ ~ourt in The P~inte at Walton Lake,
Hidlnt~ian Dist~i~t. '
~JPon oensideration whereef, add on motien of Hr. Mayas,
Road, LakeEtone Drive, Misty Lake Way and Misty Lak~ Court in
The Points at Walton Lakej Midlothian District, be and they
And be it further resolved, that tho Virginia Department ef
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take i~te the
As~b~oo~ Landing Road, state Route 3756, and going
northeasterly ~.10 mile to end at ~he intersection with
Lakestone Drive; Lakeatone Drive, beginning at the
in~ersectien with Ash~reok Landing Road and gelng
northwesterly 0.06 mil~ th~n turning and going
8.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sao. Again, Lakestone Drive,
going southeasterly 0.13 mile to the intersection w~th Misty
Lake Way, the~ continuing southeasterly 0.11 mile, then
~isty L~ke Way, beginning at the intersectien with Lake~tone
with Misty Lake Ceurt, then continuing westerly 0.04 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; and Misty Lake Court, beginning at the
intersection with Misty Lake Way and going southerly
nile, then turning and qoing southeaster.ly 0.08 mile to end in
a cul-de-sac.
This rec/ue~t ia inulu~ive cf the adjacent slope, ~ight
unrestrioted ri~ht-ef-way of 50' with necessLry easements for
The ~eints at Walton Lake is recerded as follows:
P!ut Book 6~, ~ge 1, January 13, 1989.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Mayas, s~cunded by ~r. Currin~ the Boar~
approved the transfer of funds for parks improvement~ projects
Restoration Account, in the amount of $40,000, for ~a~ter
a feasibility ~tudy to consider cun~truction of a visitor
the Midlethi=n Three Cent Read Fund to the Huguenot Park Phase
IV Account, in th% amount of. $20~000, fe~ additional t~ail~
and parking to Huguenot Park.
91-767 11/~?/91
t~)UN~I~ .~ECOND.ANNUAL BLACK ~iSTORY
Annual Black ~i~tory ~onth celebration had been funded
p~rti~ly by ~ Matoa~a District Three Cent Road ~nd in
conj~ction with donations from ~he business s~ctor.
Mr. Daniel requested the County Administrator to ad,ess all
items in which the Districts' Three Cant Road ~nds are used
when preparing n~xt year'~ budget a~d to i~cl~de ~o~e items
in the operational budget and inquired if fun~s w~e available
Black Kistory ~onth C~lebration.
After brief discussion, on mo=ion of Mr. Mayer, ~eoon~e4 by
~r. Coffin, the Board approved the transfer of $2,000 each,
for a ~otal of $10,000, from the Bermuda, Clover Hill, Dale,
Matoaca and Midlothian Three Cent Road Funds to the Parks and
~esterfield County's Second Annual ~lack ~istory Month
Celebration.
11.E.5. DONATION OF
VOLUN"i'E~{!~-~SCU}~ SOUP
O~ ~otio~ of Mr. Mayem~ seconded by ~. Coffin, the Board
au~orized ~e donation of a surplus 1974 Ka~ fire engine,
v~icle ~740~8, to the Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer Remcue S~ad.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~r. Mayes, seoonded by Mr. Currin, the Board
approved requemtm for bingo/raffle per,its for the following
organlzat~on~ for calendar y~a~ 1992:
Women of the Moome Manchest~r-
Ri~mond Chapter ~107~ Ra~le
vote: Unanimous
~. A~plegate excu~sd himsel~ from the meeting.
mm.F. ~TIL~TI~S n}~'~'rm4'}zw]~ IT--S
~. Sale stated this date and ti~e ha~ bme~ advertised for a
p~llc hearing to consider a resolution an~ order to abandon a
p~rt~on of Statview Lane~ Route 687,
On motio~ of Mr. Coffin, ~conded by ~. Demi%l, the Board
adopted ~e following resolution an~ ord~ ~o abandon a
portion of Statview Lanm:
WEEREAS, since July 1, 1932, Statview Lane, Route 687,
hue'remained in the State Secondary System of Highways
the control, supervision, management, and juri~dlctlon of
WHEREAS, LaSalle Partners has requested that the Board of
Supervisors of Chaster£ield County abandon a portion of
statview Lane~ Route 687~ pursuant to section 33.1-151 of the
October 9, 1991, the required notice~ of the County's
pesta~ in at least three places along Starvlew Lane, Route
687; and on November 13, 199!, and November lO, 199~, a ~otloe
was published in the Richmond News Leader, having general
circulation within the County; and on October 17, 1991, a
notice was sent to the Commissioner cf the Virginia Department
of Transportation; and
WI~EF, EAS, Nc landowner affected by the
abandonment has filed a petition for a public hearing; and
WI~EREAS~ This Re~olution and Orde~ is entered within four
described above~ and
WI~ER~AS, The surety and welfare of the public would be
bes~ served ~y ~he a~andonment of a portion of Statview Lane,
Routs 6~7, es a pnblic road~ and
WI~EFc~AS, The abandonment of a portion of Starvlaw Lane,
ROUte 687, as a public road will not abridge the ~ighta of any
citizen.
NOW, TH~REFOR~ BE IT RESOLVED A~D ORDERED, that pursuant
ts section 33.1-151 of the Code of vi~in~a, 1950, a~ amended,
the portion of secondary road, more fully described as
follows, is hereby abandoned as a public
A portion of Statview Lane, Route 687, within
Clover Hill ~agisterlal District, as shown on
a plat prepared by E. D. Lewis & Associates,
dated July 31, 1991, as copy cf which is
attached to this Resolution a~d Order.
The effect of this Resolution ~nd Order, pursuant to
Section 33.1-153 of the code of virg.~D~ 1950, as amended, is
that the above described portion of Starvlew Lane, Rout~ 6R?~
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Board shall send a
certified copy of this Resolution add 0r~er~ together with the
plat hereto attached! to the state Transportation
Com~issloner. Th~ Clerk shall request that the Commissioner
~srtlfy to the County~ pursuant %0 Section 33.~-1~4 of the
Cod~ of ViTqi~l~, 19~0, as amended, that the shave
Dortlon of Statview Lane, Route 68?, is no longer necessary
for public use.
Ayes: Mr. ~ullivan, ~r. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
(It is noted a COpy of the Plat is filed with the ~ape'rs of
this Board.)
91-7~ 11/27/91
~l.F.l.b. TO CONSIDER AN ORDIWANCE TO VACATE A Slkr~ FOOT
DRAINAGE EAD~]~NT IN BRIGHTON~WEST
SUBDIVISION
Mr. sale stated this date and time ha~ been a~vertised for a
public hearing tc consider an ordinance %o vacate a si~een
foot ~ainage easement in Brighton Green West Subdivision.
Mr. Applegate returned to the mseting.
~er~ wa~ no one pr~ent to address thi~ ordinance.
On motion of Mr. S~iliva~, seconded Dy ~. C~rri~ ~e Beard
a~oDted the following ordinance to vacate a 16 foot ~ainage
eamement on Lot 40, Block A, Brighton Green West Subdiwision:
~ ORDIN~CE whereby the cowry OF
CKEST~IELD, VIRGIKIA, ("G~NTOR") vacates
to PATRIOT CONSTRUCTION CORP., (~G~TEE"),
1~' ~rainag~ easem~n~ on Lo~ 40, B!o~ A,
Brighton Green West Subdivision, ~idlcthiun
Magisterial Di~=rict, ~es=erfield county,
Virglnla, a~ ~hown on a plat thereof duly
~ecorded in the Cle~R'~ Office of ~e
Co~t of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 50,
Pages 86 and 87.
~S, Patriot Construction Corp. petitioned th~ Board
of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, %0 vacate
16' drainage eas~an~ on Lot 40, Block A, Brighten Green We~t
~ivi$ion, ~idlothian ~agist~rial Di~trlct, Chesterfield
in the Clerk's Offloe u~ =he Circuit Cuurt uf sai~ County in
Plat Book 50, Pages 86 and ~7, dated August 98, 19a5, ~ade by
J. K. Tigons & Assoc., P.C. The easement ~etitioned to be
vacated is more fully described as follows:
A I6~ drainage easement on Lot 4~ Block A,
~rightun Grmmn Was~ Subdivision, ~idlothian
District, Chesterfield, Virginia, as shown on
a Dlat thereof by Charle~ C. To~em &
A=aoclat~, ~.C., a copy of which i~ attached
hereto and made a part of this Ordinanoe.
~EREAS, n~tice ha~ b~n given pursuant to 8ectio~
t5.l-43l o~ t~e Code of Virginia, 1950, as amea~d, by
o~ ~he easement sought to be vauate~.
That pursuunt to Section 15.1-48~b) of ~e Code of
hereby vacated.
T~is Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
a=cor~ance with S~ction 15.1-482(b) of ~e Cod~ of V~r~in~a,
19~0, as amendsd, and a certified copy of thim Ordinance,
=o~mther w~th th~ plat attached hereto shall be reoorded no
sooner %hen thirty daym hereafter in ~ Clerk~m Off~ce of ~e
Circ~i~ Court of chesterfield County, virginia pursuant
portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee
simple t~tle of the easement hereby vacated in the property
o~er of Lot 40, Block A, Brighton Green We~t Subdivision free
and clear of any right~ of public
91-770 11/27/91
A~cordi~gly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names
of the County of Chestarfiel~ as grantor and Patriot
C~n~truetion Corp., or their successors in title, as grantee.
Vote: Unaninous . ~:~! !' '
(It ie noted a copy cf the ~let ie filed with the paper~ of
this Board.)
· ~PORAR¥ ~NgTRUCTION EAS~%~%VP IN~A~NRD
~D~SION. SE~ION 5
~. sale stated ~i$ date and time had teen advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ~rdlnance to vacate a t~D foot
temporary const~ction easement in Cameron Run Subdivision,
~ot~on 5..
On motion of Mr. C~rrln, seconded by ~r. Applegate, the Board
adopted th~ followi~g ordinance to vacate a 10 foot temporary
construction ~as~ent across Lot 52, Cameron Run S~ivi~ion,
SeCtiOn 5:
~ O~INANCE whereby the CO~TY OF
C~ESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ('~G~NTOR") vaoate~
to ff~IE L~E C~FIN, ("G~NT~"), a
5~, Cameron Run Subdivision, Smctlon
Be~uda Magisterial Dimtriot, Chesterfield
County, Virginla, as ~hown on a plat th~re0f
~uly recorded in th~ Clerk's office of the
circuit Court of Chsst~rfiele County in Plat
Book 66, Pages 81 and
~E~S, Jamie Le~ Chafin, petitioned ~e Board of
Supervi~or~ of ~t~rfield Cuunty, virginia to vacate
Temporary Con~t~ct~o~ ea~e~e~t across LOt 52, Cameron Run
Su~ivi~ion, Section 5, Bermuda Magisterial Di=t:ict,
Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly sho~ on a
plat ~f record in th~ Clerk's Office of ~hm Circuit Court
· aid County in Plat BOO~ 66, Pages Sl and 82, dated October
26, 1988, made by ~alzer & A~C. Th~ easement petitioned to
~ Vacated i~ ~o~e f~lly described as fcllow~:
A 10~ T~por~ry Construction easement,
Lot 5l, Cameron Run Subdivision, Section
Be~uda District, as ~hown on a plat thereof
17~ 1991, u copy of which i~ ~ttach~d
and made a part of thi= ordinance.
