12-11-91 MinutesBOARD OF SL~ERVI,~OR.~
~upervi~ors in Attendance:
}ir. M. B. Sullivan, Chairman
County Admi~istrator
Mr. Richard Cordle,
Asst. to CO. Ad, in.
~. Joan S. Delezal,
Clerk to the Board
chief Rebert L. Eanes, Jr.,
Fire Department
}ir. ~rad£urd $. Kammer,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Dir., General Services
Mr. Thcma~ E. Jacobsen,
Dir., Plan~ing
~$~ F~ry Leu Lyle,
]ir. R. John McCracken,
Pit., Transportation
/4r. Richard M. Me, irish,
Dir., Env. En~ineePinq
~r. Stevcn L. Hicas,
CoUnty Attorney
~ra. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir,, New~ & Public
Infor~ien Services
Mr. William D. Peele,
Chi~£, Dev. Review,
Planning
Hr. Richard F. 8ale,
Deputy Co. Admln.,
communi=y Development
Mr. Jane~ J. L. Stegmai~r,
Dir., Budget & Management
Mr. ~. D. $tith, Jr., Dir.,
Nr. David H, Welchcna,
Hr. Sullivan called the regularly scheduled meeting to order
at 9:10 a.m. (~ST).
sullivan i~D~o~oed Reverend Tim Roac~h~
Brandermill Church, who guve the invocation.
Pa~tor of
2. pI.RD~E OF ATX.RG~C~TO~I~AG OF TH~ ~ATE~ OF
~. Ramsay led th~ Pl~dg~ of Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of ~erloa.
91-805 12/11/91
On motion of Mr. Cnrrin, ~ecended by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the mlnu~es of ~ove~ber 27, 1991, as submitted.
vote: unanimous
6. R~Q~TS TO~O~PON~A~TIOW, ~NCYADDTTTONS OR
On motion of ~. A~Dtegate, seconded by ~. Curr~n, ~e Board
adde~ It~ ll.J., R~vi~ion~ to Resolution of Sale and
Refunding TT~St Agre~ent for December 8, 1991 to follow Item
6., Requests to ~ostpone Action, Emergency A4ditions ur
changes in ~e Order of Presentation; added Item
Change Order to Viking gnter~rlse, Inc. for Addition and
Renovation to Bon Ai~ Library; added ~e~ests f~om t~e SOU~
aic~ond Rota~ club ~or bingo/raS~le pe~i=s for oalendar
year 1991 and 199~ to exi~tinq Item ~.D.~., R~que~t for
for Ac~isition of ~quipment for Laptop Computer to Serve
2.1-344(a) (Z), C~e of Virginia, 1980, a~ amended, to Di~cumm
A~isitlon of Real Property for a ~ublic Park and moved
amended It~ ll.G. to follow I~em 9.A.~ P~lic Bearing
Conmider an ordinance to Vacate a Sixty Foo~ Righ=-of-Way
Kno~ as York ~treet Within Homes Ad=es SUbdivision; and
Vote: Unanimoum
A~FOR DIgC~ S, 1991
F~r. Ham~er stated revisions ~O ~he Resolution and Befundin9
T~St Agreement for December 8, 1991 would reconfirm and
approv~ the Resolution of sale and %he Refunding Trust
Agreement for the General Obligation Public Improvement and
Refunding Bonds, seriee of 1991. He noted the effective true
interest cost rate was 5.99 percent.
On motion of the B6ard, th~ R~fuRding Trust A~reement
A RESOL~ION A~HO~ZING ~D PROVIDING FOR THE ISSU~CE, SALE
~D DELIV~Y OF ~ IBSU~ 0F NOT TO EXCEED PIFTY-FIVE
DOL~S ($55~000,000) PRINCIPAL ~O~T OF G~E~ OBLIGATION
P~LIC I~R0~NT REF~DING BONDS, SERIES O~ 1991, OF
CO~Y OF CHESTE~IELD, VIRGINIA, FOR THE P~OSE OF
IN ADVICE OF THEIR STkTED ~ITIE$ A PORTION OF THE
COPY'S GENE~L OBLIGATION P~LIC IMPROV~NT BONDS~ SERIES
0F 1985, ~D A PORTION 0F THE CO~TY'$ GEN~ OBLIGATION
P~LIC ~PROV~ENT BOND~, SERIES OF ~986; PROVIDING FOR THE
S~E OF SU~ BONDS ~GET~ WIT~ ~IRTY MILLION FIVE ~D~D
THOUS~D DO~S ($30~5~0~008} PRINCIP~ ~O~ OF GENE~
OBLIGATION ~UBLIC I~OV~ENT BONDS OF $U~ CO~Y
A~HORIE~ AS A CO~INED ISSUE DESIGKATED "CO~TY OF
~ST~FI~D, ~GINIA, G~N~ QBLIGATIO~ P~LIC I~RO~NT
~D HEF~DING BONDS, SERIES OF 1991" IN ~ A~G~GATE ~O~T
NOT ~ ~CZ~n EIG~Y-FIVE ~I~ION F~VE H~DRED ~OU~D
DOL~S ($85,500,~50); ~ROVIDING ~R T~R S~E OF SU~
~PPROVING THE FO~ OF SU~ ~ONDS~ ~TIFYING ~D ~PROVING THE
FO~ OF A P~LIMIN~Y OFFICI~ STAT~ ~D ~ OFFICI~
STATIST ~D A S~Y NOTICE dP S~R, A DETAILED N~ICE 0F
S~E ~D ~ OPFICI~ ~ROPOg~ PO~ RE~TING TO SUCH BONDS ~D
~E DISTRIBUTION TH~OF; A~PROVING THE F0~ ~D THE
CONDITIONS ~ PROVISIONS OF A RE~DING TRUST AGRE~NT,
DATED AS OF DEC~ER 10, 199l, ~Y ~D BE~E~ SU~ ~O~TY
91-806 12/11/91
C~ETAR BANK, AS ESCROW AGENT, ~ AUThOrIZING TN~ EXECUTION
AND DELIVEEY OF SUCH REFUNDING TRUST AGREEMENT TO SUC~ ESCROW
AGENT; DE$1C~ATi~ AND C~VINC IRREVOCABLE INSTRUCTIONS ~R T~
~D~TION O~ J~Y 15~ 1996 OF ~UC~ CO~TY'S ~IRTY-TWO
HI'ION EIGHT ~DR~D THO~S~D DO~S ($~2,800,000) PRINCIP~
~O~T OF GENE~L OBLIGATION ~BLIC I~RG~NT BO~S, SERIES
OF 1~85, DATED DEC~ 15, 1985 ~D ~T~ING 0~ J~Y 1~
~ OF THE Y~ 1997 TO 2006~ BOT~ INCLUSIVEr ~D FOR
R~TION O~ ~Y 1~, 1996 OF SU~ CO~TY~S FIFTEEN MINION
S~EN ~RED EIGHTY ~OUS~D DOL~S ($15,780,000)
OF 19~6, DATED ~LY 15, 19B6 ~D ~T~ING ON ~Y 15 IN ~C~
OF ~E Y~S 1997 TO 2006~ BOTH INCLUSI~ ~TIFYING C~TAIN
A~S ~ PROCEEDINGS; ~D OTKERWI~E PROVIDTW~ FOR ~E
OF SU~ BONDS
BE IT ~SOL~D BY T~E BO~ OF SUP~VISORS OF THE
CO~TY OF CHESTERFIELD,
SECTION 1. Findin=s and ~erminati~ns.
~rmuun% %o Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the C~e of Virginia,
19~0, as then in e~feot, ~lections duly calle~ and hel~ in the
County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"], on Mercier
3, 1981, June 1~, 1984 and November 5, 1985 a~d O~de~s of the
Circuit CoUrt of the County dated Dec--mr 30, 1981,
2, 1984 aRd Dace~ber 17, 1985, and purmuant to re~ol~tions
adopted by thim Board on December 11, 1985 and December 18,
1985~ rempectlvely~ ~mre were au~mrized to be issued, sold
and delivered the Co~nty'~ $62,300,000 principal amo~t of
General Obllga=ion Public I~prov~e~t Bo~d~, S~ries of 1985~
date~ Dece~r 1~, 19~5 (th= "Seri~ of I9~ ~onds").
Ih) Pursuant to Chapter ~ of Title 1~.1 o~ ~h~ Code
of Virginia, 1950, as ~hen in effect, an election duly called
and held in the County on November 5, 19S5 and an order of ~e
circuit court of ~ Co~ty dated Deco,er 17, 198~, and
p~r~uant to a re~ulution adoptmd by this Board on July 23,
1986, there were a~thorized to be issued, sold and delivered
ObligatiO~ P~blic Improvement Bonds, Series of 1986, dated
(c) Pursuant to ~ticle 5 o~ the Public Finance
of 1991 (section~ 15.1- 227.44 ~rough 15.1-~7.~1, DQ~
inclusive, of the Co~e of Virginia, 1950), ~e County
authorized to i~zue ~efunding bonds, =ubject to =he approval
of the state Co,ell on Looal Debt, to ref~d any o~ all of
it~ bo~d~ in advance of ~eir stat~
(d) On November 20, 1991, the State Co,oil
Local Debt~ in acccrdan~ wi~h ~he provision~ of
15-~-~7.46 of th~ Code of Virginia, 1~0, ados=ed a
remolut~on approvin~ ~he issuance by the co~ty of an issue of
refunding bonds in a principal amount no= =o
$55,000,000 to. refund in advance of ~ei~ stated ~turities
the ~er~e~ of ~98~ ~onds maturing in =~e ~rinui~al amount of
$3~]80~00u on January 15 in each of the y~ars 199g to
both inclusive(~e "me~dad 1955 Bon~"}, anS.=he series
1986 Bond~ ~tu~in~ i~ the principal amount of $1,580,00~ on
July 15 in each of the years 19~7 to 2005, both inclusive, and
in the principal amount of $1,S60,000 On July 15 in the year
200~.
(a} This Board d~ms it advisable and in the best
interest of the County tO authorize and provide fo~ the
i~a~0e, ~al~ a~d delivery pursuant to such Artlcle S of the
Public Finance Aot Of 1991 of an issue Of General
Publiu Im~rovemen~ Refunding Bonds, S~ri~ Of 1991, for the
purpose of ref~dlng in advanca of ~h~ir stated ~%urities the
County'~ Series of 1985 Bond~ mat~i~g on January 15 in each
Of ~ years 1997 to 2006, both inclusive, which serie~ of
91-807 1~/11/91
1985 Bonds are outstanding on Tlle data of adoption of this
resolution in the principal amount of $3~,R00,~88 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Refunded 1985 Bonds"), and the County's
Seri~ of 19~6 Bond~ maturing on J~ly ~ in each of the year~
1997 to 2o06, both inclusive, which Series of 1986 Bonds are
outstanding on the data of adoption of this resolution in the
principal amount of $15,788ro0~ (hereinafter referred to as
the "Re£~ded 195~ Bonds").
(f) Pursuant to resolutions adopted by this Board
On october 11, 1989, November ~, 1~90 and February ~7, 1991,
this Board Bas ~r~tofore authorized the issuance of General
Obligation Public Improvement Bonds authorize~ for issuance at
a referendum held in the County on November 8, 1988 and dsem~
it advisable an4 in the best interest of the County to pro¥ido
at this t~e for the insuance, ~ale a~d delivery of
$30,500,000 principal amount of the General Obligation Public
Improvement BOnds ~o authorized.
SECTION 2. Authorization of General Obligation
~ubllc Improvement and Refun~in~ ~onds. for the purpose of
refundinq in advance of their stated maturities the Refunded
authorized to be i~u~d, ~old and delivered an issue of
general obligation refunding b~nds of the County in a
principal amount not exceeding $~§,000,000 to be designated
and known as "G~neral Obllgat~an Public I~prov~n: Refll~ding
Bend~, Series Of 1991" (he~einafter referred to as the "1991
Refunding Bonds"}.
The 1991 Refunding Bon~s s~all be iseu~d~ sold and
delivered as provided in ~ection ], together with $$0,500,000
principal amount of G~neral obligation Pnhli~ Improvement
Bonds of th~ County authorized for issuance at the referendum
hold in the County on Nnvember 8, 1988 and pursuant to
re~olutien~ adopted by this Board sn Dc=char 11, 1989,
Nov~Tosr 28, 1990 and February ]?~ 1991 (the "Authorizing
Resolutions"), as part of an issue of general obligation bonds
of the county in an aggregate amount not to exceed $85,500,000
to be designated and known as *'county of chesterfield,
Virginia~ General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding
Bon~$, ~eries of 1991~ (hereina£=er re£e=red to as the
"Bonds").
SECTION 3.' APProval of the ~ke~.alls__andi. Sale of tho
Bonds. The details of the ~onds as met forth in ~h~ Detailed
Notice of Sale of the County, dated November 22, 1991,
relating to the Bonds (the *'Data,lsd Notice of Sale"), are
hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
The Bonds ~hall be dated November 1~, 1991; shall be
numbered from NO. R-1 upwards in order of issu&noe~ shall be
issued in fully registered for~ ~n t~e denomination of $~,000
each er any integral multiple thereof; and shall matte on
July 15 in each of the years and in the amounts set forth
Delow, with ~he Bonds maturing in each of the years specified
below bearing interest payable on ~uly ~§, 199~ and
s~miannually on ea=h January 15 and July 15 thereafter,
Year of Year of
Maturity Principal Maturity Principal
_[~ulv.l§) Amount* ($ulv 15% Amount*
1993 1,935,000 ~00~
1994 1,955,000 200~ 6,3S5,000
1995 1,988,000 900~
1996 ~,36~,000 2006 2,845,000
1997 6~898~000 2007 1,525,000
1998 6,S1§,000 2008
*Preliminary, subject to change as provided in the Detailed
~otioe of Sale.
The ¢0unty ~ministrato~ is hereby authorized to
eonfir~ the final principal amounts of tho Bonds as pro¥ided
in the Detailed Notice of Sale and to approve the rates oX
i~torest to bo borne by the Bo~ds, provided that the true or
Canadian intsrea~ cost determins~ in accordance with
Detailed Notice of Sale shall not exceed seven percent (7%).
Anything in the Authorising ~esolutions to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Bonds nay be sold at the prices specified
in the Detailed Notice of Sale. It is contemplated by this
Board that this resolution shall be f~ll a~d complete
authority for the ~ssuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and
that no further action by this Board shall be required in
oo~nection with such iss~anc¢, sale and delivery.
The Bond~ shall De issued only in fully registered
form without coupons. One Bond representing each maturity
will be issued to and registered in the name of cede & ce., az
nominee of The Depository Trust Company, ~ew York, ~ew York
("DTC"), as registered owner of the Bonds and each such Bond
shall be immobilized in the custody of DTC. DTC will act as
securities depository for the Bond~. Individual purchases
will be mad~ in book-entry form only, in the principal amount
of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. Purc/aas~rs will
their interest in the Bonds purchased.
Principal, premium, if any, and interest payments
the Bonds will ha mads by th~ County by wire transfer to DTC
or its nominee, Cede & Co.~ as registered o~ner of ~he Bonds,
which wall in turn remit such payments to the DTC participants
for subsequent disbursal to the b~nefioial c~n~rs of the
Bonds. Transfers of principal, premium, if any, and interest
paym~nt~ to DTC participants will b~ the responsibility of
DTC. Transfers of such payments to beneficial ow~et~ of the
Bond~ by DTC p~rticipants will b= the resRonsibility of such
participants and other nominee~ of such beneficial owners.
Transfers of ownership interests in the Bends will
accomplished by book entries made by DTC and, in turn, by the
DTC participants who act on behalf of the iud±rest
participants of DTC and th~ beneficial owners of the Bonds.
The County will not be responsible or liable for
sending transaction statements or for maintaining, supervlalng
or repiewing records mulntaln~d by DTC, its participants or
9srsons acting through such ~srtlolpants or for transmitting
~al~mentm to, communicating with, notifying, or otherwise
dealing with any ~ensflolal owner of the Bonds. sc long as
the Bonds are in book-entry only fOr~, the County Treasurer
will serve as Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. The
County reserves tho right to d~signate a successor Registrar
and Paying Agent for th~ Bond~ if the Bon~ ~t any time cease
to ~ in ~ook-e~try only form.
The Bonds maturing un and helots July 15, 2081 shall
not be sBbjeot to redemption prior to their stated maturities.
The Bonds maturing on and altar July 15, ~00~ (or portions
thereof in installments of $5,000) =hall' b~ st%b]eet to
redemption at the oDtion of the county prior to their stated
~at~ritie~ on or after July ~, 2001, im whole at any time or
in part on any interest payment date, in ~uc~ order as nay be
determined by th~ County (except that if at any time less than
all of th~ Bond~ of a given maturity are called for
redemption, the particular Bonds or portions thermof shall he
91-809 1~/11/91
following redemption prices [expressed a~ a percen~ag= of
principal amount of Bonds to be redeemed), together with the
interest accrued on the principal amount to be redeemed to the
date fixed for the redemption thereof:
Rsd~ption Dates Redemption Prices
(Both Dates (Percentage of
Inclusive! ~incipak. Amount)
JUly 15, 2001 to July 14, 2002 10~%
July 15, 2002 to July 14, 2003 101
July I5, 200~ and thereafter 100
The Bonds may be combined into one or more term
Bend~ which shall subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption
as provided in the Detailed Notice o~ Sale.
Tf any Bond (or any portion of the principal amount
thereof in in~tallment~ of $5,000) shall be called for
redemption, notice of the redemption therae~, speei£ying
date, number end maturity of such Bond, the date and place or
places fixed for its redemption, the p~emium, iz any, payable
upon such redemption, and ~f 1~ than the entire principal
amount c~ such Bond is to be rede~ad, that ~ch Bond ~u~t be
surrendered in exchange for the principal amount thereof to be
redeemed and a new Bond er Bonds issued equalling in principal
a~e~t~t that portion of the principal amount thereof net to be
redes=ed, shall bm mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior
to the date fixed for redemption by first class mail,
prepaid~ to the registered owner of such Bond at his address
as it appears on the books of registry kept by the
far the Bend~. The Registrar shall not be required to
exchange or transfer any Bond later than the close of business
on the fei-fy-fifth (45th) day next 9receding the date fixed
for redemption of such ~ond or any portion thereof. If notice
of the redemption cf any Bs~d shall have b=¢n given as
aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of su~ ~ond
(or the portion of the principal amount thereof to be
redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any,
payable ~pe~ s~eh redemption shall have been duly made or
provided for, in~e~fe~= on ~uch Bond ~hall cease tn accrue from
and after the date so specified for redemption thereof, so
long as the Bonds are in book-entry only form, any notice of
redemption will be ~iven only to DTC or its nominee. The
county shall not be responsible for providing any beneficial
owner of the Bonds with notice of redemption.
When notice of redemption of any Bond shall have
ba~n give~ as hcreinabove set ferth~ ~ueh Bend (er the
principal amount thereof to be redeemed) shall become due and
payable on the redemption date specified in suc~ notice at a
p~ice equal to the principal amount thereof and redemption
premium, if any, thereon, together with the interest accrued
on such Bond (or on the principal amount thereof to be
redeemed) ~o such date. Whenever payment of such redemption
price shall have been duly made or provided for, interest on
Euch Bond (eT On the principal amount thereof to be ~ede~med)
~o called for redemption shall cease to a~crue from and after
the date so specified for redemption.
All redeemed Bonds s~all be cancelled and not
Bonds: Bondm cf Rsei~t~S~xchanqes and Transfers of Bond~.
(a) Appointment of Reqi~trar. The County Treasurer
at his office at Chesterfield, Virginia, is here~y appointed
Registrar for the Bends (hereinafter ~eferred to as the
"Registrar~' ) .
91-810 12/11/91
(h) Payment of Bondo. (i) At any time during which
the Bonds of any series shall bs in fully registered form, the
or draft mailed by the R~gistrar to the registered om'mars of
the Bonds of such series at their addresses as the same appear
en the books of registry as of the record date for the payment
of interest on the Bonds of such series, and the principal cf
and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable at the
o£fiee of the Registrar.
(ii) At any time during which the Bonds of any
series shall be in book-entry form, th~ principal of and
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds cf such series
shall l)e payable in accordance with the arrangements made with
the depository for thc Bonds of such series.
(iii) The principal of and premium, if an~, and
interest on the Bends shall be payable in such coin or
currency ef the Un,ted States of America as at the respective
dates of payment is lega~ tender for publi= and private debts.
(c) Books of Re*istrv: Exchanges end TranSfers of
Bonds. (i) At all times during whic~ any Bond ~e~ains
outstanding and unpaid, the Registrar shall keep er cause to
be Mept at its office in the chamterfield, Virginia, books of
registry for the registration, exchange and transfer er the
Bonds. Upon presentation at the office of the Registrar for
sack purpose, the Registrar, under such reasonable repulatlons
as it ~ay prescribe, shall reglsfer~ e~change, transfer, or
cause to be registered, exchanged ar transfarred~ on th~ books
of registry th~ Bond~ as herein Bet forth, provided, however,
that the Registrar shall not be required to do so with respect
to any Bond after the close of bu~ine~ on the ~orty-fifth
(45th) day next preceding any date fixed for the redemption of
such Bond or any portion theree£.
(ii) Any Bond may be exchanged at the office cf the
Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of such Bonds
in other authurlz~d principal amounts o~ the same interee~
rate and maturity.
Any Bend may, in accordance with its
terms, be transferred upon the books of registry by the per~sn
in whose name it is registered, in person o~ by hi~ duly
authorized agent, upon surrender cf such Bond to the Registrar
for cancellation, aceo~panied by a written instrument of
tramsfer duly executed by th~ registered owner in person or
his d~ly a~tho~ized agent, in form s~tisfactory to the
Re, letter.
(iv) All transfers or exchanges pursuant to this
~ection 4(c) shall be made without expense to the registered
except that th~ Registrar shall requlre the payment by the
(v) 'Ail Be~d~ surrendered pursuant to this Section
4(c) shall be cancelled.
SECTION ~. ~xecutlon and Authentication of Bonds:
.CUSIP Identification Numbers.
(a) Execution o~.Bonds.- The Bond~ ~hall be
executed in the 'name o~ t~hs County by the ~anual or facsimile
facsimile thereof printed, on the Bends, attested by the
manual or facsimile the Clerk of the Board of supervisors,
neither of which signatures is required to be manual.
'91-811 12/11/91
(b) Authentication of ~O~S. The County
Admlni~trator ~hall direct the Registrar to authenticate the
Bends and ne Ban~s shall be valid sr sbli~a=ory far any
purpose unless and until the certificate of authentication
endorsed on suoh Bond shall have been manually executed by an
authorized signatory of the Registrar. Upon the
authentication Of uny BOnd the Registrar ~hull in.crt in the
certificate of authentioation ~he date as of which suoh Bond
is authenticated as follows: (i) if th~ Bond is authenticated
prior to the first interesa payment da~e, the certificate
· he11 b~ dated as of the date the Bonds are delivered to and
paid for by t-ha initial purch=sers thsrso~; (ii) i~ ~ha
is authenticated upon an inter.st payment date, the
certificate ~hall be dated as of such interest payment date;
(i/ii if the BOnd is authenticated on or after the record date
for the payment of interest on th~ Bonds and prior to such
inherest payl~ent dat~, the certificate shall be dated as of
such interest payment ~ate$ and (iv) in all other instances
the certificate shall be dated the date upon which the Bond is
a~thentisatsd. The execution and authentication of the Bonds
in th~ manner above set forth is adopted as a due and
sufficient authentication of the Bonds.
(c) CUSIP Identifidat%en ND~be~. CUSIP
i~ntlfiGation number~ may be prlnte~ on the Bonds, but
neither the failure to print any such nu~be~ o~ any Bonds,
any error or omission with re~pect ~h~re=o, shall constitute
cause fo~ fail.re or ref~sul by the successful bidder for the
Bonds to aooept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in
uccordunce with the terms of its proposal to purchas~ the
~onds. Ns suoh number shall constitute ar be ~seme~ to be a
part of any Bond or a part of the contract evidenced thereby
and no liability shall attach to the County or any of its
or any use made thereof.
SECTION 6. Tax covenant. The County covenants and
agrees to oomp!y with the provision~ of Sections 103 and
applioable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder
throughout thc term of the Sends.
faith and credit of the County shall be and is hereby
i~revocabty pledged to the punctual payment of the prlnclpal
shull be levied and collected annually, at the sane time and
collected, ad valorem taxes upon all property subject to
taxation by the County, w~thout limitation as to rats or
amount, sufficient to provide for the payment of the prlnclpal
of and interest cn the Bon~s as the sane respectively become
due and payable.