~E~S~ not~:~ ha~ be~n given pursuant to section
15.1-431 of the Code of Virgin%a. l~O, a~ amended, by
advertising; and,
~S~ no public ~ece~ity exists for the continuance
of the easement sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT 0RDAIN~O ~Y THE BOARD OF SUP~VISORS
OP C~ESTERFIELD CO~TY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
~irqinia, 1~o, as amended, the aforesaid ~asement
he~by vacated.
Thi~ 0r4inanee shall be in full force and effect in
acco~dance with Section 15.1-482(b) of th~ Cod~ of
1950, as amended, an~ a certified ~opy of %h~s Ordinance,
together with th~ plat attached heruto shall be recorded no
91-771 11/27/91
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office Qf the
circuit Court of Ckeete~field County, Virginia pursuant to
~ection 15.1-4~$ cf the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
portion of the plat vacated. Thi~ Ordinance ~hall ve~t fee
simple title of the easement hereby vacated in the property
owner of Lot 52, Cameron Run subdivision, Section 5 free and
clear of any rights cf public use.
Accordingly, ~his Qrdinance shall be indexed in the names
of the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Jamie Lee Chafin,
or his successors in title, as grantee.
Vote: Unanimous
(It ~e noted a espy of the Plat i~ f~led with the pa~ers m~
On motion cf Kr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Bo~d
authorized the County Administrator to execute ~ange Order
NO. 1., in the amsunt of $11~,~42.99, to L~le Utiliti~s,
Inc. for conztruction of th~ Jam~ Riv~ T~unk S%we~ P~oj~ct,
f~ a~ available in the Department of Utilitie~ Capital
Vote: Unanlmuus
II.F.O.b. 1%~0~S~TO~I~CLAI~ A PORTION OF A $1-A'r~z~ FOOT
On motion of Hr. Currin~ seconded by Mr. ADplegate, the Bo~d
authorized the chairman of the soard and the county
A~i~t~ato~ to execute a q~itclai~ d~ed to v~c~tc a portion
sewer easement across property owned by Providence Creek
noted a espy of the Plat is filed with the papers of this
vote: Unanimous
]].F.2.c. ~OV~LOF WAST~WAT~ CObP~A~ FOR DAYHILLPOIItT
OFFSITE~ S~
On mo=ion cf Mr. Currin, ~econ~ by Mr. Appl~gate~ the ~oard
approved a wastewmter contract for Bayhill Point Offsit~ Tr~
Sewer, Contract Number 91-0054~ ~s follows, which project
includem the ext~nmion of ~,900 L.~. ~ Of ~ Off~i%~ a~
oversized wastewater lines which providem se~ice to the
adjoining properties, an~ authorLzed ~e cc~%y A~inistra~or
to execute a~y ~ecessary documentu:
Developer: Glenn ~. Hill an~ Charle~ E. ~a~ley
Contractor: Bookman Cons=ruction Company
Contract ~ount: Estimated Total - $146,549.~O
Total Emt~ated County Cost:
Wastewater (Overmizing) - $ 31,314.86
Wastewater (Additional Work)
(Cash Refund)
WaStewater (off~it~)
(Refund thru connectlos~)
Esti~ate~ Develope~ Cost;
Code: (Ovsr='izln~)
(Additional Work)
(Offsite)
Vote: Unanimoua
approved the purchase of a 0.467 acre parcel of land adjacent
to the Chester ~andfilI from Nina V. shoosmith, in the amount
thirty-five foot ingress and egress easement to ~ack T.
Shuoemith and Nina V. Shoosmith and authorized the Chairman cf
the Board and the County Administrator to execute the easement
agreement. (It is noted copie~ of the Platm are tiled wit~
the papera of this Board and said funds are available in the
ll.F.2.~. ~%A~I{0%'i~., OF DEED OF CO~CTIO~ FOR PARCEL OF I~%ND
AIX)N~B~Y~ STREET ROADANDBALDWINCR~EKROAD
upprovud a D==d of Corrccticn and accepted, on behalt of the
COunty, the oonv~yanoe of a 0.343 acre parsel of land along
Hull ~trest Road and Baldwin Creek Road from ~. John
Alexander an~ uuthorlze~ the County Administrator to eEecute
the necessa~ dee~. (It i~ noted there wa~ previously
recorded a deed conveyinq this parcel to the County, however,
the Plat contained an ~rr0r an4, therefQre, this Deed of
Correction is necessary to corr~t th~ error and a copy of the
~lat is filed wi~ the papers of this Board.)
lI.F.2.f. A~E~TAN~E OF PA/%CEL OF ~ ALONG
0~ motion of ~r. Currin, seconded by ~r. Applegate, the Board
a~cepted, on behalf of the County~ th~ conveyance of a parcel
of land containing 0.143 acta along Jefferson Davis Highway
(U.S. Route 1) from Mr. John Allen R~amon, Jr, and authorized
the County A~ministrator to e~eeute the necessary deed. (It
is noted a copy of the Plat i~ filud with the papers of =his
~oard.)
Vote: Unanimous
l~.F.~.q. AWA~DWA~TEWATERCONTRACW2 FOR BRi~UDA~UNDRKD SEWR~
Daniel disclosed to t~ Board that thi~ ~ewer line will
s~rv~ hl~ ~ployer, Philip ~orris, Inc., decl~ed a potential
c~nflict of interest pursuant ~o the Virginia Comprmhanstve
Conflict of Interest Act, and m~cu~ed himself from the Board.
91-773
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegut~z the Board
awarded a waetewater ~ontract for Bermuda Hundred Sewer
Servioe Area, Number 89-0771, to Castle ~qui~yment Corporation,
in the amount of $1,110,i19.99, for construction of the
?'Bermuda Hundred S~w~r Service Area" project which will
provide domestic wastewater service to the Bermuda ~undred
area and authorized tbs County A~ministrator to execute the
necessary documents. (It is noted a copy Of the Map is filed
with the papers cf this Board and said fund~ are included in
the F¥92 Capital Dudgst.)
Ayes: Mr. ~ullivan, Mr. Currln, Er. Applegate and Hr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr, Daniel.
Mr. Daniel returned to the Board.
11.F.2.h. REOU~ST TO OUITCLAIM A THIRTY FOOT DRAI/(AGE
i~Sk~NT AND vArIABLE WIDTH CONSTRUCTION ]~A$1~KSN~.
ACI~OSS BROPERT¥ OWNED BY
Mr. ~rrtn stated thi~ easement had been obtained by
County in oonjunation with the Johnson creek D~ainage Basin
and wh-n the Johnson Creek Drainage ~asin ha~ been eliminate~,
he had declar~d a conflict of ~nte~e~t but doe~ not o~ any
property or kav~ any fln~ncial interest r~garding thi~
request. ~e Te~uested the Chairman allow ~. Jeff Collin~ to
concurred.
Mr. Jeff Collin~ stated he wa~ representing ~e ~roperty
owner; that the ~rainaga easemana wa= in conjunction with ~a
~a~ ~e property owner had given the eas~ent to the County
with the understanding the Johnson Cre~ Drainage Basin
since the project no longer existed, the prope~y o~er would
feel staff ha~ sufficient r~asons for denying ~e
to give favorabl~ consideration %o the request.
Mr. currin made a mot~on~ ~econded by ~. AD, legate,
P~tnership.
Discussion, comments and qu~stiunm ensued rmlative ~o
reazon~ for denying th~ r~u~t a~d why t~ easement had to be
vacated; the possibility o~ the ea~men~ being needed in ~a
f~t~e; the ~easons why the County should retain the ea=ement
and the reasons t~e easement ~ad o~iginally been needed;
Whether the Johnson Creek Drainage Bamin ~roj~ct would
constructed an~ impleman%a~ in %he future; how si~ificant ~e
eascmemt would be if th~ property were to b~ developed ~
property ownsr; and ~he reasons the property owner woul~ like
the eas~ent quitclalmed.
~. Sullivan callsd for the vote on the motion ~de ~
~ainage easement and variable wld~ =on~uctlon
acro=~ 9ro~rty own~l by B~rmu~a Heights Partnership. (I%
noted a copy of ~m P/at im fil~ with th~ papers of thi~
Boart. )
Ayes: ~r. Currin, ~. Appl~gate and ~. Mayas.
Nay~: ~. ~ullivan.
~st=ntion: Mr. Daniel.
91-774 11/27/91
Admlnlstrstor.
ll.G.
Mr. Ramsey Dreae~ted the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Bulunce; Re~erve for Fut~r$ Capital Projects;
District Road and Street Light Funds; and Lease Purchases.
Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation
has formally notified the County of the acceptance ef the
following roads into the State seoendary
A~DITIONS
STONEBRIDSE. SECTION TWO - {Effective 1~-30-9%~
Rou=e 3952 (O'~llay Drive) - From 0.05 mile
Route ~950 to 0.~7 ~il~ ~outhwest Route 3950 ~.1~
QUE~SMILL - SECTION K - (Effective 11-1-91)
Routs 3880 (Darrell Drive) - From 0.0~ mile East
Rout~ 3888 (Abelway Drive) - From Route 3~80 to
Route 3889 0.11 Mi
Route 3889 (Boggs Circle) - Prom ~.05 mile Northwest
H~ING~EER HILL~. S~ION ~ - (Effective 1I-4-91~
Route 1909 (Bell~eadows Tek, ace) - From Route 191~ to
0.~6 mile South Route 1915 0.06 Mi
Route 1919 (Windlngrun Lan~) - ~rom 0.12 mile
Route 1918 to 0.15 mil~ Southeast Route 1918
PORTION OF SECTION 1 ~ reflective 11-4-91%
Route 395~ (O'Malley Drive) - From Route $~51 to
Route 3954 (~tebridge Road) - Fro~ Route 3025
0.4~ mile We=t Rout~ ~0~ 0.48
Route 39~ (Catubridge Co=rt) - From Rou=e 39~4
0.03 mile North Rou~e 3954 0.03
Route 3956 (Gatebridge Place) ~ From Route 3954 to
0.OS mile North Rout~ 39u4
The Board recessed at ll:~
Italia Restauran~ for lunch.
a.m. (EST)
tu travel to ~ella
M~. Sullivan introduced Mr. Whaley Colbert, Sug~rvlsor-Elect
for Hatoaca Distriot, and welcomed him to the meeting.