SECTION 8. o o Bonds. The Bonds shall be in
substantially the form set forth below with such necessary or
incidental to t~ei~ n~umbsrs, interest rates and maturities
us are otherwise permitted or required by law or this
CO~O~W~ALT~ OF VIRGINIA
REOISTERZD REGISTERED
No. ~-
91-812 12/11/91
?
%NT~R~gT RAT~: MATTTRI~y DATE:
% July 15, --
i~GISTBR~D OW1C~R:
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
November 15, 1~91 16639~
The County ef chesterfield (hereinafter re~erred to
as the "County"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, for value received, hereby premises to pay to the
Registered Owner (named above), or registered assigns, on the
Maturity Date (specified above)~ unless thin BOnd shall have
been duly called for previous redemption and payment of the
redemption price shall have been duly made or provided for,
the Pri~¢ipa~ Amount (~peeified above), and to pa~ interest on
such Principal Amount on July 15. 1992 and semiannually on
~ach January 15 and July 1~ thereafter from the date herec£ or
from the interest payment date next preceding the date of
authentication hereof ts which interest shall have been paid,
unless such date of authentication is am interest payment
date, in which case from sush interest payment date if
interest has been paid to such da=e, or unless ~uch date
authentication is within ~he period frc~ first (let) day
thFeugh the fourteemth (14th) day of the calendar month in
which an interest payment date occurs, in whie~ case from su~
interest payment date if interest ha~ been paid to such date,
until the paymen~ of such Principal Amount (each such date
hereinafter referred to a~ am interest payment date) at the
Interes= Rate (specified above) per annum, hy check or ~raft
mailed by th~ Registrar hereinafter mentioned to the
Registered Owner hereof a~ his add~e~ am it appears on
books of registry kept by the Registrar, at the close of
bus~ne~s an the last day (~hether or not a business day) of
the calendar month next preceding each interest payment date.
The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond
are payable upon presentation and surrender he.eof at the
office Of the County Treasurer of chesCerfleld, Virginia, in
chesterfield, virqinia (the "Registrar"). The principal of
and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in
~uch coin or currency' of the United States of America ae at
the respective dates of payment is legal tender far ~uhllc and
private debts.
Thi~ Bend is'one of s dcly aRthorized issue of ~ond~
(herein refsrrad to aa the "Bonds'~) of the aggregate principal
amount of Dollars
($ ) of like date and tenor herewith, e~sept for
number{ ~enominatlon, inter.st rate. ~at~rity and redemption
prov~ezcns, and is issued for the purpose of ref~ndin~ in
advanc~ of their stated maturities certain outstanding general
obli$ation public improvsmsht bonds heretofore issued by the
County and for the purpose of flnanciug the cesta of various
capital inpreve=ent projects in and for the county, un~e~ and
purnuant to aDO in full compliance with the Constitution and
statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in¢ludlng Chapter
~.1 of Title 15.1 o~ the Code Or virginia, 195o (=he same
b~i~g t~e l~blie Finance Act of 1991), an election duly held
in the County under such Chapter 5.1 on ~ovember s, 1988, and
resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the
County under such Chapter 5.1 o~ 0otober 11, 1989, November
28, 1990, February 27, 1991, .November ~3, %991 and November
27, 1~1.
The Bonds of the series of Bonds of which this Bond
is one maturing on er b~fore J~ly 15, 2001 shall not be
subjec~ ~e .redemption prior ts their stated naturities. The
Bonds of the ~ries of Bonds of which this Bend is one (er
portions thereof in installments of $5,000) ~aturing on and
after July 15, 2002 shall bs ~ubjact to redemption at the
12/11/91
option of the County prior to their stated maturities 0n or
after July 15, 2001, 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 of tho Bond~ of a maturity ute =al]ed for r~deampticn,
the particular ~onde or p0r~ions thereof to be redeemed shall
be s~]ected by th~ Registrar by lot), upon payment of the
following redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of the
principal a~ou~t of Bonds to be redeemed), together with the
intexes% accrued on such prlneiDal amount to the date fixed
for the redemption thereof:
Redemption Dates
(Both Dates
July 15, 2001 to July 14, 2002
July 15, 2002 tO JUly 14, ~OO3
·uly 15, 2002 and thereafter
Redemption Prices
(Percentage of
Principal Amount]
101
1~0
If this Bond or any portion of th~ principal amount
hereof ~h~ll be called for redemption, notice of the
redemption ~orsof, speeifyin~ the date, number and maturity of
this Bond, the date and place or places fixed for its
redemption, the premium~ if any~ payable upon such re~emp=icn,
and if les~ than the entire principal amount of this Bond is
to be redeemed, that this Bond must be so. rendered in exchange
for the principal amount hereof to b~ r~d~m~d and the
issuance of a new Bond equalling in pr~nolpal amount that
portion of the prlneipaI ~mount hereof net redeemed, ghall be
mailed met less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed
for redemption by first class mail, postage ~repald, ts the
Reglmtared Owner of this Bo~d at his address as it appears on
the books cf registry kept by the Registrar. If ne~ise cf
redemption of this Bond shall have been given am aforesaid,
a~d payment of the 9rlnoipal amount of this Bond (or the
portion of the principal amount hereof to be redeemed) and of
the accrued interest and premium, i~ any, payable upon such
redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest
hereon (or on the portion cf the prtnuipal amount hereof to b~
redeemed) shall cease from and after the date so specified for
redemption.
subject to the limitations and upon payment of the
charges, if any. prdvided in the proceedings authorizing the
~ondm of the series of which this Bond is one, this Bond may
be exchanged at the office of the Registrar for ~ like
aggregate principal a~ount of ~onds of the seriem of which
· this Bond is one~ of other authorized principal a~ount$ of ~h~
same interest rate and maturity. This Bond is transferable by
the Registered O~n~r hereof, i~ person or b~ his attorney duly
authorized in wrltlng, at the off~oe of the Registrar but only
in the mann. r, ~bjeet to the limitations and upon payment of
the charges~ if any~ provided in the ~rOeeedings authorizing
the Bonds o£ the series of which thls Bond is one, and upon
the surrender hereof for c~cellation. Upon ~uch transfer, a
authorized denominations and of the same a~regate principal
amount, will be issued to the transferee in exchange hercfor.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Registrar shall not be
required to exchange er transfer this Bond later than the
close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day next preceding
any dat~ fixed for the redemption of this Bond or any portion
hereof.
· he full faith and credit of th~ County are hereby
irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and
interest en this Bond a~ the same become due.
This Bond shall Dot be valid er obligatory unless
the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been
manually signed by an au=hori~ed signator of the Registrar.
It is hereby certified, recited and deolared that
all acts, Conditions and t~ings ~equired to have happened, to
exist and to have been Derfo~ed precedent to and in the
issuance of thio Bond and the series of which it is one, do
exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and
due time, fo~ and ~anner as required by law, and that this
Bond and the Bonds o£ the series of which this send ie one de
not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation cf
indebtedness.
IN WITNESS W~REO~, the County, by its Board Of
Supervisors, has caused thi~ Bond to be executed by the manual
or facsimile signature cf the Chairman of such Board; a
fa=simile of the corporate oeal of the County to be imprinted
Clerk of such Board; and this Bend ts be dated November 15,
Attest:
Clsrk ~f the Board of
Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
Thi~ Bond is one cf the Bonds delivered pursuant to
the within-mentioned proceedings.
By:
County Treasurer, as Registrar
Date cf Authentication:
ASSIGNMENT
FO~ val~e ~eceived, the undersigned hereby
assign(s) and transfer(s) unto
[Please print or type name and addrass~ includim~
code, of transferee)
PLEASE IN~BRT SOCIAL SECURITY
OR OTHER TAX IDENTIFYING ~3MBER
the within Bond and all rig~%~ ~e~nder~ and hereby
i~evocably constitutes and appoints ,
~t~orney, to transfer such ~ond on the books keDt for
registration thereof, with full power cf substitution in the
Dremises.
Dated:
91-815 12/11/91
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be (signature(s) of
guaranteed by e member firm of Registered Owner)
The New York Stock ~xchange, NOTICE: The signature(s)
Inc. or a commercial bank or above must correspond
trust company, with the name of the
appears on the front of
this Bond in every
particular, without
alteration or enlarge-
ment or any change
whatsoever.
SECTION 9. Official Statement: Certificate
Concerning Official State~ent~ Ratification, (a) The County
Administrator ~s hereby authorized and dlrect~d to execute and
deliver to the purchasers an official Statement of the County,
d~t~ De,ember 4, 1991, relating to the Bonds (the "official
Statement"), in ~ubstantially the form of the Preliminary
official statement, dated November 22, 1991~ relating to the
Bond~ (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), pre,eh%ed eo the
meeting of t/~is ~oard at which this resolution is being
adopted, after the same has b~n completed by the insertion of
the maEuritles, interest rates and other detail$ of the Bon~e
and by making ~h othe~ in~x~tio~s, Changes or corrections a~
the County Administrator, base4 on the advloa of the County's
financial advisors and legal counsel (including the County
Attorney and Bond Counsel), ~eea~s necessary e~ appropriate;
and this ~oard hereby authorize~ the Official Statement and
the information contained there~n to be u~ed by the purchasers
in connection with the sale of the Bends. The Prellminnry
Offlolal Statenent is "deemed final" for purposes of Rule
15c~-12 promulgated by the Securities and ~xchanga Commission
pursuant to the securities Exchange AC= of 1934. The Co~llty
Administrator and the Director of Accounting are hereby
authorized and direoted to execute on behalf of th= County und
deliver to the purc.haaer~ a certificate in subetan=ially =~e
fol~m referred to in the Official Stutement under the caption
"certificate Concerning o££ioial Statamon=".
(b) The action of the County Administrator, the
Deputy County Administrator and other officers and e~ployees
of the county in causing to be published T~e summary Notioe of
Sale of the Bonds in The Bond Buyer on November ~2, 1991, and
~n ca~ng to be prepared and distributed the Preliminary
official Statement, the Detailed Moti~e Of Sale a~d the
official Proposal Form relating to the Bonds, and the te~ms,
condition and provisions thereof are hereby approved, ratified
and confirmed by this Board. All actions and proceedings
heretofore take~ by this Board, the County Administrator, the
Deputy County Administrator and the other officers, employees,
agentm and attorneym of the County in connection with the
issuance and sale of t~e Bonds, are hereby ratified and
conSirmed.
SECTION 10. Appreval of Form of Refunding Trust
Agreem.~nt end Tmrmm. Conditicn~ and Provisions Thereof:
~X~.cution and Delivery of Re~undin~ TrUSt A~reemen%:
Appointment of. Escrow A~ent: Authorization ef Subscriptions
for SI~. (a) The form of the Refunding ~ust Agreement,
dated as of December 10, 1~91 (the "Refunding Trust
Agreement"), by and between the County and CraB=ar Ban~, am
Escrow Agent (the "Escrow A~ent"), pre~ented to and filed ~ith
th~ minutes of the masting eS this hoard at which this
resolution is being adopted, and the terms, 'conditions and
provisions thereof, a~e hereby a~proved, ratified and
conflr~ed by this Board, and the County Administrator and the
Deputy County Administrator, or either Of them, are hereby
91-816 12/11/91
authorized and directed to execute and dativer to the ~scrow
Agent the Refunding Trust Agreement in substantially such
county Administrator and the Deputy County Administrator,
either of them, upon the advice of counsel {including the
county Attorney sr Bond Counsel), cash approval to
conclusively evidenced by their execution thereof.
under the Refunding Trust Agreement is hereby approved,
ratified and confirmed by th~s Board.
{si The County A(~minis=rat0r and the Deputy County
Ad~inistrator of the County, or either of them, are hereby
authorized to execu=e~ on ~e~alf of t~e County, subscriptions
for United States Treasury Obligations - Stat~ an~ Local
Government Series, to be purchased by the Escrow Agent from
money~ deposited in the 1991 R~fund~ng Trust Fund Created and
astablishsd under the Refunding Trust Agreement. Such United
States Treasury 0bliqations State and Local Government
Series so purchased shall be held by the Escrow Agent under
and in accordance with tho provisions of the Refunding Trust
Agreement. T~e County Administrator and the Deputy county
Administrator of the ¢ousty, or either of them, are hereby
authorized to execute, o~ bel~alf of the County, the
instruments required ts be exesute~ on behalf of the County in
connection with the temporary inYeEtment contemplated by
Section 3(a) and Exhibit I-1 cf t~he Refunding Trust Agreement.
SBCTIO~ I1. Ap$~i~a~ion.of ~roceeds of 1991 Bond~.
The proceed~ of ~ale of the ~991 Bond~ shall, be ~pplied
follows:
(&)' $21,000,000 of the preoseds of sale of the
Bonds, being an amount equal to the principal amount of
the County's General Obligation Bond Anticipation
Series of 1991, dated June 15, 1991, shall be applied
December 13, 1991 to the payment the principal of such
Notesat maturity.
(b) An amount equal to t. he interest accrued on the
B~nd~ fro~ their dat~ to the date of the delivery thereof
and payment therefor shall ~s dspos£tsd in the County~
General Pund and applied on July 15, 1992 to t~e payment
of a portion of the interest payable on the Bonds on such
date.
shall bm necessary to provide for the payment of the
interest on the Refunded ~985 Bonds a~d the Refunded 198{
~ends to their respecbive red~tlon dates and the
r-demption price~ cf the Refunded 1985 Bonds and the
Refunded 1986 Bonds shall be deposited with the
Agent under the Refunding Trust Agreement and applied as
provided therein. This Board acknowledges that the
interest payable by the Co%~%ty on the Refunded 19S5
and the Refunded 1986 Bonds on January 15, 1992 =ay be
made payable by %he signet Trust Company, as paying agent
and, if so, such interest payment will net be payable by
the EscrOw Agent from moneys deposited under the
Refunding Trust Agreement.
(d) .The balance of the Droceed~ of t~ Bonds shall
be applied to tbs payment of the co~t~ of issuing the
Bonds. and to ~he purposes set forth in the Authorizing
Resolutions.
SECTION 12. Designation of the Re%aDded 1985 and
1986 Bonds for. Reds~nt~o~. (a) This Board hereby designates
the Refunded 198~ Bonds maturing on January I5 in each of the
years 1997 to 2006, both inclusive, for redemption on January
15, 1996 at redemption prices equal to the respective
principal amounts of the Refunded 1985 Bonds to be redeemed,
together with th= interest accrued thereon to such redemption
date, plu~ a premiu~ of on,-quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1%)
month period or part thereof between such redemption date and
the respective stated maturity dates of such Refunded 1985
Bonds, but not to exceed two percent (2~) of euc~h principal
amount. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and
directed tn deliver to Creotar Bank, as Eocrow Agent under the
Refunding Trust Agreement, irrevocable written instructions to
give~ er to cause t~e paying agent for t~e Refunded 1985 Bends
to give, notice, in the name and on behalf of the County, to
the registered owl~ers of the Refunded 1985 Bonds maturing on
January 1~ in each cf the years 1997 to 2096, both inclusive,
of the redemption of each 1985 Bonds, such notice to b~ qiven
at the time~ and in the manner and at the ~ime er times
provided in Section 4 of the resolution adopted by this Board
on December 11, 1985 authorizing the issuance of the Refunded
19~5 Bonds and to be in substantially the form set forth as
Exhibit III ~o the Refunding Trust Agreement.
Bonds maturing on July 15 in each of the year~ 199T to
both inclusive, for redemption on July 1s, 1996 at redemptlsn
prices aqua5 to the respective principal a~ount$ of the
Refunded 1986 Bond~ to he redeemed, together with the interact
one-quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1%) of suoh respective
principal amounts for each twelve (12) month period er part
thereof between such redemption date and the respective stated
maturity dates of such Refunded 1986 ~onds, but not to exceed
two percent (~%] of such principal amount. The County
A~ministrator is hereby authorized and directed to deliver tn
crasher Bank, as Escrow Agent under the Refunding Trust
Agreement, irrevocable written in~tructlons te give, or to
cause th= paying agent for the Refunded 1988 Bends to give,
notice, in the name and on behalf of the Ccunty~ to the
registered owners of the Refunded 1986 Bonds maturing on July
redemption of such Refunded 1986 Sonde, ~uch notice to be
given at the ti~ee and i~ T~e ~anner and a~ ~he time or
provided in Section 6 of the resolution adopted by this Board
on J~ly 23, 1986 authorizing th~ issuance of the Refunded 1986
Bonds and to be in substantially the form set forth as Exhibit
IV to the Refunding Trust
SECTION 13. Filin~ of This Resolution. The County
this reoclutlon, certified by the Clerk of thi~ Board ts be a
tree and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court o~ the
County of Chesterfield,
SECTION 14. Invalidity of Sections.
Clauses or Provisions. If any sec=ion, paragraph, clause er
provision of this resolution ohall he held invalid or
unenforceable for say reason, the invalidity or
unenforceability of such esctisn, paragraph, clause or
provision shall no% affect any o£ the remaining portions
this resolution.
SECTION 15. Headin~ of Sections. The headings of
the sections of this re~olutieo shall he solely for
convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning,
construction, interpretation er effect sf such sections o~ of
this re~olution.
SECTION 16. ~fectlve Date. This r~olution
t~ke effec~ upon its adoptisn.
(It is noted a copy of the Refunding Trust Agreement is ~iled
with the paper[] of thi~ Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
Financial Report for the yeur ended Uu~e 30, 199~ and
commended Coopers & Lybrand and staff for their efforts in
~reparing an audit report which reflected po=it~v~ly On the
county.
Mr. Daniel stated ~r. sullivan, Mr. Currln, Mr. Applegato and
Mr. Mayas were leaving the Board and it had been a privilege
for him to work with thsm ss each hsd besn d~voted to public
~ervice and had accomplished many goals. ~e e~pren~d his
sincere appreciation for their dedication and commitment,
their time spent away fro~ t~si~ families and businesses and
noted how fortunate the county was to have men such as these
serve the public. He ~ished them all the b~t for the future
and sta~ed =he county would miss their diligent [ervice.
~L~TTXON I~ECOGNIZING MR. G~. ~L~ATE ~R
O~ ~otio~ of the Board~ ~e following ~euolution was adopted:
~ER~S, ~. Geoffrey H, Applegate's term o~ the board of
Supervisors will e~ire Dece~r 31, 1991 after sigh= years of
d~d~ated, diligent and loyal service to Chesterfleld County,
r~pr~nting Clover Kill Dis~rict;
a~d 19S9 and us Vice Chai~an in 1~84; and
~S, Mr. Applegats was an avid ~upporter of
safety an~ dls~laye~ a diversified interest in ether fields by
serving a~ a member and Chair~n Of ~ Capital Region
cotillion; a~ a ~r of the Richmond Regional Planning
District co~is~ion; a~ a member and Chai~an of the ~ic~on~
Metropolitan ~ansportat~on Planning Or~ani~tion; a~ a member
as a me.er of the James Riv~ Port Study Co~ittee; as a
m~b~r of ~e Virginia Municipal Lea~e L~gislat~ve
as Chai~an of 'the court~ Buildinq C0~ittee; us a me~r
to it~ esti~tcd population of ~20,000 amd ~ Dew County
Char~er beoame ~S~o~ive giving Cha~terfield County a more
progressive form of gover~ent %o pr~par~ for it~ future;
~S, D~rlng ~. Applegate's ten--e, %he COWBOy
implemen~ ~o~pr~hensiv~ solid waste services; numerou~
liDrari~, parks~ fire statio~s, and airport improvements;
~v~ra~ ma3or transportation projects ~ere initiate~ and
completed including ~e Powhite Parkway ~xtension, Southern
Route 288, the Varina-Enon Bridge; several major ordinance
notification on zoning and zu~ivi~on i~ue~, as well
91-819 12/11/~1
WHER~S. During .this time. the commercial/industrial tax
base became mo~e favorable at 25% with ~ignificant increase in
foreign and domestic investments; and
WHeReAS, During Mr. ApDlsgate~s tenure, the County
guaranteed Chesferfleld'm watmr availability well into the
21st Century through a cooperative agreement with the city of
Richmond and with our local municipal neighbors - Benrice and
Eanover on other projects.
NOW~ T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Su~ervleors hereby presents a plaque inscribed
as follows to Mr. Applegate:
PRESENTED TO GEOFFREY ~. APPLEGATE
BY THE ~0AR~ OF ~U~RVIMOR$, COUNTYOF C~IESTERFIELD
IN RECOGNITION OF EIGHT YEAR~ OP S~RVIC~
REPRESENTING CLOVER HILL DISTRICT ON TH~ ~OARD CF
MOPERVISOR$ OF CM~MTF/~FIELD COD-NTY FROM
JA/~JA~{Y 1, 1984 THROUGH DEC.BMR 31, 1991
Vote: Unanimous
Applegate and expremmed sincere appr~eiatio~ £er his dedicated
~LU'I'~ON R~.~,~Z~C Mi~- JESSE J. MAYES FO~ HIS S~
On motion of ~e Board, ~a follewing ~a~l~tio~ wa~
~ER~S~ ~. Jesse J. Mayas' ~e~ on %he Board of
S~pe~visors will e~ire Dec--er 31, 1991 after eight years of
dedicated, diligent and loyal servi=e to ~mterfield Ccunty~
t~ough his active involv~ent a~ a menb~r and First
vice-Pre~dant on t~e Appoma==ox Basin Industrial Development
Corporation; as a me. er and Chai~an of the Crater ~lanning
District co~ission;' a~ a ~e~r of t~e Virginia Municipal
a me. er of the Recyclinq Co~ittee/Solid Wamte Advisory
the Chesterfield/colonial ~iqht~ social Se~viee~ Board;
well as being appointed by ~e Governor =o th~ co~a~l of
Info.erich Manaqe~e~t Education Advisory Co~ittee; and on
n~rou~ o~er oo~ittees and boards, always representing the
oitizen~ of ~e County; and
~E~S, D~ring ~i~ tim~, the County grew from 157,900
~arte~ became eff~ctlve giving Chesterfield County a mere
~E~S, Durin~ ~. ~ym~' te~re, the Co~ty
domprehensive solid waste =e~ce=; numerous cap~tal proj~ctm
such a~ school~, =ourthou~ ~o~le~. libraries, parks~ fire
stations, and albert improvement~; ~ev~al ~jor
transportation D~ojeotm were initiated and completed including
V~ina-Enon Bridge; ~ast~rfield Avenue; Route 36 "Triple
Ni~le" Bridge~ meveral major ordinance revisions w~r~ m~d~
increase oi~izen involvement and notificution om zoning amd
~tvision immuem, am w~ll am ordinances dealing with ~
Of public water and sew~; and assisted ~n the nut°ma%ion of
many County o~aratisn~; and
W~EREAS, During this rims, the commercial/industrial tax
base became ~ere favorable at 25% with significant increase in
foreign and domesti~ investments; and
W~RF2~$~ During Hr. Mayer' ten~re, t~e C0~nty ~aranteed
Chesterfield's water availabilAty w~]l i~to the 21st centu~
~hrough a cooperative a~eement with ~e City of Rio~ond and
with o~ local m~ioipa! n~ighbors - H~=ic~ and Hanover on
other projects.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVe, that ~e Chesterfield
as follows to ~. Mayes:
BY TEE ~ OF S~ERUISORS, CO~TY OF CHEST~I~D
IN RECOGNITTO~ OF EIGHT Y~ OF S~VICE
R~RESENTING ~TOACA DIS~ICT
ON THE BO~D OF ~RVI$ORS OF C~EST~FI~D CO~TY PROM
M~. Daniel presented th~ ~xecuted resolution and pla~e to Mr.
Mayes and e~remsed sincere appreciation for hi~ dedicated
P~SOL~TXON Pm~OU~Z~N~ ~a. c... F~__cm~. ~. FOR axs
on motion of the Board, ~e following resolution was a~opted:
~ER~S, Mr. C. ~. Curr~n, Jr-~ te~ o~ ~e Board
supervi~or~ will e~ire December 31, 1991 after fo~ ~ears of
dedicated, diligent and loyal $~rvi=e to chesterfiel~ County,
Tepresenting Be~uda District; and
~s, Mr. ~r~i~ served ~ Chai~an in 1990 and
~ER~S, Mr. ~rrin displayed a ~iver~ifi~d i~te~est
through his active involvement in t~e Capital Region Airport
Co~i~sion; ~e Ric~ond Reglonal Planning DistriGt
Organization; ~e Ca~ital ~ea Trainln~ Consortium;
Metropolitan Ecomomic Development Council; the
Basin Industrial Developmen~ Corpora%tun; the Crater Planning
District Co~ission; the Virginia ~nicipal ~gue Econcmlc
Developm~t co~ittee;'~a =xecu=ive Board of th~ Virginia
cu~itte~; ~m Court~ Co--lithe; =he ~st~rfield/colonial
Heights Social Services Board; the ~nricu~ Foundation; an~ on
citizens of the Co~ty; and
~R~, D~ing ~. Currin*s tenure, the County
implemented comprehensive solid waste m~ices; numerous
libraries, parks, fire stations, and airport improvem~ntm;
eeveraI major transportation ~roj~c~ were initiated and
completed in~luding t~ POWhite Parkway Ext~ion, Southern
Route 2~, the Varina-Enon Bridq~; ~he Chester Village Plan;
the Meado~ille ~ea Plan; Route 10/Ro~te 301; ROUte 10 and
chester; several .major ordinance revisions were made to
increase citizen involvement and notification on zoning.and
subdivision issue~, a~ w~ll a~ ordinances dealing with the
of public wa%er and ~ewer; and
91-821 12/1,1/91
W~REA$, During this time, the commercial/industrial tax
hame became more fav6rabI= at 25% with ~ignlficant increase in
foreign and domestic inves=ments; and
WHEREAS, During Mr. Currin~s tenure, the County
guaranteed ~he~t~rfi~ld~ water availability well into the
21et century through a cooperative agreenent with the city of
Richmond and with our other local municipal nelgb~ors
Henric0 and Hanover on other projects.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
county ~oard of supervisors here~y ~rements a Dlaque inscribed
as follow~ to Fnc. Ceftin:
PRESENTED TO C. F. CURRIN~ JR.
BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CHeSTeRFIELD
IN R~CO~NITION O~ FOtr~ ~AR~ O~ ~RVtC~
REPReSeNTInG ~R~JDA DISTRICT
ON THE BOARD 0F SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
FROM JANUARY 1, 1988 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, I991
Vote: u~a~imous
C~rrin and expressed sincere appreciation £or his dedicated
RE~OLUTION I%ECO~NIZIHG ~1%. MAUR/C~ B. ~O~
On motion of the Boa~d, th~ following ~901~tio~ wa~
~ER~S, Mr. Ma~iee B. Sullivan~s term om %he Board of
Supervisors will e~ire December 31, 1991 after fo~ years
dedicated, diligent and loyal service to ~esterfi~ld County,
representin~ ~idlothlan D~=tr~ct; and
~ER~S~ ~. Sullivan ~rved as ~hai~an in 1991 and
Vice Chai~an in 1988 and 1990; and
~ER~S, Mr. Sullivan di~playsd a diversified interest in
ot~er fi61ds ~ se~ing on the Rip,end Regional Plamning
Di~trlct C~ission; the Richmond Hetropokitan Trans~or=ation
Colonial Heights Social Services Board; the Ma~ont
Fo~atiun; the Virginia N~icipal L~a~e ~ucation Poliuy
re~resenting ~e citizens of ~he County;
~ER~S, D~in~ ~. sullivan~a %shoe, ~ County
implemented comp~nsive solid waste ~ervic~;
uapital projects suc~ as schools, the cour~ouse complex,
libraries, pa~ku, fire mtations, and ~rpor~
several major ~ranmporgagi0n projects were initiated an~
~ompleted including the Powhite Parkway extension,
citizen involv~mnt and aotlfication on zcnlng and subdivi~i0n
issues, as w~ll as ordinances dealing wi~ ~e use of
water and sewer; an~
~=R~S, Du~ing thim tim~ the ~eroial/indust~ial tax
~se became more favorable at ~% with significant increase in
~orei~n and domestic inv~s~ent~; and
~ER~S, D~ing ~. Sulli~an'~ ten~e, ~e County
~aranteud Chest~rfleld's water availability well in~o ~h~
~ls% Century through a cooperative a~eement wi~ ~e City
Ric~ond and with our local m~icigal neigh~rs - Henri=o and
~anov~r on other project~.
~OW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that
County Board of Supervisors hereby presents a plaque inmcribed
as follows to Mr. Sullivan:
PRESENTED TO ~AURICE B. SULLIVAN
BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVI$ORS~ GOU~TY OF CHESTERFIEI~
I~ R~COGNITIOM OF FOUR YEARS OF
REPRESENTING MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
Mr. Daniel presented the executed resolution and plaque to
Sullivan and e~pressed sincere appreciation for his dedicated
service and commitment to the County.
Mr. Daniel further recognized Mr. ~ullivan's leadership as the
Chairman of the Board for 1991 and stated the County had
continued ft~ pattern of fostering good management, providing
good services to the public, ~ai~taining sound education, and
had made coutinuo~s improvements in areas throughout ~he
county.
~STERFIELD CO~l"f BOA~DOF
On motion o£ t. he Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W~EF~F~A$, Mr. Naurice B. Sullivan~ Supervisor r~pre~e~ing
Midlothian District, served as Chairman cf the Board of
Supervisors in 1991; demonstra=ed ~-~emplary leadership~
Courage and insight in dealing with issue~ of growth fa0ing
the County; wa~ responsive no the need~ of its citizens while
~alntalning the q~ality of llfe at an economically acceptable
level and dedlcat~en of the highest calib~ to
Chesterfield as a progressive and well ~aDaged governmental
entity throughout the Region, State and Nation; and
WEEREAS, ~r. Sulllvan'~ dependability, integrity and
expertise have bee~ recognized not only by the Board, the
Administration and eou~ty rosiduntm but also State and
~ati0nal offlclals through his active involvement and
co~itment to much groups as the Richmond Regional Flanning
District Commission; the Metropolitan Planning organi~ation~
Richmend Regional solid Waste Ta~k F0roe; Ffaymont Foundation;
the Virginia Municipal League ~ducat~en Policy Committee; am
well as others, and during this time he ham prommt~d regional
cooperation; and
WHERF~A$, Uader ~r. Sulllvsn'm Chslrmanmhip, =he County
confronted challenge~ aud dear~ds placed upon At by
maintaining the highest munlclpal bond rating of AAa fro~
Moody's ~ating Service; implemented comprehensive ~olid waste
services; balanced the budget during a recession~ established
a communication network w~th the uhief eteotive and executive
officials of Richmond, Henrioo~ and Hanover; supported th~
development of the first legislative program; ~he Hid~othlan
Village Plan~ and a pla~ fo~ ~treetscupe and aesthetic
improvement~ for ~idlothiae Village; Interstate ze~ from ROU~e
10 North acre~s the Ja~es River was open~d$ a ~ew corridor for
wa~ wide.ed; a~ well us many other capital improvement~ and
advanced technological enhancements.
~ow, T~EREFORE BE IT RES0LVED~ that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervi=or~ does hereby recognize and applaud
the untiring efforts and commitment of excellence displayed by
its 1991 Chalr~an.
91-823 12/11/91
Supervi~or~ doe~ hereby present Mr. Maurice B. Sullivan with a
plaque inscribed as follows:
Maurice B. sullivan, C~ai~man
Board of Supervi~or~
Chesterfield County
January, 1991 ts December, 1991
Vote: Unanimous
~r. Daniel presented Mr. sullivan with the exssuted resolution
the Chairman of =he Board for 1991.
~. sullivan ~tated the Board had presented a resolution to
Senator E~mon Stay at a reception in his honor m9on his
On motion of ~e Beard, ~e following resolution was adopt~d:
the Senate of th~ State of Vi=ginia~ and
industry in virginia, in his home town of Wav~ly~ and a
~eoipient of highest honors from his kl~ ~ater, Virgini~
~illtary Institute; and
~E~s~ Senator Gray ham ~ucoemaf~lly developed and
sponsored legislation that has improved the quality of p~blic
eduoa=ion in ~ha Co~onweal~; and
e~on~mi¢ conditions in Co~onwealtn of virginia
legislation related to ~e Virginia ~plo~ent Co~ixmion and
Workers' Compenma=ion; and
~E~S, Senator Gray has directed a Crime Cotillion
US importance in our criminal ju~=~c~ ~y~=em; an~
~xd~lt~nt b~siness climate enjoyed in our
supervisors of Chesterfield county wishes senato~Elmon Taylor
the com~letion oZ his current
~, B~ IT ~T~ ~SOLVED~ that ~ Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby present~ Senator ~ray a plaqu~
inscribed as follow~ in appreciation for his outstanding
Se~ice to the citlz~s of Chesterfield
~lmon T. Gray
with D~p Appr~oi~ion for
~0 Years of Di~tlnguishe~
Service to Chesterfield County and the
Co~onwealth of virginia
91-826 12/11/91
By the Chemterfield County Board of Supervisors
D~oemb~r 10, 1991
vote: unanimeus
?.B. ~CO~NIZIN~R. ~LIAHF. LA%q~CC~IA.
~G~
Mr. ~sey i~t~od~ced Mr. William LaVecchia, County Manager
for He,icc County, and sta=ed he would be retiring wi~
than ~irty years of service. ~e further stated ~. LaVecchia
ha~ ~en an asse~ ~o ~enrico County am~ ha~ inspired and le~
the way in regional cooperation.
On motion of the Board, ~e followlng re~ol~tio~ wa~ adopted:
~, Willi~ P. ~V~cuhlu began his viaion
Henrlco County, Vlrg~mia, in 19S9 as Planning Director; and
~S, ~r. LaVecchia's strong motlvat~onal,
an~ p~opl~ sRills directed ~is career to Deputy County Manag~
in 1978 and cowry ~anage~ in 1984;
~S, ~. LaVedchia has demon=trmted throughout
y~ars a keen sense of direction and strategic planning for
~onomic development and major capital i~prov~e~t~ for
~enrico County; and
created a h~althy a~d spirlt~d ~ense of c~petition
Ragion~ and
~S, Mr. LaVe=chia has inspired an~ i~a~ ~e way
toward ~e development of man~ regionully cooperative projects
and the City of Richmond; and
~S, Mr. LaVecchia has sustained throughout
of h~or; and in thm most challenging and oritioal moment~ in
regional local government events, a level headed
aDDroa~ to achievable
County Board of Supervisors co~gratulate~ ~. William F.
County and tb~ Region, and wlshes him much happlne=s and
relaxation a= hm journey~ ~0 ~he next level of his
r~d~nt of Chesterfield county and t~at u copy of this
re~olut~on b~ p~r~h~ly recorded with the papers cf th~s
LaVecchia, declared him an honorary ~i~iz~n of chesterfield
County, thanked him for h~m dedioa~$~ s~rvioe to Henrico
county, and wished ~im well in his future endeavors.
honor beStOwed O~ him and recognize~ ~s. Gludy~ Carter,
Nanager a~d Ch~f of ~taff, for ~e Henrico Co~%y Mana~er'~
Office, and c~ended them on their a~i~ta~0e to him during
12/11/91
OF NAYMONT FOUNDATTON
On motion of the Doard, the following resolution wa~ adopted:
W~4ERFA~, ~r. J. Robert ~ick$, Jr. ha~ been ~xecutivm
Director of Ma~ont Foundation ~ince December, 1982; and
unde: the lemder~hi~ and enerqy of Mr. ~icks; and
~ER~S, ~. Hick~' vision has expanded the Foundation's
Ma~unt Houss, which has Drovided countles~ hours of enjo~ent
and enric~nt for Che~terfleld County residents; and
working relatlon~hi~ wi~ each of th~ localitie~ in ~
Metropolitan area and e~anced ~e Reglon'~ participation in
operating fund=; and
~S, ~. ~ick~ ha~ not only h~ightened our awareness
~trive~ to multiply the no, er of exhibits and ~rogr~s which
~oulogical specims natural =o Virginia and through the world;
f~lt t~ugho~t the Region.
Cowry Board of Supervisors appreciate~ ~. Hick~' vis,on for
~e Ma~ont Po~dation ~hich will continue to prosper and to
for h~ co,age in the face of new chall~ges and wi~hes hi~
~rou~ the Region and be it kno~ t~at a copy of this
reeolution b~ pe~anen=ly recorded wi~ ~he papers o~ ~i~
wished him well in his retir~en=.
Mr. Hick~ e~resmed appreoiation to the Board for t~ei~
re~lm=t~on of t~e regional cooperation in the area.
7.D. ~NIZIN~.~ PAUL ~0X. ~11.. (~. i~
0n motion of the Board, the followln~ ra~01~tio~ was
~EREAS, ~e Co~ittee on the ~ure wa~ a~horis~d by
~e che~te~field County Charter, adopted on Feb~ua~ 26, 1987;
and
forecast the condition of ~e County in th~ f~t~re a~d to
create the means by which ~e County can code wi~ future
n~ed~ or problem~ fhaf a~e likely to oc~; and
91-826 12/11/91
'm
WHEREAS, The Committee on the Futura shall
anticipate long range problems and changes within the County
offieial~ to lessen any adverse effect on the County because
of future changes; and
W~ER~A$, Th~ Co~ittee on the Futurets ~*1990 vision 2020"
report resulted in a plan that addresses both ~ broad vision
of ~e County in the year 2020 as w~ll as strategic plans
~e area~ of education, the natural ~nvlro~t,
transportation an~ government st~cture; and
~=~s~ Mr. cox ~emon~trated leadership, s~nsitivity and
co~itment to the Cu~ittee on ~e ~t~e whil~
capacity of c~ai~an of th~ group.
NOW, TH~FO~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the
Mr. A. Pa~l Cox, Jr. for ~ervlng a~ ~ai~ of ~e
on the ~uture ~uri~g ~he ~ev~lo~ment ~f the "1990 ~ision ~0~0"
report and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have
Vo=~: Unanimous
~r. sullivan presented the resolu=ion to ~. cox,
by m~b~ of th~ Co~ittee on the Futur~, a~d
a99reciatlon for ~mir knowledge and co~itment ~n
~e "1990 Vision 20~0" report.
~. Cox introduced ~+ Rgffi~ App~r~on, Ms. ~ancy
Rea~e Shook ~ ~. Bill Garnett, me,ers of the
~e Future who'were pre~ent, a~d $tatgd their next task would
b~ compiling a r~port on economic development.
o ~4OM~Nm~ ~ OF d~ A~D LUCY CORR N~RSING H~
MS. Gail McCants, Health chui~an of the Women's c1~ of
~e Adopt a Grandparent P~oq~ f0~ t~e ~esident~ of the Lucy
Co~ Nursing Home, the men~alty han~icappe4 campers of comp
Ba~e~, a~d ~e i~itiatiun of a scholarnhip at John ~ler
Co~uni%y College in memory of Dr, Louise Cla~k fo~ t~e
~ontinued finanGial support re~eived fro~ individuals,
projects an~ especially ~o ~ Board of Superv~sor~ and~ in
partlc~lmr, to Mr. C~rrln for hi~ p~r=onal contributions and
involv~m~n= not 0nly as a sup~isor but as a p~ivate citizen.
M~. Judy Beach~ Activities an~ Adult Day Ca~e Di~ecto~ for th~
L~cy Corr' Nursing Hom~, e~ressed appreciation %o ~e Board
and the Chest~ Women's Club for their continued.support and
p~sonal co~itment %0 =~ ~ursfng Home an~ introduced ~.
David Gibbs, Ms. Luna Brooks, ~s. Sue Hail, and ~. Jack
Wmrriok, resident~ from ~he Nursing Hom~ who had b~n~fi~d
from the different pro.ams and actlv~tle~.
Mr. Bill Green, ~alrnan of %he Lucy C~rr Nursing Home's
Re~id6~= ~o~cil, a~ ~. Rufus Honeyoutt~ resident of the
~ng ~ome, ~xpr~$d appreciation t0 ~e Boar~ and the
Women's Club of Chest~ and stated they enjoyed ~ese p~ams
offered by'the Nursing Hom~.
Mr. C~in exRr~ssmd appreciation to the W~en'~ Club of
felt ~e Luoy. Corr Nursing ~ome was one of ~e finest in the
· ~1-827 12/11/91
state. He further expressed appreciation to ths Women's Club
of Chester for participating in the Lucy Corr Nursing Home and
Camp Saker programs and activities.
Mr. sullivan expressed apDreo±atian to the women's club of
Chester and ~he regldents of the Lucy Corr Wu~nlng Home ara
stated he was confident the new Board would continue to
support the Nursing Home's programs and activities.
Ms. EcCaats introduced Mrs. Barbara McHale, President of the
Women's Club of Che~t~r, and wife of ~4~. Jack McKale,
Supervisor-Elect for Bermuda District.
9. D~M]:;RR~) ITEMS
9.A. ~OBL~C~ TO .CONSIDER AN (~RDINANCE TO ~rACA~E A
SIXTY FOOT I~I~=i.--OF-WAY ENOWN
~O~,~.5ACR~S 5UBD/"VTS/ON
/4r. 5ale stated consider&ti~n of mn ordinance to vacate
sixty foot right-of way known as YorR Street wit/%in Homes
Acres Subdivision had been deferred from the Wovember 13, 1991
Board meeting. He noted an adjacent property, Ms. Christine
Lowe, was opposed to the r~e~t a~ it would lap, lock h~r
prop~Tty.
Mr. Currln d~sclo~ed to the Board that after further
been advised by ~ County Attorney, h~ had a conflict a~ h~
awns a piece of property behind Mm. C~tine LOWS, the
adjacent prop%~ty ow~e~, declared a potential conflict of
interest ~ur~uant to the Virqin~a Comprehansfve Conflict of
Mr. Justin B~key stated he had requested th~ vaaatio~; that
approximately four and one half acres next to the street, his
feet from his bedro~; that recently lcgglng truck~ had been
umln~ the m~eet to haul timber from the property behind him;
~at he did not feel th~ wa~ a ~a~ c0~ditio~; ~a$ h~ had
susie%ed pictures to the Board outlining the street; that he
w~m on septic and well myst~s; ~at he ~ad a==emp=~d
Board to vacate the right-of-way due tu health, ~afety
~. Applegate in,ired if ~. Burkey waz awa~e of t~e
of-way when he bought his humm and how mann lots woul~ be
landlocked ~ the request. Mr. B~key ztat~d t~a:
~e house was built in ~39, =he survey did no~ mhow :he
~trmet had been vacated. ~. Sale stated one lot, owned by
~m. Lowe, W~uld De landlocked.
~en a~k~d~ ~. Micas St~t=d if the property was landlocked,
the valum of the lo~ was takan away and advised the B~ard ~f
the right-of-way was reduced below forty feet, it would not be
~r. George ~erson stated he was a friend to ~. Burkey and
was ~amiliar with the 9reDly and ~e stub road leadinq into
applicant; that the fa~ located ~hin~ th~ prope~
b~ d%veloped in the futurm; that if vacat=~, ~. Burkey would
agree for Ms. Lowe to hav~ an a=cess for a pTivate driv~ay;
~at ~e propmrty wa~ only 1/4 acre sad not buildable ~der
91-828 i2/11/91
llm~ted; and that he felt the strse~ should be vacated due to
hearing was closed.
~t had indicated to staff, she was opposed to the
amount of right-of-way to vacate, !andiocking the property
9~hen asked, Mr. Burkey ~tated hQ had negotiated with the
lands%char to p~r~hase the property to no avail and, therefore,
requested a minimum Of thirty-five feet of right-eS-way
private driveway to her ~roperty.
Mr. Micas stated the right-cf-way could Etill be used by the
logging trucks if reduced to forty feet but would not be
form of access if the fmrm located behind ~r. ~urkey'z
the farm vms currently being used.
Mr, Daniel suggested the County Administrator authorize ~taff
to negotiate with Ms. Lows and att~npt tO obtain legal
documents to permit the hwenty-flve or thirty fee~ of
On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the ~eard
instructed staff to negotiate to secure a private driveway
agreement between N~. and ~lrs. ~ustin L- Burkey, Jr. and
Cbrlstine Lows and adopted the followin~ ordinance:
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates
to JUSTIN L. BUP~tE¥ JR. and ANN
(husband and wife), CHRISTIN]~ GREENE LOWE,
(sole, separate and eq%litable estate), a 20'
portion of York Street, in Home Aore~
Sabdivision, Bermuda District, C~e~te~field,
~irglnia, as shotrn on a plat thereo~
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 4~
WIgEREAS, 3tr. and Mrs. Ju~tln L. ~urkey Jr. p=titloned the
~oard of Supervisors o£ Chesterfield County, Virginia to
Bermuda M~gisterial 0istrlct, Chesterfield County, Virginia
more particularly shown on a plat dated November ~4, 1927
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the circuit cou~t of said
County in Plat Book ~, ~age 96. The roa~ petitioned to be
which is more fully shown on a pla=
a co~y of which ia attached.
15.1-431 of .the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by
advertising; a~d,
WHOle, AS, no public necessity exis%s for the continuance
of the portion of road nought to be Yao~ted.
91-829 11/11/9I
NOW T~EREFOR~, BE IT OKDAINED By T~E ~O~_RD ON SUPERVISORS
OP C~ESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That p~suant to ~ection 15.1-~2(b) of th~ Code
Virginia, 1~50, as amended, ~e aforesaid portion of road be
and i~ h~r~by vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordanc~ with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, m~ amended, and a certified copy 0f this Ordinance,
together wi~ ~e plat attached hereto, shall be recorded no
moon~ than thirty days hereafter in ~ Cl~rk's 0ffiG~ of the
Circuit Cou~t of Chesterfield County, virqinia pursuant to
Section 1~.1-485 ~ ~a Code of viruinia, 1950, am
~e effect of ~is Ordinance pursuan~ to Section 15.1-483
i~ to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
simple title cf the portion of read hereby vacated in the
free and clear of any rlght~ of p~llc u~e.
Accordlng]y, thi~ Ord~nanc~ shall b~ indexed in the names
of the Co~ty of ~esterfleld as qrant~r and th~ ~STIN L.
G~E ~WE, [sole, separate and equitable e~tate), or thei~
~uccessor$ in title, a~
this Board.)
~s~nt: Mr. ~rrln.
~. ~rrln returned to the meeting.
On motion of ~.r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
went into Executive Session~ pursuant to section 2.1-344
(a)(7), Code of Virginia, 19~0, as amended, for consultation
with legal counsel pertaining to actual litigation regarding
Robinson versus aiggins an~ to discuss pursuant to s~ctien
2.1-344(a)(3)~ code 'of Virginia, 2950, as ~mended, for the
acquisition of real property for a public park.
Vote: Unanimous
on motion of Mr. Applsgate, se0onded by Mr. Currin~ the Board
adopted th~ following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supe~isors has thi~ day adjourned
into E~e~utive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the
Board, and in accordance with the provls~on~ of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
effective July 1, 19~9, provld~s for certification that such
EXecutive Session was conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County
Supervi~or~ doe~ hereby certify that to the best' of each
member's knowledge, i) only public business hatters 'lawfully
91-830 . 12/11/91
whloh this certification applies, and
ii) only ~uch public bu~inee~ matters as were identified in
the Motion by which the Executive Session was convened were
heard~ disoueeed o~ considered by the Beard. NO member
dissents fram this certification,
The Board being polled, the vote was as
Mr. Daniel: Aye.
Mr. Mayas: Aye.
~lr. Apple~ate: Aye,
Mr. Currln: Aye.
Mr. Sullivan: Aye.
L~SN~XDtu~ATION OF APPROVAL OF A
aY ~B~Y ~, ~OR 218 A~S
Mr. Mica~ ~tated due to the holiday saason, ~e Gray LOD1Olly
company ~ad Dean unable to meat with ~taff to di~cus~ the
Lake cBesdin Park.
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegate, ~e ~oard
authorized th~ County A~inistrator to continue to negotiate a
purchase contract with ~ray Loblolly Company for 21~ acres for
e~tate contract. (It i~ note~ a copy of ~e Real Estate Salea
Contract is filed wi=h the pap~r~ of this Board. )
Vot~: Unanlmou=
On motion of Mr. CuPric, $~conde~ by Nr. ~ayes, t. he Board
approved the ~treet light installation cost of $295 for the
in=~r~ection of Bermuda Drive and Sttlhon Drive and the oo~t
of $~9& for the inters=orion of Stilton Court and Stilton
Drive with said funds to be e~pended from th~ Bar,leda District
street Light Account.
Vote: Unanimsu~
10. I~J~J~IC HEARINC~S
IO.A. TO CONSiDerS_AN O~DI~._$~NC~ ~ ~ 'r~ ~DE OF
~ATE
Mr. Sale stated this dote and time had been advertised ~or a
p~lic hearing to consider an ordinance relating generally to
locating site 'plans by reference to the Virginia
~. George Bea~lms stated he f~l= =he proposed ordinanoe would
assist in handling c~erclal and residential dsvelopm~nt and
wool4 ~e a benm~t =o %~e coun=y's Ge~raphic Info~ation
System.