91-775 11/27/91
In Midlothian Magisterial District, landmark designation is
the property fsr office uss with density to be determined by
Business (0) District on a 1.7 acre parcel Cruntin~
approximately 6~ feet On the northeast line of Promenade
Parkway, approximately 275 feet northwest Of West Huguenot
Road. Tax Map ~-1~ (1) Parcel 22 (Sheet 2].
~r. Jacobsen presented a aammary of Case 91MP0166 and stated
approval of the landmark designation.
~dr. Kyle Woolfolk, representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation was acceptable and e~pres~ed appreciation for
the landmark designation. There was no eppositlcn pre,ont.
On motion of ~. sullivan, ~econded by /dr. ADplega=o, tho
to the Bollgra~e s~ruc=ure with its current addition as
located on Tax Map 8-1~ (11} ~art of Parcel 22 (Sheet ]).
91~0~94
In Bermuda Ma~tori~l D~tri~t, ~.R~ ROBERT AND ~
~ AND~cEWS req~eated renewal ~f M~bile H~e ~ermlt ~SRi~4
to park a nobile h~e in a Residential (R-7) District. The
density cf the proposal is approxi~tely 1.4~ units/acre. The
Comprehensive Plan designates ~e property for residential u~e
of ~.~l to 4.00 units/acre, ~is pro~=rty front~ th= ~outh
line of Velda Road~ at Brightwood Avenue, and i~ bette~ known
a~ ~70~ Velda Road. Tax ~a9 9~-4 (2) Central Park, Bio~ 14,
Lot~ t7 through 24 (Sheet ~2).
Mr. Jacobsen presented a s~ary of Case 91SR0294 and stated
acceptable. There wa~ no opposition pre,ont.
On motion of Mr. ~r~n~ seconded ~ ~. ~ay~, th~ ~oard
following standard condition~:
mobile home.
2, No lot Or parcel may be rented or lea~ed for u~e a~ a
mobile homo site, nor shall any.mobile home ~ used for
r~n=al property. Only one (1) mobile ho~= shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or paro61.
The minim~ lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and o~er zoning re~ir~en%s of the applicable zoning
district shall De complie~ with, except that no ~ob~le
ho~e ohall be located closer than 10 feet to any existing
4. No additional ~erman~t-ty~e living ~pa~e Nay b~ added
onto a mobile home. All mobl]e home~ ~hall b~ nkirt~d
but shall not be placed on a ps,anent foundation.
~ere public (County) water and/or sewer a~e available,
they ~hall be u~d,
91-776 11/27/91
Upon being granted a Mshile Home Permit, t~ apRlicant
shall then obtain the ~aCessary permits from the 0ffiec
the inetallatton or relocatlcn of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds
for revocation of the Kobile Home Permit.
~n Bermuda ~agis~e~ial District, ~HI~IP I~ATCL~FFE reguested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-2) to
Co--unity Business (C-3) sf 11.5 acres and General Industrial
(I-2) of 12.2 acres. The density of such amendment will be
ccntrolle~ by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates =he property for residential
of ?.01 units per more er me~e. This r~quest lies on a ]3.7
acre ~arcel fronting approximately 1,~32 feet on the west line
of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 3,1~ feet south of
Forest Lake Road. Tax Map ~33-11 (1) Parcel 1 (sheet 41].
Hr. ~aoobson D~ese~te~ a s~ary of Case 9]SN02S4 and stated
the Planning Co~i~ reco~e~ded approval and acceptance
~. Phillp Ratcl~ffe stated ~e reco~endation was acceptable,
T~e~e WaS no opposition pr~ent.
On motion of ~. Curr~n, ~Gond~d by Mr'. Applegate, the
· . Prior to obtaining a building permit, one ol
following ~hall be aooompli~hed for ~i~e p~ot=ction:
A. The owner, develope~ ur assignee(s) shall pay
to =he County $150 Der 1,O0O s~uurm feet
~os~ floo~ ar~= adjusted upward or do~ward by
~e ~e perce~taq~ that the Marshall Swift
Building Co~t Inde~ increased or
between June 30, ~91, and ~a dat~ of pa~ent.
With the approval of ~e County~s Fire
the owner, ~eveloper or assignee(~) ~hall
receive a credit toward ~e r~quir$~
for the co~t of any fire ~uppre~sion system not
o~erwise requirud by law which i~ ~nol~ded
a par~ of the development.
OR
provide a fire suppression ~ystem not othe~ise
ra~ired by law which the County's Fire chief
prot~otlon.
2. ~rior to site plan approval, sixty (60) feet of right of
way on the west side of Rout~ ~/~0~ measured from
oente=line of that part of Route 1/301 i~ediately
adjacent to the property ~hall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and fo~ ~e ben,fit of Chesterfleld
County.
Prior to any site plan appreval, an access plan for the
~bjeo~ property s~all be submitted to and approve~ by
Transportation Department.
91-777 11/~7/91
Prier to any site plan approval, a phasing plan
required road improvement~ ~hall be ~ubmltted to
approved by the Transportation Department.
To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of
~mplete development, ~he developer shall be responsible
for the follewing:
o Construction of additional pavement along the
southbound lanes of Route 1/3Dl to provide an
additional lan~ e~ pavamen~ ~or the sntir~
o Dedication to the County of Chesterfield~ fr~e
and unrestricted, any additional right of way
(or easement) required for the improvement
identified above.
9leND291
~n Midlothian Magisterial District, WHl'rr~ ~EALTY requested
resoniaq from Office Business (0) and Community Business
tn General Business (C-5). The density of such amendment will
be controlled by zoning oonditio~ or Ordinan~ ~tandard~.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for ~eneral
co~eroial u$~ wi~h den~it~ to b~ d~t~rained by ~¥elopment
~pDroximately ~80 feet on the north llne of Midlothian
Tnrnpike~ al~e fronting approximately 800 feet on the west
line of Koger Center Boulevard, and located in the northwest
~uadrant of the intersection af the~e roads. Tax ~ap 17-6 (1)
the Pla~ing Commission r~co~ended approval amd u~ceptance of
the ~ro~fered conditions.
Mr. ~ill Jchn~, re~res~n~n~ the applicant, ~tated the
reco~endation was acceptable. There wa~ no oppo=~t~on
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~. Daniel~ the Board
1.
The follewinq C-5 u~ee shall not be permitted:
Any permitted u~es in the I-1 District.
Auction males or salvage barns.
Buildinq material 6ale~ ya~d~, not including
concrete mixing.
Display houses er "shell" he~ses.
Farm implements and mauhinery sales, ~ervice, rental
Manufactured home, mobile home, modular home, travel
trailer sales, service, repair and rental.
~otels, ~otor eo~rts or tourist homes.
91-77~ tl/27/91
P%Tblic utility Service buildings, including
facilities for sonstruction or repair, er for the
eervic~ er stora~ of utillty materials or
equipment.
Tire recapping and Vulcanizing establishments.
Tru~k terminals.
Access to. Route 59 shall be limited to one
entrance/exit located towards the western property line.
The exact location of thio access shall be approved 'by
the Transportation Department. THis access shall be
designed and constructed to be shared with the adjacent
property to the west upon their redevelopment. Prior to
any ~ito plan approval, an access easement, acceptable to
the Transportation Department, ~hall b~ recorded.
Prior to the issuance of aa occupancy permit, additional
pavement shall be ccnetruc=ed along =he westbound lanes
sf Rout~ 60 to ~rc~ide a riq~t-t~r~ lane at the approve~
vote: unanimous
89SN0354 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial Dis~rict, ~I~GI~IA
requested r~zoning from Agricultural' (A) to Residential
(R-~§). R~gidential use of up ts ~.9 units per acre is
permitted in a Residential (R-15) District. The Conprehen~ive
Plan ~emignatem the property for residential use of ~.~ ~its
per acre or le~. Thi~ request lies on a 2~6.~ acre parcel
H~dTed Road, approxi~tely 3,700 feet northw~mt of
Road. Tax Map 24 (1) Parcel 31 (Sheets 5, ~ an~ 12).
the Planning Co~imsion had originally recc~ended denlal and
~. Phil Gardner, repr~m~nting the applicant, stated mtaff~m
reoo~endation wam ~oceptabI~.
property owaers in the neighborhood and thmy had r~a~d an
atmosphere of the n~ighborhoo~ and, therefore, w~ in
felt it couli be exempt Stem ~uturu ~evelopment standard
changes relating to watershed management in the future and
~ applicant ooul~ r=~ue~t =o have the public sewer
requirement lifted at ~ome point later in time.
Mr. Mayes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Applegate, to approve
Case 898N0354 subject =o the following conditions:
1. A fifty (50) foot buffer stri~, exc!u~iv~ of r~ired
yard~ an~ easements which do not run g=nerally
perpendicular ~rough the buffer, ~hall be established
and maintained adjacent t0 01d Hundred Road (Route 652}.
Further, this buffer ar~a ~hall ~xt~nd along the northern
on the map attac~d tO the "Request Analysis and
Recommendation" titled "staff's Reco~ended
~1-?79 11/~7/9t
area of this buffer strip shall either be left in its
adequate screening; or be planted aBd/ar harmed in
accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning
Department, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to
provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any
final site plan or recordation of any plat adjacen5 to
this buffer, the developer shall flag this buffer strip
for in~pection~ and shall post a bond tc cover the
implementation cf the landscape plan, if such plan is
required. 0nly aecess(e~) approved by the Tran~pn~tatisn
Department shall be permitted through this buffer strip.
This buffer shall be noted on any final site plans end
any final check and recordation plats. (~&T)
2. Fifty (50) foot buffer strips, exclusive of yard~ and
easements which do not run perpendicular through the
bailer, shall be established and maintained on both sides
of the east/west and north/south arteriuls mentioned in
Proffered condition ~. The area sf these huf~er
shall either be left in its natural state, if sufficient
vegetation exists to provide adequate screening; or be
planted and/or harmed in a=cordance with a landscape plan
approved by the Planning Department, if suffioient
vegetation doom ~ot ~×imt to provide adequate mcrmenlng.
Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation
of any plat adjacent to these buffers, the
shall flaq the~e buffer ~trips for inspestlon, and shall
post a bond to cover the implementation cf the landscape
plan, if such plan is required, only access(es) approved
by the Transportation Department shall be permitted
through th~a buffer ~trip~. These bnffe~ ~hatl be
noted on any f~nal site plans and any final =hack and
r~cordaticn plats. (P&T)
And, further, to accept the following proffered cond~tlons:
1+ At time of recordation of a subdivision plat for the lots
adjacan~ to Old ~undred Road, forty fiv~ (45) f~ of
right of way on the west sld~ of Old Hundred Road,
measured from tho oanterline of that part of Old ~undr~d
Road immedlately adja=ent to the property, shall be
dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit
of C~esterfield County.
2. In conjunction with recordation cf the first subdivision
plat, th= d=veloper sh~ll dedicate, free and
unrestricted, to and far the benefit of Chester£i~ld
county, an unrestricted ninety (90) foot wide right of
way for the propose~ east/west and north/south arterials
threuq~ the s~bjeet p~ope~ty. The location of these
arterials shall he approved by the Transportation
3. The developer s~all o0~str~ct u minimum two lane road
within the north/=outh and ~asn/wes~ arterial righ%s of
way through the subject property. A phasing plan for the
construction of these reads may he ~ubmihted to and
approved by the Transportation Department.
4. Ia addition to suhmisslon of road conntru=t~on plans to
the Engineering Department~ an additional set of
construction plan~ for the north/south and
arterials shall be submitted to and approved by tt~e
Transportation Department.
5. The ma~mum density Qf thi~ development shall not exceed
350 lots nf which no more than 132 lots shall be located
east of Line '~A'~ as defined on a plat prepared by Balzer
a~d Associates, Inc., titled "Plat showing 256.8~± acres
of land lying cn the west line of 01d Hundred Read,"
dated September 14, 1987, and the developer shall
responsible for the follnwing road improvements:
91-?SO 11/~7/91
Preparation of road construction plans fur the
reconstruction of that part of .01d Hundred Read
~o%crm~ned by the Transportation Department.
S~ch reconstruction shall include, among other
things, left and right turn lanes along Old
Hundred Road at the approved access, These
construction plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the TransporUatio~ Department.
B. Dedication of all right of way necessary
the rec0nstruo~ien of Old Hundred Road~ as
iOenti£iod in paragraph "A." such dedisation
~hall occur is son~unction with recordation of
~he first subdivision plat.
C. Reconst~u~tlon of that part of Old Muudred Read
adjacent to the s~bJect property to VDOT Urban
Minor Arterial Standard~ (50 MPH}, as
determined by the Trmnsportatlon D~part~e~t.
such reconstruction shall be in accordance with
the road construction plans which had
approved hy t~e Transportation Department in
accordance with Paragraph "A," and shall be
accompliahud in conjun=tlon with development of
the first ~ubdivisicn ~ootion that accesses Old
Mr. sullivan stated he felt the request represented leaf-frog
development, %he extension cf water an~ Mower was several
years away, and the applicant bad not p~offcred lurg~r lots
around the perimeter of the site transitioning tu the smaller
lets permitted by R-15 Zoning in the interior. He further
stated the proffered conditions limited the number of lots on
the eastern portion of the property line which would not
prevent t_he development c~ R-15 lots and due to road
conditions on Old Hundred Road~ from the site north to
60, could not sa£ely handle the increase in traffic. ~e noted
development of the site would generate approximately
school children an4 no conditions had b~en proffered for
school or park uae as he felt the appllcant had avoided tho
requirement to pay cash proffers by submitting the request
befor~ th~ County had the legal authority to accept them and,
therefore, did not support the request.
M~. Applegate stated Colonel Mayes' motion had referred to
five proffered ¢onditlons and clarified there ware six
proffered conditions including the additional
condition which would require the use e£ public water and
M~. Mayes amended hi~ motion, seconded by Mr. Appl~gat~, to
1. A fifty (50) foot buffer strip, exclusive of required
perpendicular through the buffer, shall he established
and ~a~ntm~n~d adjacent to eld Hundred ~cad (Route
Further, this buffer area shall extend along th= northern
and southern boundaries of the request site, as
on the map attached to the 'qReq~est Analysis and
R~commendation" titled '~staffls Reoemme~e~ ~u~ar." The
area of thio buffer strip shall ~ith~r he left in its
natural state, if suffisient vegetation exists to provlds
udequate screening; or be planted and/or bermed in
accordance wi~h ~ landscape plan approved by the Planning
Department, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to
provide adequate screening. Prior ts approval of any
final site plan or recordation of any plat adjacent to
this buffer~ the developer shall flag this buffer strip
for inspection, and shall poet a bond to cover the
implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is
required. Only access(es) approved by the Transpol-taticn
Department shall be permitted through this buffer strip.
This buffer shall be noted on any final site plans and
any final check and recordation plats. (P&T)
2. Fifty {50) foot buffer strips, exclusiwe sf yards and
easements which do ~ot r~ p~rpendicular through the
buffer, shall ba astabl{shed and maintained on both aidss
of the east/w~st and north/~outh arterials mentioned in
Proffered Condition 2. The area of these buffer strips
shall either be left in its natural state, if sufficient
vegetation exists to provide adequate screening; er be
planted and/or harmed in accordance with a landscape plan
approved by the Planning Department, if sufficient
vegetation does not exist ts provide adequate screening.
Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation
O£ any plat adjacent to theme buffers, the developer
~hall flag theee buffer strips for inspection, and shall
post a bond to cover the ~plsmentation of the landscape
plan, if such plan is required. Only access(es) approved
by the Transperta=ica Department shall be pel-~ittad
through these buffer strips. These buffers shall be
noted on any final ~ite plans and any final check and
recordation plats. (P&T]
And, further, to accept %he following proffered conditions:
1. At time of recordation of a subdivision plat for the lo~s
adjacent to Old ~undred Road, forty five (45) feet of
right sf way on the west side e~ old Mundred Road,
meaSXL~ed from the centerline of that part cf Old ~Luudred
Road immediately a~jaecnt to t~e prepe~y, s~all be
dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit
of Ches~orficl~ county.
In conjunction with recordation of the first snbdlvision
plat, the developer shall dedicate, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County, an unrestricted ninety (90) foot wide right of
way for the proposed east/west and north/~outh art~ials
through the subject property~ Tho location of the~e
arterials shall be approved by the Transportation
Department.
The developer shall construe% a minimum two lane roud
within the north/south end east/wcmt arterial rights of
way through thc subj~=t prop=try. A phasing plan for the
construction of these road~ may be ~ubmitted to and
approved by the Transportation Department.
4. ~n addition to submission of road construction plans to
the Engineering Department, an additional set of
aYt~ials shall be submitted to and ~pprov~d by the
5. T~C maximum density of thi~ ~evelol;ment shall net exceed
3~ lot~ of which no more than 13~ lot~ ~hall be located
cast of ~ine "A" as dsfined on a plat prepared by Balzer
and Associates, Inc.~ titled ~Plat ~howfng 256.$~± acres
o~ land lying on the west llne of Old ~undred Road,"
responsible for the following road i~p~ovement~:
A. Preparation of road construction plans fo= the
reconstruction cf that part sf Old Hundred Road
adjacent ts t~e subject property to VDOT Urban
~inor Arterial S~andards (§0 ~H), as
detel~ined by the Transportation Department.
91-782 ll/27/91
i I
things, left an4 right turn lanes along Old
construction plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Transportation Department.
Dedication of all right of way necessary for
the reconstruction of Old Hundred Road, as
identified in paragraph "A." ~uoh de4ieatien
shall occur in conjunction with recordation of
the first subdiv%sien plat.
Reconstruction of that part of Old Hundred Road
adjacent to th~ subject property to VDOT Urban
d~t~rmined by the Transportation Department.
Suc~h reconstruotlon shall be in accordance with
the road construction plan~ ~hieh had been
approved Dy the Transportation Department in
accordance with ~araqraph "A," and shall be
accomplished in conjunction with development of
the first subdivision section that accesses Old
Eundred Road.
6. Public water and ~ewer shall be used.
Mr. Daniel stated he concurred with Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Mayas called for the vote on the motion made
by him~
se¢o~Oe~ by ~r, Applegate, to approve cass 89SN0354 auhjeut to
the following conditions:
1. A fifty (50) foot buffer strip, exclusive of required
yar~s and easements which do no~ run generally
perpendicular through the buffer, shall be established
and maintained adjacent tn Old Eundred Road (Route
Further, this buffer area shall extend along th~ northern
and southern boundaries of the request site, as depi=ted
on the map attached to the "~equest Analy~is and
Recommendation" ~itled "Staff's Recom~ended B~ffer." The
area of thi~ bu££er strip shall either be left in its
natural state, if sufficient vegetation exists to provide
adequate screening; er be planted and/or harmed in
accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning
Department, if sufficient vegetation does not e~ist tO
provide adequate screening. P~ic~ to approval of any
final site plan or reoordatlon of any plat adjacent to
this buffer, the developer shall flag this buffer strip
for inspection, and shall pest a bond to cover the
~mplementatimn of the landscape plan, if sU=h plan is
required. Only access(es) approved hy the Transportation
Department shall be p~rmltt~d through this buffer strip.
This buffer shall he noted on any final site plans and
any final check and recordation plats.
1. Fifty (50] foot buffer ~trips, exclusive of yar~s and
easements wh~o~ do not run perpendicular through th~
buffer, shall be e~tablished and maintained on be~h sides
of the east/west and north/~euth arterials mentioned in
Proffered Condition 2. The area of these ~uffe~ ~trips
shall either be left in its natural state, if ~ufflcient
veg~tatlon exists to provide adaquat~ ~creening; or be
planted and/or harmed in accordance with a land,Gape plan
approved by the Planning Department, if sufficient
vegetation does not exist to provide md~quat$ ~creening.
Prior to approval o~ any final ~i~6 plan or recordation
of any plat adjacent to these buffers, the developer
shall ~!ag ~hese buffer strips for inspection, and shall
post a bond to cover th~ i~pl~menta%ion of the
plan, if such plan is resulted. 0nly access(es) a~roved
by the Transportation Department shall ~e permitted
91-783 11/~7/91
noted on any final slt~ plans and any final check and
,eeo,darien plats.
And, further, the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
At time of recordation of a subdivision plat for the lots
adjacent to Old Hundred Road, forty five (45) feet of
right o£ way on the west side of 01d Hundred Road,
moazu~ed from the cents, line of that part of old
Bead immediately adjacent to the property, shall be
dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit
of Chesterfield County.
2. In conjunction with recordation oS the £irs~ subdivision
plat, the developer shall dedicate, free and
unrestrlctedt to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County, an unrestricted ninety (90) foot wide right of
way for the proposed east/west and north/seuth arterials
through th~ subject property. The location of the~e
arterials shall be approved by the Transportation
Department.