On motion of M~. Mayer, aeoo~ded by Mr. Coffin, ~e Board
~dopted the ~ollowin9 urdlnanae:
9t-831 12/11/91
AN ORDINkNCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CO~
CHESTERFIELD. 1978~ AS AMENDEDt BY AMENDING AND
R~NACT~G S~CTIO~ 21.1-273 RE~ATING G~ERAJ~L¥
LOCATING SITE PLANS BY REFERENCE TO
VIRGINIA C00~DINATE SYST~.
BE IT ORDAINED by =he Board of supervisors of
Chestorfield County:
(1) That ~ction ~1.~-]73 of the Code o~ the County of
~hesterfield, 19~8, as amended, is amended and teens=ted
~c. ~1.1-~?$- Prepare%ion and submission cf site Diane.
(c) ~very site plan shall he prepared in the Sollowing manner
and show the following info~mation and lodati0n of land uses
where necessary and applicable:
(8) ~oundar~ or the entire tract by courses and
distances, in=ludlng two points connected to the Virginia
o o o
.I~.B... TO CONSIDER AN ORDTNANCR TO AMEND ~ COD~ OF TE~
CO~I~Y OF ~n~b~]~FIELD. 1978. AS AMENDED. B~ _._A~D_~_~.
Mr. Micas Stated thi~ date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance reducing the fee from
$500 to $25~ for itinerant and transient merchants operating
within a fully enclosed and opera~in~ shopping mall and if the
ordinance was adopted, all other itinerant merchants would
continue to ha obligated t~ the pay the $500 fee and would be
effective for the 1992 calendar year. ~e noted the
Commissioner of Revenue had indicated tho ordinance would
reduce license tax revenues by $3,000.
~s. Nancy Morton stated she manages a push-~art program at
Chesterfield Towns Center; that she does not agree wit~ the
amount of the fe~; that she ~perates in sixty other shep~ing
ce~ers throughout the country and C~este~£1eld was the only
County with ~uoh a high fee; and that the tax revenue and
emplo!rment contributed to tl~e ~hopping centers and malls by
the m~rchan~s shoul~ be considered.
~r. Hunter Lawrence, General l~anager for Cluvurlaaf Hall,
stated ~e ~ad brought the matter to Mr. Sullivan's attention;
that he did not agree with th~ Commissionor of Eevenue's
projected lo~ of revenue; that Hot. rico county cDarges a limit
of $250 for an itinerant merchants fee per year and Hanover
County charges no fee; that he felt the licensing fee
be adju=ted for ~hopping centers and malls as there would
· ostly likely be a lesse~i~g Of the lic~nsin~ revenue due to
th~ fe~ as itinerant merchants program would be reduced
substantially or eliminated and, therefore, supported the
~hanged in the ordinance.
Mr. Jim Crawl ata~ed he operated Fun Phnto~ within M~Crory
Stor~s; that he was concerned about the Co~mlssloner of
Revenue's determination of the law regarding the itinorant
merchant~ fee; that he had been advised every location he
operates woul~ obligate h~m to Day tho $50~ fee; that he felt
~1-S32
the fee was unfair and discriminatok-~ against small business
people trying to mtart or run their business; that bis
intention in going into business was to take picturo~ in the
schools and at ballparks but was unable to do mo because the
fee wu= not affordable and, therefore, felt the l&w regarding
the fee should be changed.
~r. Alvin Kline, operator of the Bellweod Flea Market,
expressed concerns regarding an additional change in the
ordinance with the section dealing with allowing new items to
be sold at flea markets; that new ite=s or produce was net
included in the e~dina~eu and he would have to change his
licensing system in order £er those i=ems to be
was difficult to be aware ur enforce the items b~ing =old by
~he sellers; that th~ county would be enforcing the or~inance
within the next several weeks; and requested the Bcar~ defer
the ordinance to allow him additional time to prepare those
involved with the flea market operat~on~ etC.
Discussion, comment~ and q~estions ensued relative to the
ordinance fee being reduced; whethe~ the fee woul~ keep the
merchants from selling at the flea market; and when the
ordinance had been ensured.
change in the ordinance regarding =he section dealing wit~
allowing new items to be sold at flea markets and if the Board
desired to ~ake that chan~e, it would require an additional
public hearing.
There was brief discussion regarding the ~nforee~e~t of the
ordinance, its time constraints and the enforcement
requirements of the ordinance.
5tr. George B~adles stated he felt the County should readdress
the entire the ordinance and address d~veloDing ~ome type of
gmneral license which would permit malls to
individual' seller~ wit/~in their establishment during the
course of the year and felt this would be a good oppo~unity
to realize the difference betweeR pam~in~ the law and
enforcing, the law, etc.
hearing was closed.
~dr. Sullivan stated he had been contacted by ~r. Lawrence
requesting the fee he reduced and had also been contacted by
the Retail Merchants Association in which an agreement had
been worked out regardin~ %he request, but since thst t~me, he
had also been contacted by a large number cf merchants who
lease permanent s~a~e in the mall~ who were opposed .to the
r~ductlon in
Mr. CurFin stated he had been a retailer for e mud%bet of
years; that each buslne~ he owned, the facility was either
leased or purchased; that he had ~aid the real estate,
bus~nem~ license tax~e end other taxes as=cci=ted with the
businesses; that he owned a pharmacy and fel= he would
been opposed, as e per,anent lessee, to th~ reduction in fee;
and, therefore, felt it would be inappropriate at this time to
reduce the fee to $250.
~. Applegate stated the ordinance had been adopted in an
attempt to address difficulties the County was experiencing
c0ntrolling err*et meMc~ant~ selling on the road~; that he had
recently observed csr=a~n vendor~ originally set up'to serve
fund raiein~ functions moving to different locations around
t~ue Ooun=y and questioned whether they. were paying their
share. ~e.fur~her stated he felt what had been initiated as
fund raiein~ events hsd turned into a business; and,
91-833 12/11/91
therefore, felt the ordinance should ba readdreseed and
When asked, Mr. Nammsr stated the vendors move so often that
it was difficult for staff to control cr enforce the license
oriqinally addressed, the intent of the Board had been to
~rotoct %he business community by approving the increase in
the a~eu~t Of the fee. He further stated the ordinance change
requested by Cloverleaf Mall reXlected the business and times
of any large enclosed shopping center in which they have s
marketing scheme to permit merchants to comb in and a~raet
more business to the mall and which provides note wealth and
commerce to the mall.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated =he ordinance, if adopted! would
be effective for the i99~ tax y~ar.
14r. Daniel mtated due to the ~ffectiv~ dat~ of th~ ordinance
and since the holiday ehopplng would net be impacted, he felt
the ordinance should be deferred for the new Board.
Several Board m~mbers indicated this entire issue might he
on ~otien of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~aye~$ the Board
dale:red indefinitely consideration of an ordinance to amend
the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1~?$, as amended, by
amending and reenacting Sec=ion 12-138 relating to itln~rant
and transient m~rchant$.
/~r. Daniel suggested thi~ issue be dls~u~ed at h~dget ti~e.
Vote: Unanimous
11. ~BUSINESS
~. Stit~ stated the Metropolitan Rioh~o~d Co~v~%io~ and
vi=~to~ Bureau (~c&~) was re~estlng additional funding to
support Greater Ric~ond Sport Backers, Inc. in helpinq to
at,act national sport~ event~ to t~e Riohmond Metropolitan
~ea. ~e noted ~$ City of Ric~ond and ~enrlco Co~ty hav~
contributed $25,000 each and the private sector has donated
$100,0~0 toward the program.
~- Daniel stated h~ ~upported the effort but f~lt due
preliminary revenue ~ti~te~ for next year, the request
~hould be included in the total ~undi~g ~or ~C~ as the
re~e~t woul~ probably oom~ beck ne~ yea~ as well and
$25,00~ in mdd~tional fun4ing wa~ a long-=e~ decision and not
a 0~6 ~im~ contribution.
~en R~ked~ ~. R~ey ~tat~d the $~5,000 ccntri~tion would
be appropriated from the Co~thouse Maintenance ~ee Account,
~e re~e~t would co~e back to continue ~e progr~ and could
p~ner~hip with substantial potential; t~at ~e j~isdictions
would collectively be agreeing to contr~ut~ $~5,000 ea~ and
the private secto~ wa~ do~ati~g $100,009; ~at they were
planning ~o hir~ ~ full-time sports ~rketing p~rson to
coordinate ~e effort~ in bringing to ~e co~uni~ a variety
of sporting aotlvltles; that the inves~ent wa~ po~inlve way
in assisting the Richmond ~etrcpolitan Are~ in brooming
attraction for national and international sports event~ ~ueh
as the 01ympi¢~ and the World Cup; and ex~re~ed appreciation
When a~ked, W~. Uk~op'etated they wxre r.udy to initiate the
program and itt purpose was n0% only to bring sports event~ to
the urea but aisc to generate business by the jurisdictions
pulling their resources togs=her, ts ta~e a~ inventory of the
available or the potential for ~porting faoilitle~, and to
enhance the q~ality of life by making the program a regional
On motion of Nr. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Coffin, the Board
appropriated $25,000 in f~e~ related to Courthouse muintenance
w~io~ oa~ be applied to the ~tropolitan Ric~hmond Convention
and visitors Bureau to s~ppor~ Greater Rishmond Sport Backers,
Inc. whic~h fund~ will be used to help attract national ~port~
event~ to ~he Riehmend Metropolitan Area.
Vote: Unanimous
It was generally agreed to r~cess for five minutes,
~r. St~ai~r ~tated th~ Board ~ad wi~hhe!~ appr~pria2ions of
$5,000,000 from ~e adopted ~chool Board 1991-9~ Budge% and
t~e So~oo1 ~oa~d Was n~w re~stlng th~ appropriation of
appropriation.
On m~%ion ~ ~. Daniel, mmcond~d by Mr. Currlm, the Board
~pp~opriated $2,500,000 of the wlt~eld
school Soard ODeratinq Fund and approved the adjumtments
follows, by appropriation category,
Operatin~ Fund:
Inst~ction
AdmiDistra%i0n and A~=~ndancs
and Mealth
Transportation
operations & Maintenance
Total School operating l~And Increase
in the School Board
500,000
( 1~0,000)
$ ~,500,000
On mu~ien u£ ~r. Currln, sooonded by Mr. Mayee~ the Board
approved obtaining cost estimates ~or the installation of
s~eet llghts at the intersection of Chesterfield Meadows
Drive and Old Wre~ha~ Road, in B~rmu~a Magisterial District;
at the inter.action cf Hi0ko~y Road and Woodpecker Road, at
the inter~ectisn of Hickory Circle and Hickory Road an~ at tho
inter~otio~ of Hickory Road and Riv~ Be~d, in Mmtoaca
MaglsteriaI District and, ~urther, the Board deferred until
January, 1992 obtaining a co~t ~ti~at~ for the in=tellurium
of a ~treet. light a~ 4~49 ~iok~ Road, is ~toaca ~agist~ial
District since it d~d not meet the criteria.
Vote: Unanimous
·his ~ay th~ count~ ~nviro~n~ai Engineer, in accordance with
direction~ from this Board, made report i~ ~iti~g ~Don his
8xamlnatlon of Litchfield Drive in ~eekwood~ section J,
Clover Hill District.
~on consideration whereof, and on motion of ~. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Mayer, it i~ resolved that Litchfiald Drive
~eekwood, Section J, Clover ~ill Distriot, be and i% hereby
is established as a public road.
~d be it fu~ ~e~olved, that the Virginia Depa~ment of
Secondary System, Litchfield Drive, beginning at
Litchfield Drive, S~ate Route 3170, and going southerly 0.09
mile~ the~ t~r~ing and ~oing southeasterly 0.0S mile to end in
a cul-de-sac.
distance, clear zone and d~slgnat~d Virginia D~partment of
~eDortation d~ainage Bas--ants.
This ~oad se~e~ 1i tot~.
~d be it further re~olved, that the Board of
~arantee~ to th~ Virginia Department of Transportation an
~e~tricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary ea~ents for
¢~ts, fill~ and ~ainag~ for Chis road.
Section $. Plat ~ook 72, Page 25, August 20, 1990.
vote: Unanimous
This day the County Envlronm~ntal Engineer, in accordance with
directions frsm thi~ Board, made report in w~iting upon
examination of Leamington ~rive in Birkdale, sectieR 4,
Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereoft and on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr, Kales, it is re~olved Chat'Lsaming%on Drive in
Birkdale, Sectlen 4, Matcaca District~ be end it hereby is
~tablished as a public road.
A~ld be it further resolved, that the virginia Department of
Trenmportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Leamington Drive, beginning at the
i~tersection with Royal Bit,dale Drive, Birkdale, Section 6,
and going northwesterly 0.06 mile, t~en turning and going
westerly 0.89 mile to e~d in a cul-d=-~ac.
This request i~ inclu~iv~ of the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designatsd virginia Departm~nt cf
Transportation drainage easements.
Thi~ road serve~ 17 lets.
~d be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervi=or~
g~arantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
%h~r¢~tricted right-of-way of 40' wi~_h necessary eame~eRt~ for
c~ts, fills and drainage for t~is road.
This section Of Birkdale is recorded a~ follows:
sec=ion 4, Plat Book 64, Page 98; Dsce~aber 6, 1988.
Vote: Unanimcu~
12/11/91
directions from this Soard, made report in writlnq upon hie
~xamination of Old Brompton Road in sirk~ale. S~¢tlon
Ma%oats Distrioto ·
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded hy Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Old Srompton Road
in Bit,dale, Section 5, Matesca District, be and it hereby
e~tabli~hed az a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Tran~po~tation~ be and it hereby iu requested to t~ke into the
Secondary System, Old Brompton Rca=, beginning at the
intersection with Royal Birkdale Drive, Birkdale, SectiOn 6,
and going northweete~rly 0.06 mil=, then turning and going
northerly 0.06 mile to end in e cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent ~lope, sight
distance, clear sene and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements,
~is road serves 14 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisore
guarantees to the V~rginia Department of Transportation an
unre~trlcted right-of-way of 40' with necessary easements for
out~ fill~ and drainage for this road.
T~i~ ~eetion of Birkdale ie recorded as follows:
Section 5, Plat Book 64, Paqe 37, December ~ 1988.
Vote: Unanim0~
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made r~por% i~ writing upon his
examination of Royal Bit, dale Parkway and Royal Birkdale Drive
in Birkdale, Section 6, ~atoaoa District.
Upon con~id~ratiO~ whereof, and on motion of Mr~ Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Mayee, it i~ re~ol~ed that Royal Birkdale
~arkway and Royal Birkdale Drive in Birk~ale, section 6,
Matoaca Dimtr~ct, be and they hereby are established a~ public
And be it further resolved, that the virginia Department of
Transportation? ~e and it hereb~ is requested to t~ into the
Secondary System, Royal Birkdale Park-way, beg~nnlng at the
intersection with Winterpock Road, ~tate Route ~21, and going
southeasterly 0.22 mile to end at the intersection with Royal
Birkdale Drive; and Royal ~irkdele Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Royal Birkdale Parkway and going
northeast,fly. 0.0§ mile to the intersection with ~eax~ingtom
Drive, Birkdalm, Section 4, then continuing northeasterly 0.01
mile to end at Royal Birkdale Drive, Birkd~le, section 3.
Again, Royal Birkdale Drive~ beginning at the intersection
with Royal Birkdale Parkway and going southwesterly 0.~7 mile
to the intersection with old B~ampte~ Road, Birkdale, ~ection
~, then t~rning and going southerly 0.13 mile to en~ a= Royal
B~rkdale Dr~ve, Birkdale, Section 7.
Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjacent ~lope, ~igbt
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
T~ansDortatio~ ~ainage easements.
And be i~ further resolved, that the Board of Supe~vlsors
guarant~es to-the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted ~ight-of-way of ~0' with necessary easements Set
91-837 12/11/91
cuts, fills and drainage for Royal Birkdale Drive and a
vsrlable w~d~h r~ght-of-way of 70t to ll0' for Royal Birkdale
Parkway.
This Section ef Birkdale is recorded as
section 6~ Plat Book 64~ Page 35t December 6~ 19~8.
Vote:
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, mads report in writing upon his
exa~ination cf ~dmlstsn Way, ~d~imton Court and aus Nsslle
Court in Saint George, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. D~niel,
seconded by Mr. ~ayss, i~ is resolved that Edmiston Way,
Edmiston Court and Rue Noelle Court in ~aint George, Mutoaca
District, bo and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
secondary system, EdmOnton Way, b~ginning at t~e inte~e~tion
assigned, and going southerly 0.03 ~ile to the ~ntersect~on
the ~nt~rmection wi~ Rue Noelle CoUrt, then continuing
$~utherly 0.04 ails to end in a cul-de-sac; E~iston Co~t,
beginning at ~e intersection with Edmiston Way and going
westerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Rue Noella
going westerly 0.o5 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
Thf~ re,est is inclusive of ~e adjacenU slope, sight
distance, clear zone and d~signated Virginia Depa~en% of
Transportation drainage salients.
~mrantees to the Virginia Department of Transpor~a%ion an
~s%r~cted right-of-way of 40' wi~ necessary easements for
c~ts, fills and ~ainage for all o~ ~ese roa~s.
Plat Book &6, Page 4a, May 11, 1989.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the Con,by E~vi~o~ental Engineer, in accordance with
dircc~ionG from this Board, made repo~a in w~iting upon bis
exa~i~atio~ of B~sin=uu Center Drive in Branchway D~$i~e$$
center, M~dlonhian District.
Upon consideration whereof~ and on ~otien ~f Mr, Daniel~
seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Business Center
Drive in Branchway Business Center, Midlethian D~t~iet, be
and it hereby is established as a public road.
A~d be it further resolved, that the virgln~a D~partm~nt O~
Secondary System, Buslnes~ Center Dri~, be~i~ing at he
intersection wi~h Branchway Road, State Route' 645, and going
easterly 0.03 mile~ then turn~ng a~4 going southeasterly 0.09
mile, then =urning and going northerly 0.08 m~l~ to end in a
temporary turnaround.
91-838 12/11/91
This request ie inclusive of the adjacent ~lepe. ~ight
~istanoe, clear zone and designated Virginia Department
This ~oad se~ve~ as aeee~ to adjacent commercial properties.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of
g~arantees to the virginia Depar~-~en: of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way 9f 60' with necessary ~a~e~en~ for
outs, fills and dra{nage for this road.
Brsn~hway Business Center is recorded as follew~
Plat Book 52~ Page 95, May ~9~
Vote: Unanimous
Thio day the ~oan%y Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions 'from this Board, made report in writing ~pon
e~um~nstlon of Cedar Crossing Drive~ Cedar Cros~ng Terrace
and C~dar Crossing Place in Cedar Crossing, Section
Midloth~an District.
Upon sonsldera~ion whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by F~r. Mayes, it is resolved that Cedar Crossing
Drive, Cedar Crossing Terrace and Cedar C~ossing Place in
Cedar Crossing, Section 3, ~i~lothian District, be and they
here~y are established as public reads.
A~d De it f~l~ch~ resolved, that the ~irginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby ia requested to take into~ths
Secondary System, Cedar C~ossin~ Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Lauren Lane, State Route nu~f0er to be
assigned, and going northeasterly 0.07 mile to end at the
i~terseetio~ With Cedar Cross,nS Terrace; Cedar Crossing
Terrace, beginning ut the intersection with Cedar
Drive and going southeasterly 0.10 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac. Again, Cedar Crossing Terrace, beginning at
interesehion with Cedar Cross,nS Drive and going northwesterly
0.87 mile to the intersection with C~dar Crossing Place, then
continuin~ northwesterly 0.05 mile to end ~n a cul-de-sac;
Cedar Crossing Place, beginning at the inter~eotion with Cede:
Crossing Terrace and eels9 zouthwo~t~r]y 0.04 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac.
This request ia inclusive s£ the adjacent elope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
The~e road~ ~erve $9
And be it further re~olve~, that the ~oar~ of
quarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unre~trioted right-of-way of 40' with nsceaaary easement~ for
cut~ fills a~d drainage for all of these roads except for
Cedar CroEslngDrlve which ham a 50' right-of-way.
This ssction o£ Cedar C~ss~ing is recorded as fellew~:
Section 3, Plat Book 57, Page 93, July 21,
Vote: ~nanimous
This day the Ceanty .Environmental Engineer, in accerdancs wi~h
direct~ons'.from this Board, made report in W~iting upon h~s
exsminmtion of Belmsley R~ad and a~nor Place in Salisbury
Hatfield Section Phase II, ~idlothien District.
91-839 12/11/91
Upon consideration whereof, ~nd on motion cf Fac. Daniel,
seconded by My. Mayes, it is resolved that Eelmsley Road and
Radnor Place in Salisbury ~atfictd Section Phase II,
Midlothiun District, be and they hereby are established as
public reade.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is recp/ested to take into the
Secondary System, Helmsloy Rsad~ beginning at existing
Helmsley Road, State Route 3795, an~ going southwesterly 0.02
milo to the inter,enrich with Radnor Place, then contiR~i~g
southwesterly 0.0~ mile to es~ in a dead end; and Radnor
Plaoe~ beginning at =he intersection With Helmsley Road and
going n0rthwe~terly 0.08 mile, then turning aRd going westerly
O.O4 mile te end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the ad)anent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated virginia Department o~
Transportation drainage easements.
These roads serve 10 lots.
And b~ it further resolved, that the Board of Supervlsor~
guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation an
urhrest~icted right-of-way of 50' with necessary ease~ent~ for
Sa%s, ~ills and drainage for all of these roads.
This section o~ Salisbury is rocerded as follows:
Hat£ield Suction Phase II, Plat Book 68, Page 37,
October 12, 1959.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
diroctions from this ~uard, made repcr~ in writing upon his
examiner{on of ~o~o~t Drive and K~nmont Terrace in ~alisbury
WeSt ~enn~t Section Phase II, Midlothian Dietrlct.
Upon consideration whereoS, and on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved that Kenmont Drive and
Midlothian District, be and they hereby a:e established as
Dubllo roads.
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Ken, oat Drive, beginning at the intar~eo~ien
with Winterfleld Road, State Route 714, and ~ein~
southwesterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Kenment
Torr~ee, then turning and goss9 westerly 0.08 mile to en~ in a
intersection with ~ennont Drive and going southerly 0.04 mile,
cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjaoemt slope, sight
Transportation drainage sas~ments.
gk%arantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
=u~s, fills and drainage for all of the~e read~.
This section of Salisbury is recorded a~ follow~:
91-8~0 12/11/91
West Kennet Section Phaoe II, Plat sock 62, Page
August S, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from thim Board, made report iR writing upon his
examination 0£ Victoria Crossing Lane
Lane and wiesinger Lane in Victoria Commons, Midlothian
District.
Upon consideration whoreof~ and on motion of Mr, Daniel,
Lane, Framer Drive, Wiesinger Lane and Wie~inger Lane in
victoria Commons, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are
eotablished as public roads.
And be it further remolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, ho and it hereby ~m re~uemted to take into the
Secondary System, Victoria Crossing Lane, beglnn~ng at the
inters~ction wi~h Robieus Roa~, State Route 711, and going
mile to end in a cul-de-oac; Framer Drive, beginning at
eximti~g Fr~a~ D~ive, State Route 4170, and going
0.S3 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; wieslnger Lane,
the south side of existing right-of-way, additional
right-of-way to provide for a c~l-de-sac$ and wiesln~er Lane,
ex/oting State Route 1~3~ located at the west end Of dead end
street to the north side cf existing right-of-way, additional
right-of-way to provide for a cul-de-sac,
Thio request is inclusive Of t~e adju=ent slope, sight
distance, clear zone an4 ~eoi~nated Virginia Department ef
These roads serve
And bm it further resolved, that the ~oard of Supervisors
9uarantoes to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way cf 50? with necessary easements for
outs, fills and drainage for all of theoe roads.
victoria CO~O~$ is recorded a~ fellows:
Plat Book 64~ Page~ 85 & SS, December 3~, 1988.
vote: unan~ou~
GP~q{NPINER~AD.A~D. LUCy
Thio day ~e County Environmental ~ngiDeer, in mG=ordanoe with
~ir~otions from this Board, made report in ~iting upon him
in chest~fiel~ County Indus~iat Park, Section B
Chesterfield County ~operty, Dale
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion o~ Mr. Daniel,
sec~n~m4 by Mr. ~ye~, it is resolved t~at Whitepin~ Road,
Redpine Road and Gre~pi~e ~oad in chesterfield County
Industrial Par~, Section B on Chesterfield County Property,
Dale District, b~ and they hereby are astablishe~ am
~d be ~t further resolved, that th~ Virginia Department
TransportationS. be and it hereby ~ requested to take into the
Secondary System, ~itepine Road, begi~ing at ~i~=ing
~itepine Road, State Route 701, 0.04 mile non,west of the
intersection with Reycan Road, State Route 737, and going
ne~thwesterly 0.~ mile to the intersection with Redpine Read,
then continuing northwesterly 0.24 mile, then turning and
going southwesterly 0.14 mile to the intersection with
Greenpine Read, then turning and going westerly 0.10 mile to
end at proposed Whitepine Road, ~idlantic Bugine~s Center;
Rsdpins Road, beginning at the intersection with Whitepine
Road and going southwesterly 0.18 mile to e~d at the
intersemties with Gremnpine Road~ and~ Greenpine Read~
beginning at the intersection with Whitepine Road and going
seutheasterly 8.27 mile ts end at the intersectiou with
Redpime Road.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Virgin±a Department of
These read~ were eonstr~eted with ~ublic funds by the County.
Therefore, we are requesting that the maintenance fee and
be waived.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the V~rg~nia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 60' with necessary eaEement~ for
=ute, ~lls and drainage for all of these reads except
Whitepine Road, which ha~ a 70~ right-of-way, ali a~ ~he~
a p/at by Austin Brockenbrough and Associates dated December
14, 1990, copy of which i~ r~oorde~ in Plat ~ook 77, Page 2~,
November 20~ 1991.
Vote:
This day the County ~nvironmental ~nginemr, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in ~r~iting upon
examination of Lucy Corr Ceurt on Chesterfield County
Property, Dale Distri=t.
ascended by ~r. ~ayes, it ie resolved that Lucy Corr Court on
Chesterfield County Property, Dale District, be and it h~reby
And he it further r~solved~ that the Virginia Department of
Transpertation, k~ and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secomdak~/~ System, L~cy Co~r Court, beginning at the
inter~ectioa with Courthouse Road, $~ate Rcu~e 2099, and going
southerly 0.34 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.22 mile
to end ~t the intersection with proposed Lucy ecrr Drive.
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
This road s~rv~s as access to adjacenu c~es~erfield County
P~eperty. Thi~ road wa~ eonstr~cted with public funds by the
and bond be waived.
And be it f~rthcr r~sclved~ that the Board of Supervisors
cuts, fills and drainage for this road, ae shown on a plat by
copy of which is recorded in Plat Book ?7, Page 24,
vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by ~r. May~, the Board
authorized th~ County Administrator to execute a Lease
Agreement, subject to approval by the County Attorney, between
Midlothian Company and tho County which Agreement will provide
for the County to use the thirty acre Coalfield Soccer C0~ple~
property and apprepria=ed $13,000 from interest on bend
proceeds to Parks and Recreation Op~ratiDg ~dgot for rent for
the balance of this fiscal year.
After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by
the Bermuda Street Light Fund, $1,100 from the Bermuda Three
Cent Road Fund and $10,100 from tho ~atoaca Throe Cent Road
Fund to the Fire Department's FY92 operating Budget for the
purchase of a fire/rescue boat for the Enon Volunteer Pire
Department.
11.D.7. APPROI~L~TION OF MIDLOTHIANx~C~TROA~ FIINDSAND
On motion of Nr. Daniel, s~conded by ~r. Mayer, the Board
authorize~ the ~ansfer of $5,991 from ~ M~dloth~an Three
Cent Road Pund and $10,359 from the ~dlothia~ ~tr==t ~i~ht
Fund ~o the Fire Depar~ent's FYP~ ~erat~ng Budqet for
pa~ent of one half of the water and ~vwur connection Sme for
the Forest V~ew V~lunteer R~c~e Squad'~ new Substation N~ber
Vote~ U~a~imous
APP~OVA5 OF CHANGE ORDER T~..J.K. T~ON~ AN~
AS$0C~3~T~S. INC. FOR ADDITIONAL ~G]~. ER1NG ~O~K aT
NO~r~n~d~ AREA LANDF~L
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Ma~, the Board
a~thorized th~ County Administrator to execute Change order
#~, in tho amount of $~3,5~s, to ~. K. Ttmmons and Associates
for additional ~ngineering wurk at the Northern Area Landfill.
(It is noted said funds will come from the Northern Area
Landfill Cell Construction Account.)
On motion of ~r, Daniel, seconded ~ Mr. Mayer, %~ Board
authorized the Cowry Ad~inis~ato~ to e~c~te a ~n~e order,
~ealth/Mental Retardation/~stance Abume Building. (I% im
notPd said funds will come from ~e Mental Health/MoRtal
Reta~dati0n/Substance Abuse Building Project.)
Vote: Unanimous
~l.~.lO. D~NA~O~ACAHIGH SC~(;OL IN i~E~O~Y OF ~L
On motion of Nr. Daniel, ~econded by Mr. Keyes, the Board
d~nated $1,000 from ~e Matoaca District Street Light F~d to
~toaca ~iqh school f~r ~ p~chase of spirit chai=~ in
memory of school athlete, Chris ~ita.
vote: Un~imou~
On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board
amended the minutes of the November 1~, ~99~ Board meetiDg as
follows:
FROM:
"After considerable discussion, it was the general consensus
of the Board to authorize the County Administrator to pr0eee~
with meeting with Delegate Cranwell, Delegate Watk±ns and
·taff to di~u~ a proposed amendment to the Northern Virginia
Road Impact ~ee Bill which wo~ld add Chesterfield County and
include a ~chool i~pact f~= bill and to brin~ to the Bcar~, at
its regularly scheduled meeting on December 11, 1991, a
recommendation regarding the Charter impact £se bill and tbs
setting cf a public hearing for the January 2, 19~2 m~Rting.
A~d, further, it was the general conzenzuz of the Board to
support, in principal, the Regional Program recogn~zin~ each
locality would decide at the appropriate time whether or not
it supports tbs sDmc~flcs of items when addressed and
authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to attend upcoming regional ~eetings reqarding
such and authorized the ~atting Of public hearings to consider
the Sollowln~Charter amencl~ent~ on January ~ 199~:
1. Amend =he County Charter to allow the ~hief of Police to
appoint the Animal Control Supervisor and deputies.
Provide for an impact fee for new residential
oonstruGtion by Charter amendment."
Vote:
"After considerable disuusslon, it was the general consensus
of the Board to a~th0rize the County Administrator to proo~ed
with meeting with Del~ga=e Cranwell, Delegate Watkins and
~taff to discuss a proposed amendment to th~ Northern Virginia
Road Impact Fee Bill w~ioh we~ld a~d chesterfield county ~nd
include a school impact fee bill and th~ ~ettiDg Of a p~blio
hearing ~or r2~e January 2, 1992 meeting for impact fee
aut~0rity in the Charter.
And, further, it was the general consensus of the Board to
support, in principal, the Regional Program recognizing each
locality would d~cide at the appropriate time whether or not
it supports the ~peolflcs of items when addressed and
authorized the Chairman of th~ B0ar~ and the County
Administrator to attend upcoming regional meetings ~egarding
such and authorized the ~etting 0~ public hearings to consider
the following ~harter amen~ents on January ~, 1992:
1. A~end the Caunty Cha~ter ts allow the Chief of Police to
appoint the ~imal Control Supervisor and deputies.
Provid~ for an impact fee far new resi~e~tlal
eonstructlcn by Charter amendment."
91-844 12/ll/Pl
ll.D.12- CTcI~T~E ORDER~O~-I3~-I~T~NT~P~SR. ~I~C. ~]O~
~ ~TION ~ ~N~ L~
On motion o~ ~. Da~ie~., s~con~d by ~r. Naye~, ~e B~ar~
authorized the Co~ty Ad~in~ato~ to e~eo~te a Change Order,
in the amount of $19,037, to V~king Enterprise, Inn. to
~ovide a~d i~9tall 10~vers and ventilutors on existing sloDe
roof and to reinforce existing ~l~ood roof shea~ing at all
ex~sting flat roofs. (It is noted said funds w~11 come fr~
the Ben Air Libru~ Project.)
uDprove~ %he transfer o~ $5,500 from the Clover Hill Three
Department for the acquis~tlsn of microcomputer equipment to
Public Meeting Room.
vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Yir. Currin, the Board
approved requesta for binge/raffle peri, its for the following
organi~ation~
Kid-cities Civic Assooiatio~
St. Au~stine Church
~each 0o~uni%y Grung~
Voit~e 1530
virginia Beer Hunters
As~ociatlon
Clover ~11 ~gh 9¢hool
Ri~nd James Rive~ Lions
Club
Ric~on4 Jame~ River Lions
Club
South Ri~ond Rota~
South Ric~ond Rot~ Club
~ingo/Raffle 1992
Bingo/Raffle t99~
Bingo 1992
Bingo/Raffle 1992
Raffle 1992
Raffle 199~
Raffle 1992
Raffl~ 199~
Bingo/Raffle 1991
~ingo/Raffle 1992
Raffle i991
Raffle 199~
91-845
And, further, the Board deferred a request for a bingo/raffle
permit for Poseidon Swimming, Inc. for calendar year 1992
until January ~, 1992.
ll.B.2. ~wl' DA~ FOR ~BLIC ~[F~I~XN~ ~_(~IDER A~4I~D~EI~T TO
After considerable discussion, on motion of ~. Daniel,
s~oond~ by ~. ~rrin~ ~e Board ~eferred setting a ~ublic
he,ring to ~on~id~r ~n amendm~t to the County's Comprehensive
Plan relative to ~e Chesapeake Bay ~eservation Act until
~anuary 8, 199~.
Vote: Unanimous
11.~. ~TILITIE~ DEPA~PMENTITEMS
On motion o~ Mr. Apple~ate, seconded by Mr. Currln, t~e Board
a~orized ~e County Administrator to exeo~te Change Order
N~r 1 for ~rlboro su~ivlsion~ Project $89-092~R -
transf~red $~,000 fr~ the Sewer System Rehabilitation
Subdivision. (It is noted said funds are available in the
Capias1 Improvement Budget under Project 89-8601R, Sewer
System Rehabilltat~on.)
11.E.l.b. AP~ROVALOFC~%NgEOIIDEI~_~UR..G~TOESTATES,
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by
au~orize~ ~e Co~y A~ini~trator to ~a~t~ ~ang~ order
~r i for Genito Estates, Section A, and Rt. R~g~t~ Lake,
Section 2 Sawer Line, Contract Nu~ers 87-7067 and B9-0~88~
r~oval of reck and reroutlng of the ~wer line- (It is noted
said funds are appropriated in the current Capital
I~rov~ents Project.)
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Hr. Currin, the Board
transferred ~300tOOG from the Utility Contingency F~nd and
awarded a co~tract to JW~ Controls, in the amount o~ $~24,000,
for ~a ~n~tallatie~ of a S~pervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) System for the Water Distribution system,
Project $86-6106R, which will rep]ace the existing outdated
system for which repair parts are not available and authorized
(It is noted said funds are available in the capital
Improvement Budget.)
Vl-e4e 12/11/Vl
On motion of ~. Applegat~, s~conded by ~, ~rrin, the Board
accepted, on b~half of the County, the conveyance of a parcel
of land oon~aining 0.~476 acre along carver Heights D~ive from
Nine V. Shoosmith and authorized the County ~ini~ra~or to
exeou~e ~e necem~ary deed. (It is noted a copy of ~e Plat
is filed with the paper~ of thi~ Board.]
Vote: ~anlmaus
ll.R.l.e. ~UIT(~LA]~ OF T~I~31~ POeT D~AINA~ A~D Va=
BY B~ ~IG~ P~HT~
On ~otion of ~. Applegate, seconded by ~. ~rrlm, the Board
surefire4 the chai~an o~ the Board and County A~in~trator
to execute a quitclaim d~d to vaoate a 90 foo~ drainage
property owned by Beluga Helght~ Partnership, which vacation
was a~prov~d at ~ Nove~er 27, 1991 Board meetinq. (It ~z
noted a copy o~ ~he Plat i~ filed with the paper~ ~f ~is
vote: Unanimous
Mr. sale presented the Board with s report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the ¢o%mty
Adminis=ra~or.
Mr. Ramsey presented th~ Beard with a status repor~ on
~eneral Fund Balance; Reserve for Future Capital Projects;
District Road and ~tr~at Liqh~ ~unds; Lease Purchases; and
school Board Agenda.
Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of
has formally notified the County of the aooeptance ef
following roads into the state secondary System:
ADDITION
SUGAR CREEK - P~ASE 1' - (Effective
Route 3969 (Sugar Creek Way} ~ From Route 3970
11.H. L~NC~
on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Board
rsaessed at 11:45 a.m. (EST) to travel to the aalf way House
Re~tau~ant for lunch.
Vote: Unanimous
Reeonvening:
91-847
12/11/~1
In Bermuda Magisterial District, FRedERICK T. AN~ EVELYN J.
~¥ requested rezonin~ from Agri~ulturaX (A) to Community
Business (C-3). The density of such amen~ent will be
~on%rolled by zoning conditions or 0~inmn~e stan~ard~. ~he
C~m~ehemsive Plan designates tke property for
co~ercial/offi~, light industrial mn4 100 y~ar floodplain
~. ~i~ request lies on 54.7 acrms frontin~ app~oximataly
1,600 feet on ~e south lin~ of ~ast ~undred Road, also
loGated at tk~ intersection of the~e roads. Tax Map lla-14
(1) Parcel~ ~9 and 24 (Sheet 33).
defer the red.sC %o a later date as well in order to allow
~e Planning Co~ission to ~om~let~ i~s review.
~- C~rin ~iGclosed to the Board ~hat he had ~eal e~tate
interest in property in the immediate vicinity, declared a
Comprehensive Conflict of Inter. mt Act, a~d excused himself
fro~ the ~eeting.
~ r~est, after th~ Pla~ing Co~issioa's 9ublic hearing,
~e re.est wo~ld automaticslly come back to ~e Board.
~e Board of Supervisors in the normal ~e~ence of events
but it had been deferred by the Planning Co~ission for
f~ther discussion b~%ween th~ develop~ and ~ neighborhood,
~. Daniel res~at~d his motion, seconded by Mr. A~plegate, for
Aye~ ~. Sullivan, ~. Applmgate, ~. Daniel and Mr. ~yes.
9X~qO~78 (Amended)
In ~el-muda Magisterial Distriot~ JA~E$ W. ~O~S, J~.
requested rezcning from A~icultural (A) and Co--unity
Business (B-2) to Co~uni~ ~u~ine~ (C-3). The density of
~u~ amendment will b~ controlled by zoning conditions or
property for c~ercial/office use. Thi= re~t lie~ O~ 2.74
acres Sronting approximately 425 feet ~n the south line of
~ohard ~ne. Ta~ Map 118-9 (~) W~$tov~ Farms, Lots 53, 54
and 57 (Sheet 33).
~. Jacobson pre~ent~d a s~ of Case 91S~017S and s~ate~
the Plashing Co~iss~on reco~ended approval .~d acceptance of
the proffered Co~ditlons.
~. Jam~ ~nochs, Jr. stated the =eco~n~atlon was
91-848 12/11/91
On motion of M~. Currin~ gecondmd by Mr, Apple9ate~ the Beard
approved Case 91SN0178 and accepted the following proffered
conditions: .. .
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, one hundred (100)
feet Of right of way on the south eide of Route
measured from the eentcrline cf Route 10 shall be
dedicated, free and unrestrictedr to and for the benefit
of Chesterfield county.
2. To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of
the complete development, the developer shall be
responsible for the following:
A. construction of additional pavement along the
eastbound lane~ of Route l0 to provide an additional
lane cf pavement (i.e., third through lane) for the
entire property frontage.
B. Construction of additional pavement along the
eastbound lanes of Route 10 to provide a separate
right-turn lane at the approved access. At the time
of site plan review, this reqllirement m~y be
eliminated by the Trancportatien Department if the
proposed traffic volume= do not warrant the turn
lane.
c. closing the existing crossover on Route 10 adjacent
to the mubject property,
Prior to obt~inlng u building permit, one of the
followln~ ~hall be accomplished for fire protection:
A. .For building permits obtained On or before June 30,
1991, the owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay
[to th~ County $~50 per 1,000 square feet of gros~
floor area. If the building permit is
after June 30, 1991, the amount of the required
payment sh~11 be adjuste~ upwar~ or downward by the
sa~e percentage that the Marshall Swift Rui~dlng
Cost Index increased or decreased hntwee~ J~ne 30~
1991, and the date of the payment. With the
approval o£ the County's Fire Chief~ the owner~
developer or a~cignee(s) shall re~m~v~ a credit
toward the required payment far t~e cost of any fire
suppreszion cy~tem not etherwi=e required by law
which is included as a part of the development.
B. The owner, developer or a~ignee(s) shall provide
fire suppression ~ystem not ethsrwise required by
law which the County's Fire chief duterminem
substentially reduced tho need for County facilities
otherwise n~oessary for fire p~ote0tiom.
Vote: Unanimous
9~m,;o~o (~mended)
In ~{atoaca Hagisterial Dietr~ct, ROBERT J. HA~INKO re~est~d
rezoning f~0~ Agricultural (A) to Residential (~-=5) of 244.~
nares, plus amendment to previously ~anted rezonings (Cu~e~
87S012 and. 88SNO~89) ~elative to d~n~i~y on an adjacen~ 494.3
acres zoned Residential (R-~5). Residential use of up to 1.74
units per acr~ i~ permittsd in a Residential (R-2B)
~ d~n$ity oi such amendment will ~ controlled ~ z~ning
conditions or Ordinance ~tandards. The ComDr~nsive Plan
designates the property for residential ~e of 1.~0 units per
91-849 12/111~1
fronting approximately 6,600 feet on the south lane of ~ensley
Road, apprexlms%e]y 2,200 ~ss~ east of Beach Road, also
fronting approximately 3,8~5 feet on the north line cf Beach
Road, approximately 2,000 feet east of Brandy oars Drive, also
located at the eastern terminus of Brandy Oaks Drivs. Tax Map
189-3 (1) Parcel 1, Tax Map I~9-4 (1) Parcel I and Tax Map
110-9 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 29).
~4r. Jaoobson presented a Summary of Case 91SN~220 and stated
the Planning Co~izsion reco~ended app~oYal and acceptance of
t~e pro£Sered conditions.
F~r. John Cogbill, representing the applicant, stated =he
r~Commendation was acceptable. Ther~ w~ opposition present.
~. Sullivan sta~ed since ~ere was opposition to th~ r~quest,
it would be placed in its re, tar ~e~nce on th~ agenda.
In Bermuda Maglste~isl District, WAYNE A~D KIM~ERLY KIDD
requested rszoning from Agrlcultural (A) to Residential (R-9).
Resldent~al use of up to 4,84 ~nit~ par acre is permitted in u
Residential (R-9) District. The Comprehensive Plan designates
the D~op~ty fsr natural conservation and for residential use
of 1.01 to 2.S0 units per ecru. This request lies on 8.44
acres fronting approximately 850 feet on the south line of
Centralia Road, a~rcss from Hill~op Farms Drive. Tax ~p 97-6
(1) Pa~c~l~ 14, 45, 50 and 69 (Sheet
~m Planning co~isslon reco~ended approval and acceptance of
~ proffered conditions.
Mm. Ki~erly Kidd stated the reco~endation was acceptable.
~ere was no o~o~ition present.
After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Currin, ~econded by
Mr. ~ayes, ~e Board approved Ca~e 9~$N0~83 an4 m~cept~d
following proffered conditions:
1. All lot~ ~hall have a ~inimum lot area of 1~000 s~are
feet.
foutag~:
a. Ranchers - 1,~0~ gro~ ~quare f~t of
heated l~ving space.
living space.
living space.
living space.
3. The applioant~¢ ~ubdivider, or ~smignee(s) ~hall pay the
foll~ing to thC County of Chesterfield at the time
buildln~ pe~it application for infrastructure
improvement~ within ~e servi~ di~triot for
prope~ty:
a. $2,000 per lot, if paid p~ior to January 1, 1992;
b. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not
to exceed $3,000 per lot, if paid between Janu&~y
1992, and aline $0, 1992, inclusive; or .
c. The amount approved by the Board Of Supervisors net
to exceed $4,000 per lot, if paid between Jnly 1,
199~, and June 90, ~$95, in¢lusivP; or
d- Tbs amount approved by the ~oaxd cf Supervisors nut
to exceed $41000 per lot adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Coat
Inde~ between J~l~ 1, 1992, and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the payment is ma~e i~ paid aXt~ ~e
30, 1993.
O~er than the existing private drive~ acoe~
C~ralia Road shall be limited to one (1) publio road.
~e exact location 0f ~i5 road ~hall be appruved by the
Transpor=atlon
To provide for a~ adequate roudwuy system at the time of
developer s~all be responsible for ~e following
improv~ent~:
A. Relocation of ~h~ ditch along ~e sout~ si~e
Centralia Road to provide an ads,ate ~houlder from
the ~auturn propmrty line to a location opposite the
i~tersection of Hilltop Farms Drive+ At th~ tlae of
road and drainage ~lan review, the e~aot length of
~i~ i~9rovem~nt ~hall be approved by the
Trans~ortation Departmen%.
B. Dedioation, free and unrestricted, to and for
benefit of the County of ~esterfiel~, any
additional right of way (or easements) re~ired for
~e road improv~me~t~ identified above.
~e following shall b~ incu~oruted into ~e Declaration
of Restr~ct~on~ and recorded with ~e subdivision plat:
Ail exposed muso~y must be brick or stone.
b. ~orch piers must be brick or ~tone.
All fireplace~ mu~t b~ b~ic~ or ~tone.
d. All cape code shall have at lea~t two do~r windows
~n the f~ont of ~e residence.
All detached ~u~ldings and garage~ mu~t be behind
primary residence.
f. Front steps mu~t be of woo~ construction with close~
g. NO lot shall bm u~e~ 0thor ~an for residential
purpo~e~. 0nly one re=idencu may be con=truoted on
each ~latted 1~% as r~corded.
h. No trail~, t~nt, garag~ or structure of any
~hall b~ ereoted~ on any lot, to be used as a
residence, t~mporarily or
i. Any attached a~ditions to main residence must be of
~am~ design, colors, an~ material=.
j. ~e~e shall be no unlicensed motor vehicle parked
an enclosed garage.
k. ~er~ shall b~ ~o ~lab oon~t~otlon of main
1. ~erm ~hall b~ ~0 ~Xpo~ed oil~ kerosene, gas drums
O~ ta~ks allowed on any lot.
fence will be allowed.
91-B51 12/11/91
~1!!!.: .......................... : LI
'Vote
Other
sits,
These covenants are to run with the land and shall
be binding on all pasties and all persons claiming
under them for a period Of twenty (~) years from
the dmt~ these covenants ere recorded, after which
time said covenants shall be automatically extended
for an additional period of ten (10) years unle~m an
instrument signed by a majority of the then owners,
excluding the developer, of the lots has been
reoorded~ agreeing to change maid cove~ants~ in
whole or in part.
Once developer sell~ land, he is no longer
reeponslble for these covenants.
than the existing house and the lot on which it
there shall be no more than eleven (11) new lots.
In Bermuda ~agis~erial District, ~IC~T. W. HCNALLY requested
rezoning from General industrial (M-2) to General
(~-2). The dens~ty of such amendment will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance ~fandard~. The
~lan designates the property for light industrial use. This
req~/sat lies on a ~.0 acr~ parcel fre~ti~g approximately 149
~eet ~n the east line of Old Stage Road, approximately 370
Parcel 33 (Sheet
~4/'. Jacohmon presented a summary of Case 91SN0228 a~d stated
the Plannln~ Co~mission recommended approval and acceptance of
the proffered
F~r. De,tn Hawkins, ~ep~enti~g the applicant, stated
r~co~en4ation was ac=eptable. There was opposition present.
it would be placed in its regular se~mnce on ~ agenda.
~4r. Jacobsen stated the next four cases were ~ntroduc~d by the
~eard of Supe~viser~ tn bring proffers assooiated with the
requests in ~ompl±ance with the current procedures of ~he
Proffer ~oli~y.