3. The developer shall construct a minimu~ two lane road
within the north/south and east/west arterial rights of
way through the subject property. A phasing plan for the
construction of these ~ead~ may he submitted to and
approved by the Transportation Department.
4. In addition to =u~mission of road construe=ion plans %o
the Engineering Department, an additional set of
eonstr~letion plans for the north/south and east/west
arterials ~hall be submitte~ to and approved by the
Transportation Department.
5. Tke maximum density of this development shall not exceed
350 lots cf which no more than 1~2 lots shall be located
east of Line "A" as defined on a plat prepared by Balzer
and Associates, xno., titled "Plat showing 2~.~2~ acres
of land lying o~ the WeSt lihe of Old Hundred Road,"
dated September 14, 1987, and the developer shall be
responsible for the following road improvements:
A. Preparation cf road construction plans for the
reconstruction of that part of Old Hundred Road
adjacent to the subject property to VDOT Urban
Minor Arterial Standards (50 MPH)~ as
determined by the Tran~portatio~ Department,
Such reconstruction shall include, among other
things, left and right turn lanes a!~ng 01d
Hundred Road at the approved access. These
construction pla~s shall bo submitted ~o and
approved by the Transportation Department.
H. Dedication of all right of way necessary for
the reconstruction cf Old ~undred Road, as
identified in paragraph "A." Such dedication
~hall o~c~ in conjunction with recordation of
the fl,at subdivision plat.
C. Reconstruction of that part of old Hundred Road
adjacent to the $~bjoct property to VDDT Urban
Minor Arterial standards (5O MPH), as
determined by the Transportation Department.
Such reconstruction shall be in accordance with
approved b~ the Transportation Department in
aero,dance with Paragraph "A," and shall be
91-784 11/27/91
Nay~:
accompli.shed in conjunction with development cf
the first subdivision section that accesses old
~undred Road.
Public water and sewer shall be used.
Mr. Currin, Mr. Applegate an~ ~r. ~a~e~.
Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Daniel.
P~ING CO~ISSI~ requested r~sois~ion o~ a previously
~ranted conditional Use [case 71-9U) which p~it~ a ~a~
an Agricult~al (A) District. ~e density of ~uch ~mn~ent
will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
~tandard~. Th~ Comprehensive ~l~n ~esignates thm propar~y for
agricult~al/for~tal u~e, Yhis re~st lie~ on 186.73 acres
Road~ approxi~tely 3,500 feet south of Beach Road, also
fronting approximately 70 f~et on =he west line of
Roa~, approxima=ely 2,700 f~et ~o~th of Beach Road. Tax ~p
108 (~) Parcels 28 and ~ (sheet 28).
91SN0216 ~d 91PRO180
In Matoaca Magisterial Di~tri~t~ ~ ~x~
requested a Conditional U~ to permit access, parking,
~ccessory to q%arrylng operations, on 37..0 acres, plus Plan of
Opera=ion approval for a quar~ on an adjaoent 186.73 acre
tract which has a Conditional Uss to pe~it a ~arry (case
71-9U). ~ d~n$ity of suoh a~endment will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standard~. The
Plan desiqnates the property for agricult~al/forestal use
w~th density to be dete~ined by development
Th~ ~eque~t lies in an Agricultural (k} District on a total
of 22~.73 acres fronting approxima=ely 2,080 f~t on ~he south
line of Coalboro Road, at its inter~ectlon w~th B~a~ Road,
also fronting ap~roximately 420 f~t on the east line
Coal~ro Road and approximately 70 feet on the west line of
S~it Rued, ~outh of Beach Road. Tax Map 90 (1) Pa~t Of
Parcel 15 and Ta~ Map 10~ (1) Parcel~ 2~ and ~9 (Sheet
~. Poole ~tated these case= wer~ related and proceeded to
~re~ent a sugary of all three requests. ~e f~ther stated
and 91PR0180 althouqh staff had reco~ended approval of bot~
requests. ~e noted the ~lanning Co,lesion
~p~roval of Ca~e 91SN0289 to rescind conditional usa 71-9u.
~e suggested the p~llc hearings for eauh request shoRld
conditional Use
~. S~llivan stated he concurred with the applicant and
would be heard first.
~. Wayne Phears~ repres~ntlng the appllc~t, state~ when the
request had been heard ~ %he Planninq Cotillion, the
proponents of the Plann~n~ Co~ission'$ reco~endation
~. ~dward Willey, Jr. stated he felt ~ r~e~%s should
Nr. Sullivan s~ated he ~ould proceed ae s~ated with Case
915N02~9 being heard first.
Hr. Bob HasKins stated he was an adjacent property owner; that
~irdumstancen ~urrounding the initial permit had changed
drastically s~nce the quarry had opened in 1971; that due to
safety concerns, he felt the quarry should not be reopened;
that the request would generate increased, heavy, high ~peed
traffic in the area especially with the dunp trucks; that the
increase in traffic would make the road~ unusable to other
traffic; that the company would not be able to enforce the
owned by the company; that he felt the reopening of the quarry
would cause a reduction in tax revenue due to a drop in the
property values of the surrounding homes in the area; and
requested the Board to rescind the conditional use permit.
felt new ~evelopn~nt would be hindered ~f the ~uarry was
permitted to reopen.
)fr. Kerry Barber ~t~t~ he wa~ a resident of the County
although he did not reside ~n the area by the quarry; that he
was an engineer and had researched the impact of the proposed
a~tivitiem; and that based on information he had received f~om
an exper~ in the blasting field, he £el~ the blasting
operations would generate unsafe and uncontrolled conditions.
closest resi4ent to the quarry and lived closer than 900 feet
frem t~e ee~ter of the quarry.
MS. Janet Taylor stated her father operates a dump truck; that
aneording to the manual of operation for dump trucks, it would
take a new~ empty~ dump truck 300 f~et to come to a complete
stop once the brakes were applied; that ~t would take more
than 30 feet for reaction time of the d~iver which would be
total of 330 feet for a dump truck to co~e to a complete stop;
that ~he was extremely concerned about the safety risks
involved regarding the dump truoks and the residents,
especially the ohildren, in the area; and requested the Board
ts support th~ Planning Commission's recomme/~dation.
Mr. Currin excused himself from the meeting.
Ms. Karen Snead stated she was a life-long resident of the
County and a teacher in the County ~chool system; that she had
recently par=based land in the Winterpock area to build
future home; that she was extremely concerned about her future
~o~s ~egardi~g the numerous dump truck~ which would be u~ing
support the recommendation of the Planning
Mr. Currin returned to the meeting.
Ms. ~ina Mann mtated she was the closest resident to the
proposed entrance ~o t~e quarry; that she felt the company had
misled the resldent~ in their presentation regarding the use
of Coalboro Road; that she had previously been involved in an
accident with a d%Lmp truck and also felt there were.too many
traffic ~afety concerns regarding the request.
Mr. ~hears presented an extensive overview ef the ~equest and
stated the applicant had spent considerable time and money in
an effort to add~eee the traffic Cone=rna; that they had
agreed to reconstructing the roads in t~e area in order to
address the concerns relating to traffic; that he would like
the Company's letters which ha~ previously ~e~n aubmlUte~ to
the County Attorney and their r~marks made at the Plamning
Commission meeting to be incorporated into this public
hearing; and requested the Board not to rescind the
conditional use permit, etc.
Mr. Mayes inquired if Cbs representative for the applicant
oen~idere4 the area to be residential. Mr. Phears stated
felt the ares was rural residential or agricultural/
r~sidentlal.
Mr. Steve Barrill, representing tho chesterfield Business
Co~neil in his capacity as chairman, stated the Busines~
Co,oil was opposed to the rescission of the conditional use
permit and supported the Plan of Operutlon as well as the
conditional use. He requested ha bs permitted to speak
concerning Case~ 91SN~216~ 91PR0180 and 91SN0259 at this time.
Mr. sullivan stated he preferred F~r. Barrill address the
speak to the other cases at the appropriate time.
Mr. Bmrritl =tared th~ ~u~ines$ Oe~noil ha~ expressed concerns
~ega~ding matters affecting business affairs and opportunitie~
within the County; that they have tried to enhance business
affairs and promote businesses to locate in the County; that
in order to achieve the tax base, they felt business
opportunities should not be turned away without good
that the applicant was projecting $3.~ million in revenue, the
reql~est wo~ld not generate any additional services
wi~h residential development, and was willing to accommodate
the traffic eo~cerns by agreeing to th~ ~eoeseary road
improvements; that the quarry would provide a needed material
for construction and development; that the company was a
Fortune 500 oo~pany and the world's largemt private producer
of crumbed ston~; that the company had received varioum
awards; that the Business Council felt the County needed to
develop measures to a=commodate businesses locating in the
county or citizens would have to realize their taxes Wo~ld
need to increase in order to provide for the needed
~nd rm~ussted the Board to support the request, ~tc.
Mr. George Beadles stated he was opposed ts the request as he
felt s policy ~hould be developed which would delete
previously zoned requusts which had not been developed and
noted he felt F~r. Currin should not ve~e on the request, a~ he
had excused himself from the meeting, unless he could hear the
remarks submitted.
Mr. Currin state~ he was i~ t~e Board's conference room which
wa~ equipped with audio and virtual equipment.
Mr, Willey stated he was representing the Wiuterpock Cemmunit~
Association; ~ha~ ~hey wou~d be addressing the petitions ~nd
letters opposing th~ request; that he had hoped =he Board
would address the oonditionsl uss permit and then the
rescission; that they did ~ot agree with the Buslnes~
Council's remarks regarding bu~ine~se~ net being encouraged to
locate in the County; ~hat the winterpock Association
~upported business zoning requests in the are~ but did not
feel the area wa~ an appropriate location for an industry;
that the request was for a conditional use permit and since
the permit had been originally approved, the conditions have
changed; a~d ~equemted the Board to rescind the Conditional
uss permit. He suhmltted to the Board petition~ with
approximately 7~7 mignatures, approximately lOC letters and
noted the=e were approximately 50 people in attendance which
also supported the rescls~ion Of the oondltienal use permit.
Mr. Maye~ stated although the applicant had a right to the
highest and best use of his property, he felt the citizens
rights should also be protected an~ the area was an
established residential neighborhood in which the request
91-7S~ 11/27/91
would impact and be an intrusion on the residents quality of
life. He further stated the County would net lose the
company's projected income aa it did not yet exist, t-%at the
residents were already established and had an investment in
Daniel, tc approve Case 918N0289 for rescission of a
conditional use permit.