91~388
In Matnsca Magisterial District, xku~ U~STERFIELB COUNTY ~ARD
OF SUL~rXSO~ requested amendment to a previously granted
zoning (Case 91S~0124) relative to oas~ ~reffe~. The density
of such amendment will be controlled by zoning =seditions or
ordinance standard~. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for residential use of 2.2 units per acre and
community mixed use. This ~eq~est lies in a Residential (R-9)
District on a 12.0 acrs pa,esl fronting approximately 173 feet
on the east lin~ of North Spring Run Road, approximately 780
feet north of ~oEnnally Road. Tax Map 75-6 (1) Pa,eel 12 and
Tax Map 75-7 (1) P~cel 2 (Sheet 20).
91~0~O~
In Matoaca Magisterial Diet, lot, T~ (~RT~RFT~ C%01~9~Y
OF ~~ rm~e~ted amen~ent ~o a previously granted
zoning (Case 91S~0126) relative to cash Droffer~, The
of Gush amendment will be co~trolled by zoning condlt~ons
Ordinance standards. The Compr~h~Dsive Pla~ d~i~ate~
property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 un~t~ pe~ acre.
aero parcel which li=s at ~e eastern te~inus of Porters Mill
Road. Tax Map ~7-4 (1) Part of Parcel 14 (Sheet
91-852 12/11/91
91SN0310
S~ISO~ requested amendment tca prevlou~ly, granted zoning
such amendment will be controllsd by zoning conditions or
Thi~ request lies in a Residential Townhouse (R-T~) DiEtrict
on a 48.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,400 feet on the
Drive and Country Manor Lane; alee fronting apprexi~tely 380
feet On the north line of Cogbtll Road, approxlnately 6%0 feet
we~t of Kedle~ten Avenue, and l~i~g at th~ western terminus of
~arty ~oulevard and Stanley Drlvs. Tax Hap 52-10 {1) Parcels
5 and 7 und Tux Mup 5~-~0 (~0) Braxton, Section A, I~%s 1
t~roug~ 76 (sheet 1~).
In Bermuda Magisterial Distri~t~ T~ u~S'r~m~IRTn COUNTY BOARD
OF SUI~RVISOI~ requested amen~ent to a prevlou~ly granted
zoning (Cass 90SN0254) relative to cash proffer. ~e density
of su~ ~en~ent will be controlle~ ~ zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive PIa~ designates the
property for residential us~ Of 1.51 to 4.00 unit~ p~r
~i~ re.est lies in a Residential (R-12) Di~t~ict on a 7.8
=ore parcel fronting approximately 307 ~eet on ~e northwest
line of Marobri~ Drive, approximately 1,316 feet southwe~
~appy Hill Road~ Tax Map 14~-~ (1) Parcel I (Shee~ 41).
the p~offered condition submitted required the cash proffer be
paid within two y,ars of recordation of ~e ~u~divimion
and ~at provision had be~n ~liminated from ~e cu~ent Cash
~liminute that r~ir~ment and would re,ire cash proffers
paf~ at time of application for a building pe~it. He noted
Cases 91SN0309, 91SN0310 and 91S~03~ were ~imilar and
compliance wi~ ~e c~rent procedures of ~= Cash
Policy and, ~erefore, the Planning co~ion reco~ended
approval.
~ere was no opposition present.
On ~otio~ of ~. Da~iPl, ~cond~d by ~. Applegate, the Buar~
~p~oved Cases 91SN0308, 91SN8309, 91SN0318 and 9ISN0~i and
aQc~pted the following proffered conditions as noted for ~ch
case:
91~-'N0308
A maximum of 30 lot~ mhall be pe~mitted ~ith this deuelopm~nt.
For 1ot~ 15 through 30, the applicant, ~u~ivider, or
assignee(~), shall pay the following to the County of
Che~terfield at the time of building De--mit application for
infrastructure improvemests within the =ervice district for
the ~roperty:
a. $2,000 per lot, if paid prior to January ~ ~99~; or
b.
The amount approved by the Board of gupervi~or~ net
to excesd $3,090 per lot, if paid between Canuary 1,
1992, and June 30, 1992, inclusive; or
The amount approved by the Bo~d of Suporviso~ not
1992, a~d Jons 30, 1993, inclusive; or
91-8~3 1~/11/91
to exceed $4,000 par lot adjusted upward by any
in~reasc in the ~arehall and swift suilding
Index between J~ly 1, 1992, and ~uly i of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made if paid after June
(NOTE: This condition supersedes the proffered condition
s~cepted by the Board of Supervisors with the approval of
The applicant, ~ubdividar, or assignee(s] shall pay the
followinq to the County of Chesterfield at the time cf
building permit application £or inSrastructure improvements
within the service district for the property:
a. $2,000 per lot, if paid prior to January 1, ~9~; er
b. The amount approved by the Board of Spporvisor$ not
to exceed $3,000 per lot, if paid between January 1,
~99~, and J~ne ~0, 1~2, inclusive; or
to ~x~eed $4,000 per lot, if p~id between July
1992, and June ~O, I993, inclusive; or
d. The a~ount appreve~ by the ~uard of Supervisors net
to exceed $4,000 ps~ let adjusted upward by
increase in the ~arshall and swift Building Cost
Inde~ between July I, 1992, a~d J~ly i of the fiscal
yeas in which the payment ~s made if paid after June
~0, 199~.
(NOTE: Thi~ condition super~ede~ the p~o££ered condition
accepted by the Board ef Superv~nr~ with the approval of
Case
Section "4.26 ~a=h PaymentS' of th~ Textual Statement is hereby
~eleted in it~ entirety and the following substituted
4.~6 Should the rezoning request be ~ranted, the applicant,
s~bdivider, er asmignee, shall pay t~e fallowing to the County
cf C~ester£isld at the time of buildin~ permitapplication for
infrastructure i~p~ovements within the ~ervice district for
the Property:
a. 4S% Of $2,000 ($960} for each lot within the
residential portion of the Property a~d for each new
multi-family unit ~0 b~ constructed on ~l~e Property,
if paid prior to July 1, 1991; or
for each reaidentlal lot and each nOW ~lti-family
unit tn be oonetruoted on ~he Property~ if paid
between 3uly 1, 199~, a~d Sene ~o, 1~92, inclusive;
c. 48% of tho amount approved by the Board
Supervisors, net to exceed 48% of $4,000 ($~,9~0),
far each residential lot and each new multi-family
unit to be cometructed on the Property, if paid
91-854 12/11/91
: I
48% of the amount approved by the Board of
~upervi$0re, not to exceed 45% of $4,000
for each nemidential lot and each new ~ulti-f~ily
unit to be constructed on the 'Property, adjusted
upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index between July 1, 1992, and July
of the fiscal year in whie~ the ~ayment is mude if
paid after June 30, ~99Z.
This condition supersedes Section 4.26 Cash
of the approved Texteal Statement for Case 90SN0289.
b. Ail other conditions of zoning approval
90~No2a9 remain in
The applicant, subdivider, or ae~igne~(~) shall
following to the County of Cheeterfield at the
building permit application for infrastructure
within the service
pay the
time of
improvements
a. $~,D00 per lot, if paid prior to January 1, 1992; or
to exceed $3,000 per lot~ if paid between January 1,
199~, and Jun~ 30, 1992, inclusive; or
c. The amount approved by the Boar~ of ~pcrvlsors not
to exceed $4,000 per lot, if paid between July 1,
199~, and June ~0, ~995, i~ol~iv~; er
d. The a~ount approved by ~e ~oar~ of supe~isorm no~
to exceed $4,000 per lot adjusted upward by ~y
increase in the ~arsha!l and swift Suitdln~ Cos~
Index between July 1~ 199~, amd JUly i of the fimcal
year in which the 9a~ent is ~de i~ paid after J~e
(NOTES:
a. This condition suDersedem P~effered
Case 90SN0254.
All other proffered conditions of
remain in
Vote: Unanimous
Condition 1 of
89814'0343 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterla~ District, ~T~n L~ND ASSOC~ATE~
raqnested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and General Business
(B-~) to Remi~ential (R-~) with Conditional use Plar~nad
Development to pe~it R~= and bulk exceptions. Re~identlal
%se of up to 4.84 units per acre is permitted in a RePidential
(R-9) District. The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning condition~ or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for reei~oetial use
of ~.~ unite per acre or less, conservation, passive
recrestion, m~x~d uae corridor and regional ~ixed use no~e.
This request lies on a ~otal cf 3~9~.5 acre~, fronting in two
(2) place~ fe~ a total of approximately 3,700 feet on t. he
north llne. of Hull Street Road~ al~o fronting in two (2}
places for a ~otal of approximately 1,7~0 feet on the west
llne of Otterdale Road, and in. six (6) plaee~ on the north and
south linem'of DuVal Read for a total of approximaEely 1~120
feet, Tax Map 59 (1) Parcel 33 and Tax Eap 75 (1) Parcels 1
91-855 12/11/91
staff had originally recommended denial of the request ba~ed
on inadequate provisions for road improvements and the
Planning Co~tmission had recor~mended denial ba~d on the impact
fo~ ~oade, Schools and water quality of the Swift Creek
Remervoir. He further state~ since the Planning Colmlssion's
meeting, the applicant had aubmitted proffered conditions and
textual statement changes of $1,600 per dwelling unit for
offmite read improvements and $1,200 per dwelling unit for
schools and other public faeiliti~s and had offered a water
~ality change to th~ textual statement w~ich Would re,ire
~e applicant to s~mi~ a water quality plan to achieve a
oe~tain level of perfo~ance standard for phomphoroum r~-off.
~e noted ~e standards for the water ~allty plan would be
extensive overview of the re~e~t and ~tat~d they had mmt and
worked with~ny different groups for input into the plan. He
further stated they felt largm-moal~ ~velopment an~ ~he
S~ittal of the proffered cond~tionm controlled the g~o~h
and wam mere bensficial than piecemeal grow~. He reviewed
~e proffe~ed conditionm submitted by ~e appllcan% reqarding
CIa~ified ~e timing of the ~affic improvements. Me further
Swift Creek Reme~oi~, complied with all ~e~i=ements of the
~esapeake ~ay ~reme~a=ion Act an~ the Upper Swift Creek
Plan. He fu~th~ ~view~d ~e proffered condition m~mitted
relating to water ~al~=y Dro~eoti0n fo~ ~ Reservoir and
~tat~d t~ey had worked with Hand~ A~ro~ th~ Lake in
establlshlng this goal; that they had agreed to install three
had offered an a~dttional proffered condition which would fund
~e research and e~tab!ish · lawn/land,rape fertilizer gui~e
which wouI~ ~ enforced t~ough the covenants of the pro, eot,
etc.
Mr. Jay Weinberg, representing the applicant, ~re~en=ed an
OVerview of the impact the development wo~ld h~v= on schools
dewelopments and those of high quality wer~ large~scale
a~d ~oted ~ey exceeded the current Cash Proffer Policy and
the dedications for parks and schools, fire stations,
~e water line to me~e G~a~ge Hall El~entary School in order
station~ to ~o~itur the water quality of the Swift Creek
Res~vo~r; fo~ miles of ~wo lanes of pavement for
Parkway and =tared the applicant had al~o agreed to establish
a~ eso~ f~nd for s~ocls and, in addition, had proffered
$280~ per dwelling ~it for =mgital ~provements. He further
s~a~ed ~e re,est would not increase population for schools
in the the area, ~tc. ~e requested th~ Board to giv~
Mr. J. ~. Campbell mtatm~ he wa~ presently developing the
Waterford Office P~k adjacent to Brand~ill an~ had also
~mvmlope~ the c~oial sid~ of Brande~iI1 and Woodlake;
~at ~e County needed a h~gh~r o~eroial tax base to balance
it~ ~oonomio~; ~at bu~inesse~ were looking fo~ high ~ality
re=~d~tial neighborhoods for ~eir employees; ~hat
sig~iflcant relocations of companies would scar in the County
due to high ~ality 9la,ed c~unities; that ~is was a
~ality development being offered and, therefore~ re~ested
~e Board to give ~avorable oon~tderatlon to the
N~f. Jim ~aye~ ~tatad hs wan a resident of the COunty; that he
felt this requsst was a high quality planning effort with vent
opportunities for %he County; that due to the decline in the
economy, he felt the :applicant had 'offered substantial
infrastructur~ improvements and far exceeded other requests
previously approved; that ~he development Would bring positive
economic improvements to the County end, therefore, requested
the Board to give favorable consideration to tho request.
~. Earl JackEon ~tatsd he wa~ a resident of the County; that
he had attended Virginia Commonwealth University and at that
time, had an o~port~nity to meet ~he developers of
Brandermill; that he resided in Brandermill end felt the
quality of life was exceptional; that he felt the proposal was
outstanding and, therefore, requested the Board ~o give
favorable consideration to the request.
~r. John Crow ~tated he was a resident of the county end
resided in Brandermill and was one of the first residents to
10eats in the Brandermill community; that he felt the
developers of Brandermill had followed through on their plan
of development and was satisfied with the outoom~ of the
c0m~unity and, therefere, requested the Board to give
favorable consideration to the request.
Mr. Bob Haskins s=a~ed he owned property on Beach Roa~; t~at
he felt the proposed project would add ~ignificaDt
=ontributions to the future economy of the County; that the
planned community would be a net tax revenue contrih~tor due
to the submission e~ the pro££ered conditions; that the
developers had the financial r~sok~oe~ and good reputation to
ensure a hig~ quality development; that ha felt the potential
increase in traffic generated by the request would be red~eed
since it was a planned community; that the proffered
conditions relating to traffic were adequate and, therefore,
re,nested the Board to give favorable csnnideration to the
rec/nest.
~r. Rick ~eez ~tat~d he was a re$idpnt of the County and had
located here because of the School System; that they had built
a home in Brandormill and were content; that the request would
be beneficial to the growth of the County and, therefore,
requested the Board to give favorable consideration to the
request.
Mr. Lad Hudgins stated he was a ~eside~t of the County; that
he felt the County would benefit from the growth and the
Powhits Extension wa~ vital to the ~0tc/~th of the County; that
the Co~nty needed to provide quality developments in which to
reside; that he had contacted numerous business per~on~ ~n
which all but one voiced support Sar the development; that his
children had attended Grange ~all ~lem~Dtary $=hool end felt
the water line was esaential to its ~ont~nucd operation; that
hi~ property was adjacent to the request and he wa= ~&tisfied
with the oon~itiens nn~itted by the applicant; that staff bad
done a good job ~n reviewing tho req~es~ an~, therefore,
~q~cmted th~ Board to give favorable consideration to the
request.
Mr. Linwood Bottoms stated he was a life-long resident of the
County and a neighbor to the Brande~mill and Woodlake
communities; ~hat he had supported the development of ~he two
con,unities and felt they were good neighbors; that the
developers had honored ~heir promises when developing the
communities and, theref0~e, ~equestmd the Board to give
favorable consideration to the request.
F~r. C~arles Webren, President of J. K. Tinmens and Associates,
stated he felt th~ req~e~ wes in the long term best interest
of the Ceunt~i that the County had received state-wide and
national recognition for its high standards as businesses and
91-857 1]/11/91
industries wore influenced by the development of Brandermill;
that the Branderuill development had created numerous jobs and
had been ~nstrumental in the location of hueine~see within the
County; that he felt the proposed development would have a
positive iupaet on the County and his company had located in
the County as a result of the Brandermill development and,
therefore~ requested the Board to give favorable consideration
to tho request.
/~r. Niekey Blaloek stated he was m resident ~of the County;
that the quality of life in the County Was due to the
development w~thln the County and the School System; that if
the request was not approved, growth would continue within the
County and world ne~ be the high c/uality ae proposed and,
therefore, requested the Board to give favorable consideration
to tho request.
Rt. ~urkley Martin stated he was a resident and business owner
o~ the County; that he felt the Brandermill and Woodlake
co~uni=ies were excellent communities; that the developer of
those co~unitles had provided jobs as would this request and
would be an asset to the future of the County and, therefore,
requested the Board to give favorable consideration cf tho
request.
I~t. Gle~ GUnman ~tuted he was ~ resident and had an office in
Brandermill; ~ha~ ~he County was ex~erienclng tremendous
~rowth and he felt the best growth was on a large-scale basis;
that large-soale day,legmen, s had moro %c offer than piece~esl
development; that the proposed request could set a good
example ~or future growth ~n the County and, therefere~
/4r. Chris Doyle stated he wag a renident an~ has ~ buslne~s in
the coun:y; ~a~ he ie an adjaoent property owner to the
proposed request; that when the request had originally been
~roposed, ho had some cencern~ about t~e development's impact
in the area but the developer had addressed his oonoerns; that
the developer had met or exceeded the concerns expressed by
different resident groups; that the developer was off~zlng a
quality planned development and, requested, if the Board had
unanswered concerns not to d~!ly the request but to de£er it to
the new Board.
~. Philip Halsey stated he wa~ an architect and developer and
supported the proposed request; ~hat he felt the Camp, Dreeasr
and MoKee report wus not accurate and reviewed the methodology
used when preparing =~e report and, in particular, the best
~a~ago~e~t practicus race--ended by the report; that there was
no formula for hu££er zones in %he reduction of phosphorus er
nitrogen when preparing the report; that the request would not
have an cnvlronmental ~mpact on the swift Creek Reservoir and
he felt in geeeral~ the issue of water quantity ~hould he
ad,noosed and, therefore, supported the prop~ed ~equest.
It was generally agreed to recess fen five minutes.
Reeonvening:
/~r. George Beadles ~tated he was a resident of the County~
that he £elt overall, the propoee~ request should be approved;
that he wa~ ee~Ccrnxd a~ he f~]t the request was based on the
applicant's proffered conditions and would net require the
applicant to conform to more rigid water quallty ~tandard~ if
chan~ed by tho County and, therefore, tho applicant would he
grandfath~r~d; that there would be an increase in traffic
Route 360 whether or net the project was developed; and
approved in the past, it did not ensure the developer was
supporting the full cost of this request as he felt citizens
would still support part of the cost of the development, etc.
Mr. Robert Tolbert stated he wam a resideut ef Woodlake and
£elt the request should be deferred for the new Board.
stated she wa~ concerned about her property value~ and the
property' values in the area; that Hands Across the Lake
supported the amended water protection plan for the County and
they felt further water protection legi~lation was needed;
that she was concerned about the demand tmming placed on the
water quantity; that some of the proffered conditions had been
submitted just prior to the mae~ing; that the County
dependent on th~ Appomattox River Water Authority and the City
of Richmond for part of its water ~upply; tha~ t~he county had
lost control over the Fa11ing Cre~k R~ervoir a~d she ~id not
wan~ ~hat to happen to the Swift Creek Reservoir; that their
position ~eqarding the phosphorous lcadiD~ ha~ been
misunderstood and new information had been received which now
changed their position; that concerns ha~ b~$~ expressed as to
t~e formation of the swift Creek Reservoir; that they were not
against growth or economic development within the County but
felt the pot~ntlal of degradation to the quality of water
time ts review the re0ent proffered conditions submitted.
Ms. Mary Kramar, member of Hands Across the La~e, stated she
was a retire~ physicist wish over twenty-five years
experience in research and college teaching; that she had
studying the lake and reviewed the findings of a consultant
who had also studied the lake; that she felt there were
optloas evil!able in which the applicant coul~ meet their
qoals and had ~ubmitted these suggestions to the applicant.
she reviewed the findings of the study un the lake in detail
~nd recommended suggestions which would meet the goal= of
Hand~ Across the Lake in protecting tho ~uality of water for
the Swift Creek Reservoir, et=.
Mr. Don Plesico~ representative of ~a~dm Acro~s the Lake,
~tated he was a remident of the County and they were co~mitted
to protecting the quality of water in the Swift
Reservoir; that they were not against develop~emt but felt the
water quality should be pro=acted; that they had been active
by ~nfor~ng c~tlzen~ and group~ about measures to tak~ to
protect water quality; that they were conoer~ed about future
development around the Reservoir and felt the Reservoir had
the potential for a long life if managed properly; =hat their
goal was for the proposed project to be day=loped under
standards which would ensure the continued he&l~h of the
Reservoir; that t~ese stahdurds were unknown at this time and
felt the data available and presented today was not available
at the ti~e the County ordinance was established; that due to
the new information, they felt thim request and any other
request within the watershed ~hould be deferred u~til the
rL%nofZ stsndard~ ~n the ordina~ee were studied by the Plaruning
Commission; that after the ordinance wa~ studied, the ~larming
commission should recommend a technically developed standard
to en~ur~ the continued water quality of the Reservoir and
only after an ordinance had been established, should the
proposed request er any other development within the watershe~
proceed using the revised standards; that the applicant should
become more familiar with best management practices currently
being used to protect the water ~lality wit~i~ the region; and
that they did not want te see the Re~srvoir hecom~ aba~do~d~
etc.
12/11/91
~. Beth nunkum, ~re~i~ent of the Chesterfield County Council
for PTA's, stated they were concerned about the impact the
development would hays on the School Sy~ten; that the request
would generate approximately 2700 students in an area which
wan currently experiencing overcrowded facilities and would
g~nerate a need for additional schools; that currently there
was net a plan available for the construction 0£ additional
~c~eol$ in the area; that although proffered conditions had
been submitted regarding the dedication of land or an option
for an escrow fund, they felt there would be additional
funding required for the construct~nn of the schools and the
apDreved ~n the 1988 Bond Referendum, the System would still
be overcrowded; and, therefore, felt if ~he request was
approved, the new Board would need to appropriate the
F~r. Bill Norris stated he was past President of the North
American Lake ~nagement Society and e past watershed
management official for Alb~a~arle County, and had been
~/ld make ~uggesticns if desired; that ha wa~ familiar with
watershed management and water supply protection; that the
applicant's proposed water quality plan, law~ ca=~ ~ide and
golf eours~ m~nagement a~ it r~lated to the Re~e~voir would
need to be monitored and m~nagad properly; thut regulations
which would restrict this req~es~ shoul~ apply County-wide;
that although the proffered conditions submitted by the
applicant offered benefits to ~he ce%fury, ~e felt the timely
muintenance would be critical; that the protection of the
water quality o~ ~he Reservoir was vital; that sediment issues
should be deferred ~ntll all questions were addressed.
felt the proposal was to build a city within a water~hed; that
great risks involved with the request; that he was concerned
about the environment and the water supply; that n~nce the
standards cf the Countyrs ordinance had ~een questioned, he
growth ~hould be legally enfonceable and applicable to all
zoning within the watershed; and requested that if the Board
approved the request, to do se with legally enforceable
MS. K~amar mtated ~he had s~bmitted her suggestion regarding
the deucalion poa~s and had ~een informed ~y the applicant it
~esident cf the County and ~s ~upervisor-Elect of the new
Board. ~e further stated he felt the voter~ had ~poken in the
deoi~ion ~ade on this rezoning case if it were made hy the
incoming Board and~ therefcre~ requested the Board to defer
this request and Case 915N0249, ~, to the new Board.
M~. Bes~i~ ~ensley ~tated she was an adjacent property oWner,
d~velopmeUt and would like the road moved hack away fxom her
the County's requ~rem~ntn regarding the quallty'of water for
the Swift Creek Reservoir; that they ~omplied with the
C~esapeake Bay ~reservation Act, the federal 'Clean Water Act,
th~ Upper swift Cree~ Drainage Plan, and other federal and
State requlatlons; that they had agreed to a lesse~ density
than permitted under the Swift Creek Plan; that they would be
installing throe water quality monitoring statipne and would
91-86~ I~/11/91
be monitored by the County's De~aTtment of Utilities; that the
site Was located approximately two miles away from the
percent of the runoff; that those ucncerned about the quality
of water of the Reservoi~ and Opposed to the request should
alaa abide by their own standards; ~hat the development would
be supporting its cost; that they had worked with all parties
to develop a good plan and would continue to do se; that the
proffered conditions submitted and the re~triction~ inposed On
the re=facet protected all property values~ that the request
been s=udied extensively; and requested the Board to give
b~t did not feel the presentation indicated whether or not the
on ~rowth would be available throughout the twenty year period
but felt in the long term the request would benefit the
the quality of water needed to be reviewed.
improvements. He inquired under Sta~e Co~e if 1seal
Mr. Micas advised the Board had the option of impoming special
tax or ~ervi~ distriot$ pravided the serviGe or the capital
other capital facilities. He stated the Soard would need to
determine when the service er capital improvement was
to ~_he service being provided.