Mr. Apptegate stated he understood the concerns expressed by
all parties but felt, in principle, the dawn zoning of any
property, regardless of who owned the preperty, violated the
constitutional rights of property owners as i~ was ~he taking
of property without Just compensation and, therefore, did not
support the rescission of the conditional use permit.
Mr. Currin stated he concurred with Mr. Applegate's remarks
and felt the zoning was already in place and should not be
taken away from t~e property owner.
}~r. Sullivan stated he also felt the down zoning of property
violated the property owner's constitutional rights and,
use permit.
F~. Daniel stated ~e felt the request had been presented as
being based on economics; that he agreed with the County's
~oul of u 30/70 tax base and felt the applicant had not
proffered cundltiuns which addressed 211 the uoncerns.
further stated the projected wages and salaries were net
9uarantee~ %0 go ~o County residents; that the rand
improvements would not be needed if the company did not locate
at the s~te$ ~ha~ ~e area was agriculturally zoned and
conditional u~e permit wa~ a permit to use th~ land for a
specific use; that th~ applicant had allowed the Plan of
Operation to ex, ire an~ the change~ in ~he area raised
questions aD to whether the use would now be acceptable; and
that although he did not agree with the down zoning of
property, he felt the the property did not dictate zoning for
for the new Board and, therefore, would abstain on the
regueat.
Fi~. Keyes remtmted he felb the property owners have invested
in their tones and their rights should not be violated.
When asked, Mr. Nioa~ stated if the Board decided to grant the
zoning then i~ would mubstan%ielly complicate the ability of
the future Board or Planing Commission to alter the decision
and although the request ce~l~ be readdreased, there would
need to be significant changeE in
Mr. Sullivan called for th~ vote on the motion made by Mr.
Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dan~el~ to approve Case 91SN0289 for
re~ci~ion of a conditional use per. it.
Ayes: Mr.
Nayo: ~r. ~ullivan~ Mr. CUrrin and Mr. Applegate.
Abstention: ~r. Daniel.
On motion cf Mr. Applegate, ~econd~O by F~T+ Currln, the Board
d~nied the application of the Planning Co,mission fe~
91SN0~89 for rescls~ion of a ~onditienal u~ permit.
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin and Mr. ApDle~ate.
Abstention: Mr. Daniel and M~. Mayem.
91-788 11/27/91
Reoonvenlng: '
Mr. Peele presented a mu~ary of Camem 9~$~0~16 and 91PRO1~0
and stated t. he Planning Cummlesion recommended denial nf both
requests.
Mr. Sullivan stated comments already submitted relative to
Ca~o 918N0~89 weald be made a. part of the public hearing
re¢ordo
~r. Wayne Phoars, representing the applicant, presented an
extensive overview of the requests and reviewed the proposed
read improvements plan. ~e ~urther sta~ed the applicant had
attempted to addre~ the be~t possible plan for the future and
the repuest was for a low intsn~s use of the property, etc.
~e requested the Board to give favorable con~ideratio~ to the
M~. George Beadles stated although the staff report was
regarding the hours of operation and reviewing, the request
within a certain period of time, ets.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the Winterpock Community
A~ooietion, stated %he organization was opposed to the Plan
of Operation as well as the cunditienal use permit and
submitted to the Board an additional Si'petitions and letters
opposing the request. He further sta~ed due ~o the chamges in
the urea since th~ closing of the quarry, the operations were
incompatible with existing and anticipated area development
and should not be permitted to reopen mud, therefore,
~lan of Operation. He reviewed road improvements in other
jurisdictions re~arding quarry operations and stated he felt
the applicant had not submitted ad~quat~ road improvements as
compared to other jurisdiotions~ ets. He noted app~o×imately
8~5 persons had signed petitions and letters in opposition to
the re~uest~ as well as there being approximately 50 persons
in attendance.
5tr. Henry Moore, Acting President of the Winterpeck Community
A~ooiation, ~teted he felt the wildlife habitat would be
impacted by the request; that the taxes qenerato~ in ~he
County by rezidential and personal property outweighed these
which wou~d be generated ~y ~his request; that he had concerns
regarding t~e pit ~hen the quarry operation was ¢omplete~;
that he felt the wells in r~e area had been and woul~ be
affeoted by the request; that the va~idity of the permit
should be questioned as he had ~ound inoonsis=enoy in the
applicant's p~esentation when he had researched the request;
that he had concerns relative to earthquakes, etc. He noted
he felt the site in question would be a good lo~atien £o~ a
par~ with an ~mphltheater in which all residents of the County
would enjoy.
Es. Julie Leeder submitted a letter ~rom Mr. Kir~ ~OX
re~arding hi~ opposition to the proposed ~eqUest. ~he stated
~he had various concerns regarding the =raI~i¢ issues and
noted the applicant had proposed there would presently be
approximately 363 trucks per ~ay; after five years, there
would be approxlmately 451 trucks per day; and if the company
inoreased their workloa~ during this ti~e, there would be
approximately 541 truck~ p~r day. She clarified this would be
one truck every one minute and ten seconds, she fu~the~
stated the Co~pany'~ busiest time of year were ~he summer
months when the children were home from school; that the
91-789 11/27/91
re~/ues= WOUld generate other traffic such as fedencal ek~ress,
office supply delivery, vending delivery, maintenance
janitorial supplies, uniform companies, salespeople, and
employees, etc.; that the company does not own any of the dump
trucks or employ the drivers and, therefore, the applicant
Would not he liable in the event of an accident; that she felt
it wes inappropriate for the citizens to be put in the
position of monitoring the dump trucks when traveling the
roads, etc. She requested the Board to deny both requests.
Mr. Dwayne Garrett stated he was a resident of the County and
the parent of a small child; that due to the traffic concerns
associated with the request, if appr0ve~, he would not les1
comfortable in r~siding in his home; that he and som~ of
other neighbors had moved to the ~rca after the reck quarry
had closed and they were not aware there would be
possibility of the quarry reopening; that they have invested
money, time and effort in their properties and felt the quarry
would decrease the value of thei~ property and, therefore,
felt the request was not in the best interest of the area
residents.
Ms. Sandra Elliott stated she was an adjacent property o%naer;
that she was extremely concerned about the impact of the
traffic regarding the safety of the children in the area~ that
the request would impact her quality of life as she works at
~ig~t, ~eeds to sleep du~ing the day and would not be able to
do so with the projected number of truckm traveling the roads.
She requested the Board to deny both requests.
~. Janet Taylor stated she resides along th~ proposed hauling
route for the d~lmp trucks; that she had attended the Planning
Commission meetings and other meeting~ regardinq th~ request;
t~at ~he was not aware of any ~is=ussien pertaining to the
construction of e new access road from the site to Route 360;
that if the Board did not deny the requests, ~he would li~e to
see a new access road built; and requested the Board to
consider the heelth, safety and welfare of the citizens.
Mr. Bob Haskins stated if the project wam approved, it would
be there for a long period of time and felt the futura
remidential development of the area would be negatively
impacted am well.
~r. Pheara stated he fslt approval of the request would not
dimcouraqe development in the area; that the technical and
~nvircnmental aspects of tho Plan had been addressed; that the
applicant had agreed to the propcmed road improv~e~t~ a~ the
cost; and noted restrictions had been plaued em the blaetlng
hours, etc.
Mr. Mayas inquired as to the responsibility OS th~
if wells in the area were affected by the Conpsny'm digging,
th= mhifting of soil which could impact the foundations of
homes in the area when blast~ng smd the impae~ On th~ wildlife
in the area aS well. Mr. ~hears stated if a well were ts
~querisnce probl~ms caused by the cfuarry operation, the
applicant would dig another well but if the Company felt it
did not cause the problems, the owner could request
arbitration am outlined in the ~lan of Opera,ion. He further
stated ~/%e Company consistently monitored seismic readings at
points around th~ blasting site and when requested, would ds
pre-blast sur~eys in the ~urroundi~g area, etc. Be noted the
Company had wen the Conservationist of the Year Award by
attracting wildlife.
Mr. Applegate inquired us to the projection of 264 truck trips
per day and the number of t~c,k trips per ~ay as
d~hring the public comment. Mr. Phaars stated the projection
was the average number of ~rucks, coming and going, whiuh
91-790 11/27/91
woul~ equal 132 trip~ p~r day an~ the truck traffic would be
higher during the peak construction season which was May
through septembor.
Discussion, commont~ and que~=ises ensued relative to the
number of truck trips per. day during the construction season
and during the peak season.
~=. Currin inquired as to how long the quarry had been
inactive and what hud been done to the property during that
period of time. Mr. ~hears stated the quarry had been inactive
since 1977 and the site had been maintained under mining
permits, etc.
Dissussion, comments, and questions ensued as to the location
public water was net going to be used; the arbitration process
used i£ t-he residents in ~he area experienced problem~ wi~,h
exporlensin~; whether the pit woul~ be able to be used aea
reservoir in the future; the time limit of the previous
conditional use pormit; the future projection for ~oad
improvements in the area to handle an increase in t~affic;
When asked, Mr. Dexter williams, traffic consultant to the
applicant, stated it was projected the traffic voluble in ~l%e
area would be approximately 1~000 cars per day o~er the next
forty yearm and there wo~ld be a significant increase in the
volume of traffic only if tho rate of developmen= increased.
Ke noted the road improvements pro£feFed by the applicant
would accommodate the present traffic flew safely.
subdivision development to the area north and east of the
~ite; that th~ ~ite and other property within the watershed of
Lake Chesdin to the south and west was primarily zoned
agricultural; that staff had been working with citizens in the
area, as well as a eommittoo appointed by the Plannloq
Commission, to revise the plan; and that it was estimated the
plan would be submitted for ~oar~ censlderat~on next year. H~
noted there was significant land available between the nlte
and the more developed portions of =he County to accommodate
growth for a significant p~riod of time but the projection on
Mr. Mayas in~uired a~ ts the original operational starting
operation had ended. Fur. Phears stated the orlg~nal
operational starting date wes in 1972 and ended ih tho luttcr
part of the summer of 1977, the original ~lan of Operation had
expired in 1982 and operations ~ad ended due to lack of murket
demand.
op~ratlon had ende~ und the plant hsd closed.
built since the plant had closed should be the major
considers=ion when deciding the requests and t~ei~ quality of
lif~ and investment in ~heir homes was mere impor=an= t~an tee
therefore, he woul~ net support the request.