Mr. Daniel stated t~e request could be considered leapfrog
in pha~e~ an~ eighty-flys to ninety p~rcent of the projent
s~stain the development ~ven with the proffere~ con~itiens
submitted regarding schools and readE. ~e inquired as to the
Mr. Plaxco stated there was a provisien Scr the use of
temporary me,tic ~y~tens and/or wetl~ for facilities such as a
sales center while the sewer llnc was under construction for a
condition relating to the uss of public water and sewer should
than a sales of£ice.
Mr. Daniel stated he fe~t the r~qu~st wa~ large in magnitude,
additional infol-matlon had been received just prior to the
meeting and the late hou2f timing should be a consideration
when deciding the request. ~e f~l~the= st~te~ he was concerned
eondltlens submitted. He noted he was in support o~ the
concept for the request but felt additional analysi= wa=
needed and 'reee~u~nde~ the ~oard ~ake no action at t. his time.
He also noted staff and the Planning Commission had
re=ammen~ed ~enial and, therefore, felt the request ~hould be
91-851 12/11/91
~ir. kpplegate stated he had been elected to serve threugh
Dece~be~ 31, 1991 and would fulfill his term to the best of
his ability as he felt it was the responsibility of the
~urrent Board to give th~ request it~ best consideration.
further stated he had met with representatives of Hands A~ross
the I~ake and the applicant and had addressed his
regarding the rsquest. He noted the applicant had submltt~d
proffered conditions to adequately address transportation
needs, the impact on th~ school System, had ~b~i~ted
proffered condltion~ of $420~ ~er dwelling unit which exceeded
~e current Camh Proffer Policy and had made every attempt to
addre~ the ~allty of water for the Swift Cr~ Reservoir.
~. C~rin also stated he had been elect~ to ~u~a through
Decant 31, 1991 and f~lt it wa~ his ~e~pon~ibility to
fulfii1 his te~ to the be~% of his ability, a~ reviewed thm
process in which the Chesapeake Bay Prese~ation Act and the
Up,er Swift Creek Plan had been a~opta~ and sugges~e~ the
residential and co~ercial phosphorus loadings be monitored
wi~in ~e Bran~ill and Woodlake co,unities in an
to establish best management practices within existing
regarding trans~ortatlon need= h~d been addressed, th~
exceeded the current CaEh ~roffer
Mr. Sullivan ~tated he al~o felt he had b=~n ~l~=t=d tu
f~lfill hi~ te~ to th= best of his ability and in the best
~nterest cf the County. He further stated h~ had not voted
for ~e Up~er Swift Cre~k ~lan as he felt ~e water ~ality
standards on ph~pho~ wer~ too hig~ and t~e a~licant
su~itted proSSered =ondltion~ re~ard~ng =he quality of
of the swift ~e~ Rese~voi~ b~t still had concerns regarding
~%t~ water ~ality s~andards and, therefore, proposed the
applicant ~u~it a proffered condition stating after th~
e~irutioa of any approved five ~ear water ~allty plan, the
Board ma~ raqulre s~sequent ~iv~ y-ar water quality plans to
~noff load st~dards for phosphorus but in no event lower
~an .30 pound~ per acre per year for residential
and if more stringent standards ~ere re~ired throughout th~
wat~=he4 to maintain the wa~er ~ality of %he swift Creek
He noted he had di~u~ed thi~ conditio~ wit~ t~e applicant
condition wa~ acceptable.
~. M~a~ advised the requir~ent could not be zu~itt~d az
Sullivan conc~red.
~. Sullivan stated the re~e~t had o~iqinally g~ne~at~d in
hi~ District prior to th~ redistricting of the co~ty and he
support the request at ~at time because ~t would be
from ~e cash Proffer Policy. Hu noted since ~at ~e time,
the applloant has made ev~ attempt =u a~4resm all concern=
expressed and had exceeded ~e cash Proffer Policy and felt
the development would ~ a ~enmflt =o th~ County.
the Utilities Department, stated staff ~a~ req~e~tiRg the
Board to reje=t the s~itt~d proffered condition regarding
~e use of publlc wat~ and ~ew~r a~ i~$t~ad i~0s~
oon~ition to meflect wells and s~tic systems may be used for
fTom ~e date of eccupancy in advance of the develo~ent of
the internal water a~d wa~tewat~r system, g~nerally ~ro~ghout
~e re,est site.
91-862 12/11/91
Mr. Mayas stated he felt the olectod position to the Board was
e scared trust and should not be violated. He further ~tat~
~lthough the transportation nssds and ~ha impact on schools
had bean addressed, he had concerns regarding the revsnue
which would be required, from the County to provide for other
services if the request wa~ approved and the phasing of the
completion of th= units and its impact on County services and,
Mr. Sullivan mad= a motion~ seconded by Mr. Currin, to upprove
Ca~e 915N0349 with the proffered condition othe~ t~an the
utilities proffered condition, to impose the Conditions
relating to water quality, temporary utilitiss and other staff
conditions.
On notion of Hr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board
approved Case 91SN0343 for rezoning from Agricultural (A) and
General Business (B-3) to Residential (R-9) with conditional
use planned development to permit use and b~lk =xc~ption~
~ubject to the following
· . After the e~piration of any approved five (5) year water
quality plan, the Board may require snbsequent five
year water ~uality plans to meat striutsr pos~-
development non-point source pollution l~/noff load
s~andards for phosphorous, but in no event lower than .30
pounds per acre per year for rezidantial development if
more stringent standards are rs~irod throughout the
watershed to maintain tl~e water quulity of Swift Creek
Reservoir ~o long as it is used as a source of drinking
water. [BS)
(NOTE: This condition is in addition to ~he Textual
Statement, 3. Conditions_and Proffers, E. Environmental
~ngineering: 9. page 20, as amended.}
2. Subject to ~ealth Depar~ent and Utilities
approval, . and the requirements of Chapter 20 of the
County Code, wells and septic ~y~tem~ ~ay be used for
real estate oales centers only for a period not to =Xceed
two (2) year= from date of occupancy in advance 0~
development of the inter,al water and wustewater system,
generally throughout the request ait=.
conditions may be imposed by Health Department and
Utilities Department at the tim= ~ach individual request
fc~ t~mporel~ use of wells and septic system is made.
All uses served in this manner shall connect to the
public system as it i~ extended in accordance with tho
overall watsr;wastewater syst~ plan for the request
site.
(NOTE~ T~is Condition supersedes the Textual ~tatement,
· . conditions and Pro~r~ D. Utilltiso: 2Z, page 18.)
3. Setbacks from ~11 Street Road and Site Roadm in Activity
Center AC--1 tract shall com£orm to Emerging Growth
District standards. (P)
(NOTE: This condition is in addition to Textual
Statement, 4.D. Activity Ce~ar~ an~ Community Centers:
Uses and Conditions (R-9 District), Uses Permitted 5.)
A~d, further, the Bourd ~ccepted the following proffered
condition:
The applican~ hereby proffers that the Textual Statement,
Exhibit~ C - E (revised on 19 November 199~. and amended
on 10 Ds=ember 1991) shall be considered as proffered
Conditions applicable to the development of Magnolia
12/11/91
Mr. Daniel stated he felt the request should be deferred for
further review and, therefore, would no% ~upDort ~ha request
in order to provide an opportunity for the new Board, if
desired, to render legal or legislative action.
Ayes: F~. sullivan, M~, Curtis and M~. A~plegate.
Nays; F~. D~niel.
Abstention: Mr. Mayas.
It was generally agreed to reoe~ for five
RecOnvening:
Mr. Jacobsen stated staff had reordered the Agenda as
requested and the Board would be addressing those
with little disomssion first.
91SN0220 (Amended}
In Matoaca Ha~isterial District, I%0B~RT J. ~I%~PINi~O requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A} to Residential (R-25) of 244.8
mores, plus amendment to pruvluu~ly granted rezonings (Cases
87S012 and BBSNO089) relative to density on an adjacent 494.3
acres zoned Residential (R-25). Residential uss of up %o 1.74
The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance ~tandar~e. The Comprehensive
~o~ignates the property for residential use of 1.50 units per
acre or less. This request lies on a total of 799.! acres
fronting ap~reRimately 6,600 feet On the south line of Hensley
Road, approximately ~,~00 feet east of ~each Road, al~o
fronting approximately 3,$00 feet on the north line of Beach
Road, approximately ~,000 feet east 0£ ~ra~dy Oaks Drlvc, al~o
located at the eastern terminus of Brandy Oaks Drive. Tax Map
· 69-~ (1} ~aroel ~, Tax ~ap 1Q9-4 (1) Parcel 1 and Tax Map
110-9 (t) Parcel 2
M~. JacobSen presented a s~ary of Case 915N09~0 and stated
the Planning Commission recommends4 approv~l and acceptance of
the proffered conditions.
Mr. John Cogbill, representing the applicant, stated the
request oomplied with the ComDrehensiv~ Plan, would have
public wate~ and septic systems and the applicant had agreed
te a lower density. Be fur=her stated the applicant had
should be ~eferred.
for the use of septic systems and the cash proffer~ r~garding
the repuest.
F~. Mayas stated it was the policy of the Board the u~e of
approved Case 91SN01~0 and accepted the following proffers4
conditionm:
The property owners and applicant in this rexoning case,
pursuant to section 15.1-491.2:1 of the Code of Virplnla (1950
for themselves and their successors or assigns~ proffer that
the development of the Property known as Chesterfield County
Tax Map 109-4-(1)-1 ("Property A") and the Property
Chesterfield County Tax Map 110-9-(1)-2 and
{"Property B") unde~ consideration will be developed according
to the follow~ng conditiOnS if, and only if, the rezonlng
request for R-~5 and the amendment to the proffer conditions
existing on Property B are granted. In the event t. he rezoning
request i~ denied, the proffcr~ shall immediutely be null and
void and cf no further force er effect.
1. Property A shall be developed as a single family
residential s~odivision with an overall density mot
exceeding 0.63 dwelling units per acre.
2. At the time designated helow~ the applicant,
~uhdlvider, or hi~ a~ignee, ~hai! pay the following
cash pa~rment for Property A to the County of
Chesterfield for infrastructure improvements within
the ~erv~ce d~tri~t as ~e~ig~ated by tile capital
Improvemen~ Program. The applicant shall pay
following applicable cas~ proffer fee:
a. At the time of buildinq permit application
~h~ cash Raymsnt, if paid prior to January
1~ 1992, shall be the amount currently
"Board") not to exceed $~,000 for each
residential lot to be censtructe~
~roperty A; or
b. Should the Board approve an increase in
the cash proffer fee the following ~hali
be paid at the time of building per, it
application as outli~ed below:
(1) The amount approved by the Board not
tO exceed $~,0~0 for each residentlal
lot to be Constructed on ~roperty A
if pai~ between January 1, 1~92 and
J~ne 3Q, 1992, inclusive; er
(2) The amount approved by the Board not
=o exceed $4,000 for each residential
lot to be constructed on ~reperty A
if ~aid between July 1, 199~ and J~ne
30, 1993~ inclusive; er
(3) The amuunt approved by the Board not
~e exceed $4~000 for each residential
lot to be constructed On Property A
adjusted upward by an increase in th.
~arshall and ~wift Building Cost
Index between July 1, 199~ and July 1
of the fiscal year in which the
payment i~ made if paid after June
Provide4 the County determine~ the~e is a
need for a park site in the area of
Property A, the developer ~may ~onate land
to the county to fulfill ~uch
return, the ~evelopsr shall receive a
credit against the q~h proffer designate~
Property k subject to sash proffers. (For
example, if the cash proffer were paid
under the current policy in place on the
91-865 ~/11/91
date of the Proffer Statene~t's
such fas wo~l~ be $80 per lot.) Such cash
proffer credit shall ~e in additien to the
alternative referenced in ~.d. below.
d. At the option of the County and in lieu of
the part of th~ cash proffer for roads
listed above, the developer may provide
equivalent road improvements, as
determined by the Transportation
Department, along Hensley Road between
Beach Road and Spring hun head, These
improvements shall not include those
inprcvemeats idsntifisd in Proffer
~f the cash proffers are not expended for the
purposes designated by the Capital Improvement
Pro,ram within fifteen years £ron the ~ate of
payment they shall be returned in full to the
applicant er his
~roperty B ehalI he ~eveloped as a single family
residential subdlvi=ion with an overall denmity not
exoeedin~ 0.55 dwelling units per acre.
At the t~me designated below, the applicant,
subdivider, or his assignee, shall pay the following
oa~h payment for Property B to the County of
Chesterfield for infrastructure improvements within
the service district as designated by the Capital
i~provement Program. The applicant ~hall pay the
following appl~cable eas~ ~offe~
a. At th~ time of building permit application
the cash payment, if paid prior to January
~, 199~ ~hall be %he amount ¢~rrently
approved by the Board net to exceed $~,000
for each residential lot to be constructed
on Property B in 6xcess of the 0.5 units
per acre density originally approved under
rezoning eases 878012 and 88S~0089~ or
Should the Board appro¥~ un increase tush
proffer fee as outlined below t~en
following ohall be paid at t_he time of
building permit application Sot each
~esidentlal lot constructed on ~roperty
in excess uS the 0.5 units per mere
density originally approved ~/~d~ ~e~onin~
(1) The amounu approve~ by %~ Board no~
to exceed $3,000 for each remidential
Jun~ 30~ 199~ inclusive; or
(2) The amount approved by the Board not
to exceed $4,000 for each residential
lot to be constructed on Property B
if paid between July 1, 1992 and June
(3) The amoun~ approved by the Boa~d not
to e~ooed $4,000 for each residential
lot to bs cen~trueted on Property B
adjusted upward by an increase in the
Ma~shall and Swift Building Cost
Index bstwesn July 1, 1992 ced July 1
of the fiscal year' in which the
payment is made i~ paid a~er June
~s, 1993.
91-866 12/11/91
Provided the County determines ~here is a
need for a psrk site in the area of
Property ~, the developer may donate lan~
to the Ceu~ty to fulfill such need.
return, the develop0r shall receive a
.credit against the cash proffer designated
Property B subject to cash proffers+
under the Pro~er Statement's execution
such fee would be $80 per let.) Such sash
proffer credit ~hall be in addition to the
alternative referenced in 4.d. below.
d. At the option of the CoUnty and in lieu of
l~ted above, the developer may provide
~quivalen% road ~provements,
datelined by ~e Transportatio~
B~ach Road and Spring Run Road.
improvement~ mhall not include
imp~ove~e~t~ identified i~ ~roffer 5.
p~osez designated by =he capital Improv~nt
~ram within fifteen years from the date of
pa~ant they shall be ret~ned in full to the
applicant or hi~
ti~e of ~h~ complete development of t~e
project, the dev~5op~r, applicant, s~bdivider,
hi~ assi~e, shall be responsible fo~ - the
follow~ng:
De~iuation of a 70 foo~ wide right o~ way
construction oS a two-lane roa~ section
VDOT Urban Collector Standards (40 mph
Design spem~} w~th~n that ~dica~d right
of way generally running in a north/~outh
~irect~on ~ough Property A and Property
B a~ g~erally ~hown on ~e t~D~ative
titled "Tentative S~bdivislon Plan, Brandy
Oa~," prepared by Ma~on a~d Associates,
Consulting Engineers~ and dated septe~er
· , ~991 and last ravi~ed D~ce~er 3, 1991
("E~iblt A"). The D~ign Stamdard~
th~ Transportation
b. bedication to =h~ county 45 f~ of right
of way ~auuUred from ~e csnterline~
applicant's property ~at is the subject
OS ~hls rezonlng
~en~l~y Road~ if warranted and
datelined by th~ Trans9ortation
Department.
d. Relocation of the ditch line along Beach
and Hensley Roa4s to ~rovi~e un
should~ adjacent to t~e applicant's
r~zoninq =e~est.
91-867 '12/11/91
e. Dedication to the county a 70 foot wide
right of way for an east-west collector
through the property as generally shown on
the ~k~tch attached hereto as Exhibit A,
f. Cons%ructlon of a two-lane road section to
VDOT Urban Collector standards (40 mph
Design Speed) for that portion of
east-we~t collector located on the
applicant's property as generally shown on
the s~ete~ attached hereto as Exl~ibit A.
The Design Standards are'those applicable
on the date of the acceptance of the
proffers as modified by the Transportation
Department.
6. Th~ applicant or his a~signs shall be entitled
construct up to thirty-fo~ (34) lot~ frentlnq on
the north/south collector a= =hewn on ~xhlblt A.
Nine {9) lets shall front en Hensley Read and access
that roadway a~ ~hewn on E~h~bit A. The total
number ef lots with frontage en Henstey Road er the
north/south collector shall not exceed for=y-three
(43) 1Ot~. Ail lots f~onting on ~ensley Road or the
north/south collector shall have £~ont yard ~uilging
sutbucks of 7~ feet and the building sethnck llne
shall he recorded on the reuar~ plat.
7. Prior to any fins1 check plat approval a phasing
Dla~ fo= the req~i~ed road improvements identified
in Proffer 5 a-f ~all De su~it~ed to and ~roved
by the Transportation Department.
Vote: Unanimous
91SN0288
In Bermuda Hagisteriat Distriet~ KIC~AEL W. ~[~laT~ ~equested
rezonlng from ~eneral ~ndustrial (~-z) ~o General Industrial
(I-~). The density of Such anend~e~t Will be oo~t~olled by
zoning conditions or ordinance ~tandards. The comprehensive
Plan desi~ates ~e property for light indumtriul use. This
re.est lie~ on a 2.0 acr~ parcel Sron=ing approxlm~=ly
feet o~ the east line of Old ~tage Road, approximately 370
~e ~lannin~ co--isaiah recc~en~ approval and acceptance of
the proffered c0ndition~.
~. Dea~ HaWkins, representing ~e mpplicant, stated the
reoo~endation was acceptable.
Conditions should be imposed on the request and all zoning
approved Case 91SN0288 and acce~ted th~ following proffere~
conditions:
1. Prior to site Dian approval, forty-five (45) feet of
right of way O~ the east side of old Stage Road as
Road i~e4iately adjacent tu th~ property shall
of Chesterfield Co~ty.
91-868 lM/ll/Pl
additional lane of pavement shall be constructed along
Vote: Unanimous
918N0199
In Dale Magisterial District, H]~1~¥ ~. ~YEP~, JR.
rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community business (B-2) te
Com~nit~ Bu~imes~ (C-3). The d~sity of such ~endment ~wi11
be controlled ~ zonin~ conditions or ordinanc~
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for office and
ligh~ oo~roial u~. Thi~ request lies on 6.0 acres fronting
approxi~tely 1,140 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge
al~o fronting a~Droximatety 840 feet on Lori Read, and located
in the sou~east ~adrant of ~e i~tersection of these roa~s.
Tax Map 95-3 (1) Parcel 7 and T~x Map 95-7 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet
~).
and did not com91y with the Central Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan and the Planninq Cotillion
m~provml and accegtanoe of the proff~re~ conditions.
~. Henry Myers stated he has owned ~he 9roperty for the last
~rty-five years amd had been unable to develop ~e $it~
it was not marketable; that a majority of the prop~ty
occupied by wetlands and he could ~0 longer ~fford the taxes
~. Daniel stated he ha~ ~pok~n to the applicant on several
occa~ion~ and ~pathized with his economic dile~a but felt
the ~n~ Use Plan should be considered and, therefore, felt
the re,est should be deferred for f~rther r~vi~w end in order
to give him an opD0~tuni%y to ad, ess the c~ncerns e~ressed.
~. Daniel made a motion, ~eco~ded by Mr. Applegute, %0 defer
Case 91SN0199 u~til F~bruary 16, 1992.
entire parcel being tax%d while it ~y ~ot be developable;
fair market value for the parcel's u~e r~arding fanes; the
appeal proc~sz for taxe~ already paid; the re~egt complying
with the Land Use an~ Transportation Plan; the
regardin~ the wetlands,
~. Sullivan called for the vot~ on the ~otion made by
Daniel, seconde~ by Mr. Applmgate, to defer Case
Vote: Unanimous
In Bermuda Magisterial Dist~iet, JACK T. SHOOS~TH requested
Conditional ~s~ to permit a borrow pit in an A~risultural
District. The density of such amendment will be controlled by
· unlng conditions er Ordinance atandar~s. The
Pla~ designate~ th~ property for general industrial u~e and
100 year floodplain. This request l~es On a 310 acre parcel
fronting approximately 4,787 feet on 'th~ e~ line of Allied
Read, apDro~mately 1,~00 fset north ef East Hundred Road.
Tax Map 136 (1) Part of Parcel i ISheet 43).
91-869 12/11/91
Mir. Jacobsen presented a summary of Casa 91S~0~69 and stated
~taff and the Plunnlng Co~ission had recommended approval
subject to conditions and acceptance of the proffered
ocndition~ but since that time, the applicunt hud withdruwn
the proffered conditions which provided for the protection of
an existing residence, vegetarian around the area and
cemeteries located on the site.
Mr. Currin disclosed te the Beard that ha is in business with
Mr. ~hoosmith, declared a potential conflict of interest
pursuant to the Virginia Cnmprehensive Conflict of Interest
Act, and excused himself £rQm ~ha masting.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicant, stated
they had withdrawn the proffered condition as they were trying
could be acccmDJi~hed nnd~ the Zoning Ordinance without the
imposition of the condition.
Ms. Carolyn Powers stated they ware in agreement with the
applicant~s amendment, however, if at some later point in
time, thc applicant requested higher zoning, they would
possibly have some concerns regarding the ecological
sensitivity c~ this area and the restrictions o~ air and water
permits relative to the uses allowed.
On motion of Mr. Danlel, ~econdad by ~r. ~aya~, the Board
approved Case 915N0269 subject to the following conditions:
1. A buffer ~hall be ~aintained along the south and east
property boundaries cf the re~ue~t site. T~is buffer
~hall consist cf all property south and east o~ the
twenty-five (2~) foot contour, plus all property
generally no~th amd west (landward) of the twenty-five
(25J foot contour for a distance cf 100 feet. The
~e~eval of vegetation to accommodate utilities,
archaeological inspection views, ~edestrian ~atha and
facilities associated with any permitted use shall be
permitted oel~ upon approval by t/%e Director of Plannin~.
(NOT~: Thi= condition i~ in add~tion to tho buffering
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.)
In conjunction' with fi~t ~ite plan ~b~i$~io~% an
overall Disturbance Assessment of the entire property
which is the subject of this application shall be
submitted to the Planning Depart2nent. The Disturbance
A~sessment shall determine the potential for the
sxlstanca cf culturally significant resources, as defined
by the standards of the National Registe~ of Historic
Places, on the property. This Assessment shall be
prepared by an archaeologist acceptable to the virginia
Department of Historic aesources, subsequently, in
conjunction withe ~ite plan sub~isuion for any new
facilities on any portion o~ the property dnnmnd by
overall Disturbance A~e~sm~nt to have the potential to
contain culturally signi£ican~ resources, a Pha~e 1
archaeological survey, prepared by an archaeologist
acceptable to the Vir~inla Department of
Resources, shall be submitted ta the Planning Department.
I£ the survey reveal~ any potentially
cultural resources, tho site plan shall be taken to the
Planning Commisaion for approval at which time conditions
may be imposed to either protect significant find= or
provide for their removal to an acceptable location.
A~d, further, the Board accepted the following proffered
cenditionm:
1. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the
following shall he aonempli~hed for fire prote0tion:
91-870 12/11/91
A. Th~ owner/developer ~hall pay to the County $150 per
1~000 ~q~are feet of gross floor area adjusted
upward or downward by %he same psroantaqe that the
Marshall Swift Building Coat Index increaEed or
decreased between June 30, 1991, and the date of
payment. With the approval of the County's Fire
Chief, Lhe owner, developer or assignee(s) shall
receive a credit toward the required payment for the
Cost of any fire suppression system not otherwise
required by law which is included as a part Of the
develepmen=.
The owner, developer Or assignee(s) shall provide a
fi~e suppression system no~ o~erwiss required by
law which the County's Fire Chief determines
substantially reduces the ns~ for County facilities
otherwise necessary for fire protection.
2. Prior to any site plan approval, forty-five (4~} fee% of
right of way on t~e east side of Allied Read
from tl%e e~nte~line of that part O~ Allied Road
immediately adjacent ts the property shall he dedicated,
fre~ and unreatri=ted, to a~d ~or the benefit of
Chesterfield county.
3. The developer shall be rmsponmible for the construction
of additional pavemen~ along Allisd Road at math
approved aoce~ to pr0vi~e a separate right turn lane.
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan~ Mr. Applegate, F~. Daniel and ~r.
Absent= Kr. Currin.
Mr. Currln returned to the meeting.