Nr. Applegmte e~ated he could support the reques~ for the
regarding the Plan of Opsratlen. ~e inquired as to where th~
responsibility would b~ i~ maintaining the roads once tlie
proposed improvements were made. ~ir. MeCrackon sta~ed staff
91-7~1 11/27/91
had consulted with the virginia Department of Transportation
in preparing ~h~ ~ec0mmenda%ion for the pr0pe~ed road
improvements. Mr. Applegate further stated he felt once the
dedicated to the State, it would be difficult to make repairs
to road, due to the heavy truck traffic, in a timely fashion
and was very concerned about the volume of truck tra~flc which
would be generated on a two lane road and, therefore, could
not support the Plan of Operation due to transportation
inadequacy.
Mr. Currin stated he would like to encourage economic growth
within the county But also had condoms regarding the proposed
road improvements and the volume of traffic. ~e further
stated he felt one ~ruck every one minute and cea seconds was
an unsafe condition on an improved two lane road.
Mr. McCracken stated there were no re~tri~tlon~ in the Plan of
Operation which would allow the County to regulate the volume
of traffic and the volume of traffic was ~npredlctebIe as the
rook frown the quarry would be ~hipped when needed a~ any given
time. He further stated he had reviewed the request from a
safety ~tundpoint und not from u capacity standpoint and felt
a wide road with shoulders was necessary in order for the road
to be safe.
/4~. Currin ~tated he al~e had co~eerns regarding the wells in
the area and the ~oaalbillty of t_he residents experiencing
difficulties. He further stated in the event of well
problems, the residents should be guaranteed some method of
prsposed in the Plan of Operation.
/dr. Sullivan stated he felt there were two issues dealing with
traffic condoms and inquired if the road would be safe ~ith
the proposed improvement~ and if funds had been proffered to
sufficiently cover the cost to aoquire the property if
necessary a~d if not, what options would be available. Mr.
~oCracken stated staff felt if t~e pavement was wide,ed and
shoulders installed~ the proposed road improvements would be
acceptable. He further s~ate~ the issue in reviswlnq the
request had been from the safety standpoint and staff did not
have detailed aDDraieal~ or plan~ available at ~i~ time to
detail right-of-way acquisition costs. He noted the Plan of
Operation provided for two options for road i~provement~ and
the first option provided no i~provements ether than what
could be accomplished wlth~n the existing right-of-wa~ b~ the
~eoond option would provide a possibility to acguire
additional right-of-way, widen the existing read and add
was to immure the road not only be widened but ~heulde~s
in.tailed as well and would feel uncomfor=able if the road was
only widened with no shoulders installed due to dtt~D truers
traveling the road.
~r. Sul!ivan stated he had an opportunity to visit the
company's plant operation in the county of Gooehla~d and had
~bserved a blasting operation and ~elt the operation in
general was very well controlled. He further stated he also
had conc~r~S regarding the traffic issues, etc.
~r. Daniel stated he was concerned with the health, safety and
welfare iss~e~ associated with the Plan cf Operation and felt
if the Plan of OperaPiun was to be den~ed, then the
oo~ditional use for the additional acreage was incon=equentlal
and, therefore, should also be denied and the applicant could
then resubmit a new plan and conditional use application. ~e
further stated he felt it would be difficult for a resident
located next to the quarry to sell their home and the request
would also impaot their quali~y of life; that the volume o~
traffic, especially the dump truck~ ~a~ excessive aD~ the
91-792 11/27/91
County had regeived approximately 727 letters and petition= in
oppnnft~en to the requent. H~ alno stated he would like to
have the request def~red to the new Board k~at was prepared to
Vote for denial based On health, safety and welfare isaacs.
He noted he did not feel the applioati0n would enhance the
overall neighborhood by'continued operation and the applicant
had allowed the permit to expire with no commitment for the
use of the site, etc.
Mr. Phears forested he be recognized to be permitted to
address the issue of wells in the area on behalf of the
applicon%. ~Lr, Sullivan stated the public hearing had b~n
closed but if one of the Board memb~r~ had e question~ he
would be permitted to answer ~t.
When a~k~d, Mr, ~hears ~tat~d the applicant was sensitive to
the water ~esue end would accept a condition which would
req~ir~ the company, if requested by the property owner, to
i~ediately drill a well if necessary and follow the
arbitration process later and they would also he w~ll~n~ ~o
participate in a water line extension but would need to
address the amount of ~oney involve~.
Mr. Sullivan sta~sd he had been advised the Beard ~eeded to
=he conditional use permit first and then the Plan of
Operation.
Mr. Mayes stated he hod also hoped to defer the requests for
the now Board to consider and felt although the county did not
went to discourage buzinesm opportunities and needed the tax
base, there were too many concerns reqarding the impact the
request would have On the wells in the area and r/~e increase
to defend their actions but a propor~y owner would have to
6btain a lawyer and felt it was inappropriate to place that
burden on the residents in t-he area; that ao~e of the pre~er=y
had not realized it could reopen; that the property owner~ had
in$o~ted in their home and were entitled to malnta~n the value
of their property and their quality of life; that the Cowry
was not losing taxes e= the request did mot yet exist and,
therefore, mado a motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to deny Case
When a~ked, Mr. Nisus stated if the conditional use permit wes
had additional property which would eventually have to be
cnneldered through e new plan of development but t~e applicant
would be required to wait one year before submitting another
plan of development.
Mr. Sullivan called for the Vote On the motion made by Mr,
conditional use Derni=.
Nays: Mr. sullivan, F~. Currin and Mr. Applegate
Abstention: Mr. Daniel as he felt the request should be
On motion of Mr. CartOn, ~oc0nded by F~r. Apptegate, the Board
approved Case 91SN0216 for a aonditi0~al ~$e permit.
Ayes: Mr. ~ulIivaR, Mr. Cur=in and Mr. Applegate.
Nays: Mr. Mayer.
Abstention: ~, Daniel as he felt the request should be
Mr. Mayes made a motion, ascended by Mr. Daniel, to deny Case
91~R~180 for the Plan of Operation.
91-793 11/27/91
Mr. Daniel stated he also had concerns regarding the hours of
proposed Saturday operations.
Mr. Applegate inquired if a new access road could have been
considered. ~ir. McCracken stated ths~e was discussion with a
representative of uno of the landowners regarding
participation in acquiring an access ro~d but the landowner
was not interested at that time.
Mr. Curtis stated he had toe many concerns regarding the road
conditions and felt the County could not impose any
restrictions to improve the roa~s.
Mr. Mecrasken stated staff had reviewed the options and felt
the road widening without shoulders would cause concern and
the applicant, in an attempt to add,ess this, had prof£ered to
widen the road~ and install ~houlder~ if ~ufficient
right-of-way could be acquired. When asked, he stated the
County's condemnation process woul~ probably have to be used
in order to obtain the necessary ~ight-of-way to address the
Mr. Sullivan called for the vote on the motion made by Mr.
Mayes, SeConded by Mr. Daniel, to deny Cuss 91PR0180 for the
Plan cf Operation.
Vote~ Unanimous
It wa~ generally agreed to recess for five minutes.
In ~atoaca Magisterial District, R. F. ~NSON requested
rezo~ing from Agricultural (A) to Neighborhood Business (C-2].
The density of such amendment will bm controlled by zoning
conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property for residential use of 1.50 units per
acre or less. This request lies on ~.$ acre~ £ronfi~g
apprcxlmately 200 feet an the south llne of ~ull Street Road,
approximately 1,~6 f~t ~a~t of DO~ Road. Tax ~ap 73 (1)
Part of Parcel 26 (Sheet
Mr. Jacobsen pre,eared a ~u~mary of case 915~Q251 and stated
staff recommended denial of the request because it ~id not
conform tc the Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan, staff felt the d~velopment cf =he area
should coeur with the provision of development so,vices
as public water and sewer and a post office would bett~ be
located in an area designated for ~eighborhood s~rvice~ and
the ~lanning Commission recommended approval ao~ acceptance
the proffered conditions. ~e noted there had been m proffered
condition ~bmitte~ which would restrict the use t~ a post
office and the applicant had submitted a petition with
approximately 92 signatures in support uf the
had ~et with and received support from neighbors in the area,
post office officials, the Planning commission and other
fat=rested parties involved; that although the request did not
conform to the land use plan for that area, they felt the post
office was a necessary rural use and would h~ the only
that =hey had reviewed orlaer sites ~nd felt this was a good
location for the post office and po~t office officials desired
91-794 11/27/91
the Board to give favorable con~idaratie~ to the request and
post office. There was no opposition present.
Mr, }{~yen inquired a~ tO who would provide the funds to build
the post cfflce~ what area would be served, whether it had the
approval of post office o£ficial~ ~nd would be the building be
used for anything eth~r a p0~t office. Mr, Seherzer stated
the appllsant would build and lease the pest office, the
majority of the service area was in Chesterfield County and e
small portion o~ the service area was in Powhatan and Amelia
Counties, the request ha~ the approval of po~t office
o£fisials and the building would be used only for a post
office.
After brief discussion, On ~otion Of Mr. Mayes, seconded by
Mr. Apple~ate, the Board approve~ Case 915N025I a~d accepted
the followin~ proffered conditions:
1. Prior to ~ite plan approval, one hundred (10O) feet of
right of way on the south side of Route ]S0 measured from
the. centerline of that part of Routs ~60 i~ediately
adjacent to the property ~hall be dedicated free and
unrestricted to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County.
2. Prior to the i~uance ef an occupancy permit, an
additional lane of pavement (i.e., third through lane)
shall be oonstr~eted alung the eastbound ~anes of Route
a6O for the entire prepe~y frontage ~o provide a right
Prior to ~ite plan approval, an access plan for the
subject property and parent parcel (Tax Map 73 (1) Parcel
26) shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department.
4. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the
fol~owlng ~hall b~ accomplished for fire protection=
A. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay
to the Co~hty $150 per 1,~00 square feet of
gross floor area adjuste~ upwar~ or dewnwar~ by
the same percentage that the ~arshall Swift
Building Co~t Index increase~ or decreased
between June 30, 1991, and the date of palrment.
With the approval of =h~ ¢ounty'~ Fire Chief,
the o~er, deV~luper or assignee(s] shall
receive a credit toward tho required payment
for the cost of uny fire ~uppressiO~ syste~ ~Qt
eth~wi~8 ~sqeired by law which is included as
u putt of the development.
OR
B. The owner, developer or assignee(s] shall
provide a f~re suppression system not otherwise
required b~ l~w which the County's Fire Chte£
determines substantially reduces the need for
County facilities otherwise neGessary ~or fire
5. Usus permitted shull be restricted to a post off,ce.
Vote: Unanimous
91-79~ 11/27/91
requested rezoning free% Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9).
Residential use of up to 4.84 units per acre is permitted in a
Residential (R-9) District. The Comprehensive Plan designates
the property for residential use of i. S1 to 7.00 units per
acre. This request lies an 10.6 acres frontinq approximately
950 feet ~0rth of Willowbre~¢h Drive, also lying at the
western terminus of Wintsrleaf Drive. Tax Map 66-9 (1)
Parcels 26 and 27 (~heet 22).
the ~lannin~ eemmieeion and staff toast, mended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. Ee noted the
applicant had submitted a cash proffer and bad proffered to
pay the cash proffer earlier than required, however, it would
Y~r. Oliver Rudy, reDresentlnq the applicant, stated the
rec~aest. He noted ~hey had su~mltts~ the cash proffer as they
felt it would be a benefit to the County and requested the
Board to support the Planning Commissian's and staff's
more sensitive to the concerns e~pre~s~d by the citizens at
their ~ubli¢ h~aring an~ requested the Board to be mare
Ms. ~arkeeta Wayte~, repres~ntlng neighbors in the Willowhuret
Subdivision, stated they had attended the Planning Commission
meeting ~s they would be impacted by the Rroposed request;
but felt twenty-five homes were too many amd the let sizes
would nut be comparable to the lot sizes in the area; that the
the traffic flaw; and that ~he neighborhood e~psrienae flood
would ad~ to that ~rablem, etc. She submitted a petition from
the neighbors in oppositian to the request.
in the area which hacked up to the proposed request; that
floodiDg was a problem in the area as his property consisted
of at least one acre which was net usable; that he felt due to
t/%e flooding problems only 6 of the proposed 10.6 acrPs could
of the 9ro~arty but felt twenty-five homes was excessive, etc.
years; that they were Dot opposed to ~he development of the
~roperty but felt the proposed numar of home~ was too high
and the request wo~ld generate an increase in the traffic,
etc. He submitted to the Beard a petition from surrounding
property owners in opposition to the request.
F~-. Ruby stated the request would generate twenty-three lots;
be speculated regarding the flos~ing problems; that the
existing or antlcipat~d, th~ r~q~est would comply with the
Chesapeake Bay Ordinance and t~he applicant had met the
Mr. Daniel stated he had met with representatives of the
neighborhood ko provide an opportunity for them to express
their concerns, he 'had contacted Mr. Rudy and had requested
him to submit a layout drawing ef the request and had reueived
u copy of it, as he felt the concerns of the area residents
were related to the traffic being genera=ed on wintarleaf
Drive instead of Route 10 and the proposed nu~er of lots. He
further stated hs felt a oom~ro~i~m could be reached between
the parties and felt a deferral would provide an opportunity
On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by M~. Mayes~ the Beard
deferred Case 91SN026~ until January 22, 1992 in order for the
Supervisor to meet with the parties involved.
Vote: Unanimous
91S~0271
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ~OB~RT CO~ requested
rezoning from ~elghhorhood Business (C-2] and Residential-
Tnwmhouse (R-TH) ts Community Business (C-3). ~e density of
such amendment will ~e controlled by zonin~ conditions or
Ordinanoe ~andard~. Th~ comprehensive Plan desi~a=e~ the
property for co--unity mixed use and mi~ad use =orrldor. This
re,est lies on 23.3 acres fronting approximately ~,330 feet
on %he n~r~h lin~ of Hull ~treet aced, across from winterpock
Read, Taz Map 75-2 (1) Pa~cels 7, 11, ~3, 28 and Part of
Parcels 8 and 9 (sheet
~e Pla~ing Co~ission and ~taff recommended approval and
additional proffered conditions had been ~ubmltted addressing
~ rmlat~on~h~D w~th ~n existing trac~ of land included
within ~e zoning reque=t.
~. Oliver Rudy, r~pr~D%iBg th~ applicant, ~tated
reco~ndatlon was acceptable and re~e~ted the Board to
support the reco~endation of the Planning Co~i~sion and
staff.
the Planning Co~ission, it had been datermlned a
individual h~d recently re, ired title to past of th= property
an~ the amended zoning disclosure mtatemen~ had mo% be~n filed
a~d~ therefore~ he felt t~e cas= ~hould be sent back to the
Planning co~ission, etc.
~. ~udy eta=ed ~e aDplioan= was no= aware of th~ status of
the title until prior to ~e request ~ing heard by the
Planning CO~i~sio~ and ~he zoning dlsclo~ure ~=atement had
been amended to reflect the change and, therefore, felt it
a technicality and no= an i~ue rela~ed ~o ~ zoning matter.
~en aske~, ~. ~ica~ ~ta~ed ~he request before t~e Boa~d was
appropriate and could be
original ~oning of the property; the additional proffered
relationship of the two parcels; whether the closing oS th~
crossover would have an impa0~ on other properties in t~e
91-797 11/27/91
~r. Currln, after conferring with the County Attcrney~
di~lo~e~ ~s ~he ~oard ~ha% he ha~ been negotiating wi~h an
individual who has a contract on some property in this area
and since he had not seen the contract at this point in time
and was unsure as to the particular site, declared a Rotential
conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Asr, and excused himself from the
meeting.
on motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved Case 91eNO271 and acca~ted the following proffered
Conditions:
1. Buildings shall hav~ ~rchit~ctural styles and incorporate
materials that ars similar and complimentary to the
adjacent towr~ouse project. Franchise-type outparcels
Bhall oonf0~m to the a~chitoctural styles
predominate in the develol~ment, kr~hitectural
shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with site
plan review.
The maximum density of this development shall be
a~roved by the TransDortatlon Department.
Prior to site plan approval, one hundred (i00) feet
right of way on the north side of Route 360, measured
from the centerlime cf that part ef Route 360 immediately
adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and
umrestr~sted, to and for the benefit of ChesLerfield
County.
4. Access to Route 360 shall ~e limited to three
exits, one access shall align the existing srossover that
serves Winterpock Road; the second access shall align the
line; and the third access shall be located h~tween the
other two approved accesses and shall be limited to right
turn~ in and right tuzn~ out. The exact location of
these accesses ~hall be approved by the Transpo1~tation
5. To provide for an adequate roadway system at t_he time of
~he complete development of the proposed project, the
developer shall be re~ponsible for the following:
A. Construction of additional pavement along the
westbound lanes of Route ~60 for the entire
frontage to provide an addltlonal lane (third
through lane) plus a separate right turn lan~ at
each approved access.
B. Construction of additional payment along the
eastbound lanes of Route 360 to provide ~dequate
left turn lanes at the Winterp0c~ Road erOsSoYer and
the crossover located towards the w~stern property
line.
Closing the existing crossover west of the
Winterpo~k Roa~ intersection.
D. One-half the cost cf a ~ra£fis signal a~ the
Winterpo0k Road/site ro~d/Route 360 intersection, if
warranted, as determined by the Transportation
Department.
E. Full cost of a traffic slgnal at th~ w~terD~o~t
assess, if warranted, as determined by the
Tranaportation Department.
91-798 11/27/91
Dedication to the County of Ch~sh~rfi~ld, ~ree and
unrestricted, any additional right cf way (or
casement) required £cr the improvements identlfie4
Pedestrian and vehicular access shall he provided to the
adjacent towI~house p~eje¢% (Tax ~ap 7~-2 (1) Parcels
and 9). At the time of the schematic plan or first site
plan review, an overall access plan depicting this
requirement shall he ~ub~itted to, sad approved by, the
Transportation and Planning Departments.
Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan for
required road improvements, shall be submitted to a'nd
Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the
£0110wi~g shall be accomplished for fire protection:
A. For building peri, its obtained cs or before June 30,
1991, the owner/developer shall pay to the County
$1~0.00 par 100O squar~ feet of gross ~loor a~ea.
If the building permit ie obtained a£te~ June 30,
1991 the amount of required payment shall he
adjusted upw~d or downward by the same percentage
that the ~arshall swift Building Cost Index
increased or decreased between June $0, 1991 a~d the
date of payment. With the approval of the
Fire Chief, the owner/developer shall receive a
credi~ towsrd the required payment for the cost of
any fire suppression system nut otherwise required
by law which is included as a part of
development.
Th~ cwner/d~v~loper shall provide a Sire suppression
~yetem not OtherWise r~quired by law which the
Ccunty*s Fire Chief determines substantially reduces
th~ need for County facilities otherwise for the
protection.
All silt basins and plte shall be ~ized twenty-five (2~)
~e~eent la~ge~ tba~ the ~inimum storage volume required
by the state Erosion and Sediment Control Manual.
10. within ten (10) days of a request by th~ Owner Of Parcel
~R on Tax Map 7M-~ (1), the Owner of Parcels 7, 1I, 13
and part of Parcel~ 8 and 9 on Tax MaD 75--2 (1) shall
grant the Owner cf Parcel 28 on Tax Map 7~-2 (1) t. he
following easements:
A. An acces~ easement to Route 36Q;
B. A sewer easement to the existing County sewer linc;
A drainage easement to detention pond~ located on
Parcels 7, 11, 13 and Dart of Parcels $ and 9 sn Tax
Map 75-2 (1).
The exact locution cf such e~sements shall be determined
through schematic or site plan review.
11. Of the 160,~00 ~aare feet of improvements or e~uivalent
dens~tles permltt~d by Proffered Condition z, Parcel ~s
on Tax Map 75-2 (1) shall be entitled to 3,500 square
feet or equivalent densities as approved by the
Transportation Department.
Ayes: ~. Sullivan, Nr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. May~m.
Absent: Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Currln returned to the meeting.
91-799 11/~7/91
Nr. Sullivan stated the Board would adjourn until December t0,
Mr. Daniel stated the new Board members would be attending a
meeting at the same time and he had already committed to
attend that meeting.
F~r, Currin inquired if the 5wo meetings could be combined.
Mr. Sullivan stated the new Board was welcome to attend and
would be invited to the work session.
soheduled fo~ Decembe~ 10, 1991, M~, Sullivan stated the Nor~
session had been scheduled to discuss zoning requests which
would be heard ut th~ Board's regularly ~cheduied meeting on
Deee~eN 11, 1991.
session on zoning and individual Board members could address
Mr, Sullivan stated at least three Board members felt a work
~e~ion wa~ necessary in order to di~auss th~ upcoming zoning
requests and felt it would be beneficial and in the best
M_r. Currin stated he felt the work session was not
inappropriate but rather a needed function in order to obtain
requests.
Afte~ b~ief discussion, on motion of Mr. Ceftin, seconded by
Mr. Sullivan, the Board adjourned at 6:45 D-m. until December
19, ~991 at 6:30 p.m. to hold a work semsion on zoning
requests ~cheduled to be ~ea~d at %~e Board's ~eg~la~ly
scheduled meeting on December 11, 1991.
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Nayes.
Nays: Mr. Daniel.
County Administrator
91-SO0 11/Z7/91