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~AI~R N. TAYLOR, JR.
requested Conditlonal Use to psr~it a medi=al clinic in an
Agricultural (A) District. The den=try of ~ach amendment will
b~ controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards.
The COnp=ehensive Plan d~ig~ate$ tbs prsperty for planned
transition ~se. This request lles on a 6.25 acre parcel
fronting approximately 1~6 feet on the west li~e of ~ea!field
Road, approximately 640 ~eet ~o~tll of South Carriage Lane.
T~x ~ap 1~-16 (1) Parcel 6 [Sheet 7).
~taff a~d the Planning commissio~ ~eee~ended approvul subjsct
to conditions an0 acceptance of the pro,fared eenditlons. He
noted this was the first proposed conversion of a residence
under the ~iOlothian Area community Plan. When asked, he
stated the~e Would be flexibility in determining the ~creening
reqllirements but generally wuul~ require landscaping and/or m
fence.
Mr. ~hilip deB. Rome, representing the applicant, ~tated the
resident south of the propsrty where the screening would be
required had requested the.construction of a privacy fence and
the applicant had agreed to do so. He further stuted the
r~commendatlon ~a~ aoseptable. There was nO OppOsition
pre~ent.
Discussion, comments and questiens ensued relative to the the
conditional uss runnin~ with the lan8 versus the owner; the
advantages to the conditional use ~/n~ing with the owner; the
enforceability of the con~itlon if imposed; and the requested
91-871 12/11/91
~r. deB. Rome stated the applicant was purchasing the property
and would be relocating hi~ office to the site and the
¢on4itions and proffered conditions limited its use.
Mr. Daniel stated r~e advantage tothe conditional use running
with the owner and not the land would be for ar~a property
owners in the future.
Mr. Sullivan stated he felt s condition should ~e imposed for
the request to ruu with the owner.
When asked, F~r. deB. Rome stated he was unsure how the
condition would be considered by the lending institution ss he
ha~ not had an o~crtunity tc dlscu~ such a condition with
the lending institution amd, therefore, requested the Beard to
approve the rsquesU as pressntod at t~is aims. Hr. Sulllvan
indicated he would like a comdition imposed for the request to
rum with the owner.
Om mo=ion of ~r. sullivan, seconded by ~Ir. ADDlegate, the
Board approved Case 91SN02~7 subject to the following
conditions:
(BOO)
Development ~hall ~omply with the r~quirements of the
Zoning Ordinance for Off,ce Districts in Emerging ~rowth
Area~. (P)
Parking areas ~hall be screened from view of adjacent
property to the south. Th~ ~ethod of ~c~eaning ~hall ha
approved by the Planalng D~partment at =he time of site
plan review. This s~reening shall sot be requi~ed when
the adjacent property to the sou~h is developed for a
non-residential use. (P)
4. This Conditional Use shall expire at such time that a
certificate or occupancy is issue~ £or any additional
construst~on on the adjacent property (i.e+, Tax Map
15-16 (t) Parcel 1) to the ~nu=h, and the owner of T~hat
adjacent parcel has conveyed acc~ acro~ that parcel
a~d th~ owner of the subject property (i.e.~ Tax Map
~$-~6 (l) Parcel 6) has not conformed to the approved
access plan~ as'e~tlin~d in Proffered Co~ditio~ 4.
5. The ~ublie wate~ system shall b~ us=d.
s. Thim Conditional Use shall be granted to and for James
Taylor, Jr., excluolvsly, and ohall not be transferable
nor run with the land. (BCS)
And, further, the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a building ~ermit, one of
following ~hall be aeoo~plished for firu protection:
A. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the
County $150 per 1,000 square feet of grog= floor
a~ea used for medical office purposes adjusted
upward or downward by =he same percentage ~hat the
Marshall swift Building Cost Index increased or
decreased between June ~0, 1991, and ~ha
payment. With the approval of t~e County's ~ire
Chief, the owner, developer or assignee(s) shall
receive a credit toward the required pa!rment for the
cost of any fire suppression system not
required by law which is included as a part of the
development.
91-872 12/11/91
OR
The o~ner, developer or a~iqnee(m) ~hai1 p~ovide a
fire suppression system net otherwlme required by
law which the Connty'~ Fire Chief determines
substantlally reduces the need for County facilities
ethe~Wioe necessary for fire protection.
Prior to site plan approvul, forty-five (45) feet of
from the ceoterline of that part of Coalfleld Road
i~mediate~y adjacent to the property shall be dedicated,
free and unrestrictedr to and for the b~nefit cf
Chesterfield County.
This conditional use permit shall be limited to the
prepared Dy E. D. Lewis and Associates, titled "Proposed
Office Per Dr. James E. Taylor, Jr., C~ireprastor" dated
September 13, 1991, plus a maximum 1,000 sq~lare foot
addition to that existing structure.
Access to Coalfield Read shall be llmlted ts one
entrance/exit. The exact lcoatio~ of this access shall
~e a~proved by ~he Transportation Department. Prio~ to
~ite plan approval, a~ access plan for the properties
along Coalfield Road between Carriage Hill Subdivision
and the ~idlOthiun Library shall be submitted to and
approved Dy =~e Transportation Department (t~e "Access
Plan"}. All improvements (i.e., expansion of the
existing structure, par~in~ areas, etc.) constructed on
the subject property ~hall be in accordance with the
approved Access Plan~ to ~nclude~ but not be limited to,
th~ require~ setbacks that assum~ a public road is
constructed on the adjacent property to the south. Prior
ts si~ plan approval, access easements(s) in accordance
wi~h the approved ACCess Plan executed unly by the owner
o~ the subject property, acceptable to the Transportation
Department, 6~all be r=Cord~d. At such time es all or
any portion of the adjacent parcel ~o the south c~
subject property is used cr d~veloped in accordance with
the Access Plan, access ~o ~he subject property ~hall
conforn to the approved Access Plan, a~ it may be
amended. The continued use of the subject property for
medical office purposes shall be expressly ccnditloned
upon the owner of the oubject property constructing at
hi~ expense such a~¢ess improvements on the subjeut
property as may be necessary to conform to the approved
Access Plan, to include eliminating any direct access
from tho subject property to Coalfield Road, and
construction of an additional lame of pavement along
Coalfield Road for the entire property frontage on
before the date of the issuan¢~ of a certificate of
occupancy for improvemento on the adjoining parcel to the
south. EliDination of direct access from the subject
property to Coalfield Road and construction of additional
pavement along Ccalfleld Road shall not b~ required until
free and unanswered access to Coalfield Road acros~ the
property to the south in accordance with the Acceso Plan
is conveyed to the owner of the subject property.
91~N0249
In Midlothia~' ~agi~terlal District, H~K requested r~zonin~
from Residential (R-I~) to C~mauunlty Business (c,~) with
conditional U~e Planned Development on 5.62 acres and from
Agricultural (a) of Z.17 a~re~ and a~id~ntial (R-l§) of 1.S
acres to Regional Business (C-4) with Conditional Use Planned
12/11/91
Development, plus ameundment fo Conditional Use Planned
zoned Office Business (0) and Convenience Business (B-I). The
density of suck amendment will be centre%lsd by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the preperty for office, office buslne~s, office
park, mixed use, and high denzity residential use. This
reque$~ lies on a total of 159.77 acres fronting approximately
1~500 feet on t/~e north and South lines of Jahnke Road, at
int~rsection with Boulders Parkway, also fronting on the west
line of C~ippen~m Parkway. Tax Map 11-S (1} Parcel lg; Tax
Map 1~-9 (1) Parcel 2; Tax MaD 11-13 (I) Parcels 15, 16, 21
and 28; Tax Map 11-13 (3) ZcKinney'~ Acre and Six Tenths,
Section A, Block A, Lot 1; Tax Map 19-1 (1) Parcels 5 thrsugh
8 and 11 through 14; and Tax Kap 19-1 (4) Glen Echo
Bloc~ A, Lots 1 through 10, Block B, Lctm 1 through 8A~ Block
C, Lots iA, 1, 2 and 2A (Sheets 4 and 9).
Ms. Beverly Roger~, Planning Administrator, presented a
~:mmary of Case 91SN0249 and stated the Planning Commission
and ~taff recommended approval subject ~o condi=ions an~
acceptance of the proffered conditions. She noted ~taff'~
am~n~m~nt~ %o permit multi-family ~ev~loDmmnt =~ confc~ to
~ mixed use zone.
~oning ordinance regarding mui~i-family standards; ~e
to a~ existing house located on the prope~y; the proposed
~. John C~bill, representing the applicant, pre~entad an
~en$ive overview of the request and stated they were
r~s=ing an amendmen~ %o zoning p~eviou~ly g~anted fo~ a
mixed u~e ~ite. He noted an additional ten acres of land had
b~ added to ~a~e ~a site, the ~equust included un
increase in th~ density o~ =he site, would no= generate
si~ificant in~easa in t~affic and ~e buffers w~uld comply
t~ing to ~rket a portion of the property to a developer who
was also oon$id~ring a site locateO in Richmon~ and requested
~e Board to act e~editiously in the timing of ~e request
a benefit to the Co~ty and, therefore, re~ested the ~oard
stated the ~tudy r~garding the building heights had been
Planing =tall.
Mr. Willi= Blackwood, r~pr~$~nting the Boar~ of Directors of
~e C~esterffuld Business Council, ~tated t~ey supported this
r~e~t and noted this wa~ th~ fir~ occasion the Council had
interested in the welfare of the business co--unity, they also
as~oclated with ~e request; tha~ ~he council was concerned
~ H~ioo County; that ~e propomed Merest Would
dontrlbute many benefits to the co~ty and woul~ 5uppor~ its
~evelo~ent~ ~at the amen~e~t to th= previous zoning wu~
wa~anted dU~ %o the changes in the zoning Ordinance;
91-874 12/11/91
Mr. Michael Rome stated he was an adjacent property o~er and
his ~randparents at one time had owned the property; that he
civil war trenches located on the property; that he felt the
seventy-five foot buffer zone was ne= adequate as residents
would be able to sss the taller building~ from their hemes,
Mr. Applsgate returned to the meeting.
A~moclatlon, stated the previous zoning decision had included
the residents of Crestwood Felons and many others and there had
Farms for thi~ request; that the resident~ were willingly tO
negotiate and reach an agreement but felt the applicant had
net attempted to negotiate an amicable ~olutio~ tO their
concerns; that there were approximately ten percent of the
members of the Association present; that the proposed request
development proposed in the County; that they' felt ~he request
faster pace than usual; that the residents did net oppose the
applicant, etc. He reviewed their =enc~rns regarding the
request as it related to the density, traffic and buffer~ and
requested th~ ~oard to defer the request in or,er for their
M~. Bill Garnett, President of Crsstwood Farms Residents
Association, stated thers wer~ spprcximately 30-40 ms--rs
the Planning Commission's meeting; that they felt the decision
by the Planning Co~missicn had been pre-determlne~; that they
did net oppose the development but would like their eoncern~
addressed; that they had not been provided enough
eppertunit~ss to express their concerns end negotiate with the
applicant; that th~ residents had invested in their hemes and
most of the homes were an average of thirty years old; that
they would lik~ far the project to succeed but were concerned
about the density~ buffer and traffic i~ues a~soeiated with
they felt it would be damaging to their neighborhood if
located, etc.
Subdivision: that he felt the proposal was an injustice to the
residents in the area, %e ths children who attend Cremtwood
Elementary School and felt the Planning Commission had reached
their recommendation under a pre-determlne~ method and the
applicant had not provided the resldent= in th~ area with the
necessary fact~ regarding the ~equest. He further ~tated the
decided at this time as the proposed mite had not t~en
r~view~d by t~he ~y Corl~ of Engineers, the ~nvirenmental
Protection Agency or the State Water Control Board; that they
f~lt the amount of acreage needed to meet the wetland and
determining where the highest density of ~evelopmen= would be
barriers weald not be considered by the developer and would
the request weuld be damaging to its surrounding if approved
in the proposed format and requested the Board to decide the
request ~n the best ~ntsre~t of the County.
91-875 lZ/ll/91
proposal and reviewed the history surrounding the proje=t.
She further stated ~hs had made every effort to communicate
with the applicant fromm the time of the official filing of the
application a~d had not been asked ~or input into the recfuest,
etc. g~e requeEted the Board not to approve the request as
presented but to provide the time necessary in order to review
it thoroughly.
Mr. Doug ¢oo~ran stated he was a resident of Crestwood Farms
Subdivision and his home was located one mile from the
request; that they had requested the traffic study submitted
by the applicant but did not receive a copy of the study until
the day before the meeting and, therefore, had not been able
to thoroughly study the traffic analysis; that there had boen
a change in the formula used by Planning staff to project
traffic; that t~e~e was no ~anner in which to varify the
formula used £or the projection in traffic and questioned the
~uestioned whether there would be an increase in ~a££ie; t~at
a traffic ~tudy had not b~en done to measure the i~pact the
further stated they felt there were too many unanswered
~uestlons and reguested the Board to add~es~ these issues.
It was g~nerally agreed to reses~ for fivo minuto~.
Subdivision; that he felt the procedure, process and planning
of the request had net besn eddrssssd properly~ that there had
been llttle time for the residents to respond to the
applioant,s request~ that he felt the Planning Co. lesion bad
violated the time restrictions as to when the applicant's
proffered conditions hud been submitted; that he felt
residents of the County and queationed the process followed by
the ~lannlng Commission; that he felt the Board should
consider the request based on requirements such es .protecting
the overcrowding of land, the protection against undue density
of population in relation to community facilitle= existing or
travel and transportation; that the ~raffie study assumed the
proposed road network would be built but had been advised by
staff it was not known at this time whether the road network
requested the Board to deny the request but if approved, to
zoning, to inpose conditions to ensure the completion of
i~provements contained in the proffers such as a suitable bend
s~ffi¢ient to build the proposed road network and to provide
Farms Residents Association including studie~ presented by
~eane of the zoning ordinance prior to the ordinance being
acted upon.
Discussion, oc~nen~s and questions ensued relative to supreme
court ~ideli~es on the high=st and be~t use of property, the
procedure, process and planning of the request, ets.
and conflicting information and reguested the Board to defer
the request.
ceneiderinq reasonable land uses and tc protect the health,
~afety and welfare of the citizens not whether th~ project was
economically feasible.
~ir. Garnett stated they had been advised by the City of
Richmond, the Stony Point Office Park was not zoned fur a
Sixty 0ay$ to address and, therefore, the oppor~unit~ to
Mr. Squires ~tated the comments expressed concluded the formal
olari£ied neither the code of virginia nor ~e County's zoning
Ordinance required the Board to permit the applicant to build
the maximum density on the proposed site and requested the
Board to decide the amount which would be appropriate. He
further stated he felt the residents could reach an agreement
with the applicant if time p~rmitted and requested the Board
to defer the request.
Farms Subdivision for over thirty years; that his property
Sub-Area I; that due ts the slope of the land~ t/~e residents
in that area could hear and awe the headlights and reflections
of the cars on Powhite Parkway and submitted to the Board a
sketch outlining this area. He further stated the ~nderpass
on ~owhitw ~arkway was aimed toward his home an~ the proposed
was built, his home would be facing eight %ahem of traffi~ and
four ramps; that ha felt the proposed project would decreane
the value of hie property but would inoream~ the applicant's
and, therefore, requested the original zoning and the Z§0 foot
buffer r~maln am is and the drive-in reetaurantm in the mixed
use area be denied.
M~. Virginia Wrenn ~tat~d ~ha was a resident of Crsstwood
Farms Subdivision; that the o~iginal zoning request had been
agreed upon by the applicant and the residents and requested
had met with the applicant and had been ensured th~ ~50 foot
allow the appllcant to deviate from the original zoning.
Subdivision; that the heights cf the buildings a~d the night
time lighting would be unacceptable; that the reelect would
pedestrians in the area using the roads; ~hat he was concerned
there ware many birds in the area who would be impacted by t~e
development; that the applicant had not provided information
and the project would generate 450 residentlal properties;
that he questioned the hasle fe~ ~hs an~ialpated income
projections; ~hat he wam Concerned about the proposed reduced
b~f£er~; that if the project did not succeed, the quality of
that he felt the proposal should be de~erred for the new
zoning case had state~ childre~ should be able to buy a house
of the ~a~e quality of their parents and agreed with this
Sub~ivisi0n w~re perwmts with children old enough to buy their
County and, therefore, the quallty of l~fe needed to remain
intact for the future of tko children.
91-877 12/11/91
Ks. Judy Stahl stated she was a resident of Crestwood Farms
Subdivision; that she was an experienced quality facilitator
and teaches a quality process produces a quality product; that
she felt the Am~ociation's presentation hud been bused on fact
and not emstion~ that the soard had been offered several
alternatlve~ other than approval of the request and,
therefore~ requested the Board to consider adopting a sixty
day deferral in order to address %he concerns expressed by
checking with the Army Corps of Engineers, by having the
applicant submit the completed drawings, by completing the
traffic studies within the area and by structuring the good
faith nogotiatioms between the applicant and the residents.
Mr. Oon ~ruwalt stated ha was a resident of Crestwood Parms
Subdivision; that he had looked extensively in the County
before settling in the ar~a; that the n=ighborho0~ was not a
transient area and requested the Board to consider the input
received when deciding the request.
~r. Keith meHogne stated hc was a resident of Seutha~
Subdivision; that he had attended the zoning meeting regarding
the original request and had opDoseO it; that he was concerned
about the density of the project; that he was frustrated and
was ~ot sure whether the ~card should vote on the request as
he felt the citi~D~ want a chang~ in th~ dir~ctlon in which
planning and development was cocurr~n~ within the County; that
there were no plan~ available to show wha{ tho completed
project would look l~ke; that he wa~ concerned about the
impact the mall would have on the other malls in the vicinity;
that he felt there were too many ~nanswered questions
regarding the request; that he felt the traffic issues should
be more thoroughly addressed; that there had been nc
improvements made ~o the property since ~he original zoning;
that ha wan opposed to the request and requested the Board to
defer to address the concerns expressed, etc.
~r. Larry Psvert statsd he was a resident cf the $outham ares;
that he felt there would be an increase in traffic and
about future zoning in the area; that there were too many
aoee~m ~rebl~ms and concerns re~arding the request; that the
convert.on to commercial development was the not the way to
a~dress thc County's financial concerns; that the area had
contributed to the County's commercial development with The
Boulders project an~ the construction of ~ow~ite Par~way in
~elr n~ighberhoo~; that he felt it was inappropriate to
compare this project to pro~ects in other sounties in the
areas and, therefore, stated he did ne% support the request,
etc,
Ms. Ann Marie Miller stated ~h~ waz a rezident in the ares;
that she had reueived notification from the aDplisan= during
the ~ummer and ~ad been info,ed it ~as not a large-scale
project and would basically be the oomplotion o£ t~e
development in t~e The Boulders~ that sbu was not aware of the
enormity of the situation until recently; r_ha: there were ~oe
many ~nanswared questions an0 felt the request should be
deferred.
Nr. D~niel entere~ into the record a letter from Hr. ~ill
Harrison to the Risk,cud Times Dispatch regarding the request.
~, Cogbill stated he felt in zoning issues, the perception of
a project was worse than the reality and the cono~n~
ex, reused was fear of the unknown; that tl%e rezcnlng was based
on a favorabl~ staff report and had been recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission; that the appllcant had
followed the appropriate procedures; that the buffer had not
been reduced ne~t to the school but had been reduced n~xt to
the residenoe~ an~ the applicant ~ad attempted to address
concerns expressed by offering proffered e0nditiena for light
due to the existing density and the buffer issues; that the
concerns addressa~ by the st~izens were not a part of tho
zoning but rather the 4evelopment process; that he was
appalled at the characterizations ~ads during the public
input; that they had attempted to meet and negotiate with the
me~k~rs of the Crestwood Farms Residents Associations t/~at the
rgprespntative for the area on the Planning commission nad
noted she had not received any phone calls from residents
mn existing zonlnq and a r~duction in buffers based on the
was the best site for a regional mall within ~e Co~ty; that
acceptable to the citiz~s and in ~e best interest of the
Co~=y, etc. H~ further stated the project was ready to move
forward an~ sho~id b~ approved based on its merits and
re~ested concerns r~ga~ding traffic, planninq and f~Ecal
into zoning re.eats was impo~ant but f~lt the input ~ey had
receive~ from the r~idunts had been negative and concurred
well a~ con~i~erin~ economi~
~. Maye~ entered in~0 ~ r~or~ l~ers from ~. Bill
Harrison, Hr. Jo~ W. Dillard, ~s. Christine ~. Major and
virginia W. wrenn r~gar~in~ ~he re~es~.
M~. Daniel stated ha felt ~= rudest had its m~its and
concerns, such as the zoning south of Jah~e Road being
aCCeptable and the addition to th~ original zoning north
~e Powhite being appropriate and mhoul4 ~e included in the
or.all ~ter plan. ~e fur~er stated he had concer~
regarding the propo~=d redu=tion in ~uffmr and ~e concerns
e~ressed regardinq ~e density, the height~ of the buildings,
~e wetland~ and the impact the development would have on ~e
roads in the a~ea. ~e stated he promoted economic developer
wi~in the County, ~at additional info~ation hud
bee~ ~ecuived but hud not permitted ~de~t~ ti~9 for review,
indicated h~ could not support the re.est at ~ t~me
therefore, felt a ~mfmrral would provide an opportunity to
Mr. Maye~ ~tat~d h~ felt ~e parameters u~ed when deciding
zoning re~e~ts had been ~e~ti0~ed a~d we~= in conflict.
~er stated at this time he could no~ support or ~eny ~e
re~e~t and felt there was a possibilit~ the concerns
Mr. Applegate e~ressed appreciation to those pr~sen% ~ue
the lateness of the hour amd stat%d ~t wa~ disconcerting to
observe counsel in conflict wi~ ~uch other. He further
=tared he wa~ v~ry familia~ wi~ ~e property and
r~sld~nts in the area d~d not want Buford or Jahnke Road~
widemed. He stated he felt tko zoning decision should
based on land usa and not econ~mlos and ~e project would be
oonc~ r~garding the reduction in t~e b~ffer and if
b~ff~r issu~ was not be resolved, he soul4 n~% support ~
re~es~.
M~. Currin inquired as to the wetlands area, tbs density of
the project as it related to parking deok~ and the heights of
the buildings. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Corp~ of Engineer~ had
~et reviewed ~hs =itc but it would ~e subject to the County's
environmental reg~latlons. He further stated the 0rdlnanc~
Set certain standards based on transition to adjacent uses,
amount of parking required, l~nd~capinq op~n ~pace, otc. Ma
noted the density had been negotiated and submitted after
traffic impact studies had been completed and development
w{thln Sub-A~ea I would be ~ubject to the f~ndlngs of the
traffic study which could limit the square footage.
Mr. Curtis inquired as to the road network and the buffer.
Mr. Eccracken stated the road network was the same concep~ as
determined at t. he time of the eriglnal zoning. ~r. Jacobsen
clarified the buffer would alle~ t~e potential of road assess
to Powhite Parkway to infringe into the buffe~ and then
donditions ~egarding noise attenuation and barriers Wo~ld be
enacted.
walked the buffer area. ~e further stated the proce~ would
come back to the Planning Csmmisaien for s~te plan approval
felt they were fearful of the project~ perception. He =tared
he could support the request as approved by the Planning
Commi==ion.
regarding denmity, traffic and the reduction in buffer and
felt a deferral would provide an opportunity to add~es~ these
motion, seconded by ~r. baniel, to defer Case 91s~o249 until
Ayes: Mr. sullivan, Mr. ADplegate and Mr. Daniel.
Reconvening:
91~270
In Clever Hill Magisterial District, BOB AND ~DA ~
requested Conditional Use to pe~it a day care cen~er in an
Agricultural (A) District. The density of such amendment will
be controlled by z~ning conditions or Ordinance standards.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential
u~e of t.~l to 4.~ units Der acre. This request lies on a
3.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 422 feet on the east
line of Providence Road, also fronting approximately 233 feet
on ~he north line of E1R~a=dt Road, amd located in the
n~rthsasD ~adrant of the intersection or ~ese roa~s. Tax
a~oval subject to conditlon~ and acceptance of ~e proffered
conditions.
owerv~ew of ~a re~e~t a~d ~tated ~e applicants resided in
91-880 12/11/91
would be located on a three acrs parcel and was a low ~ntense
usc of the site; that the applicant would be providing
addi=ional lanes of pavement on Providence Road for e turn
lane into the center end a turn lane onto Etkhardt Road to
to give favorable consideration to thi~ request.
~dr, Server stated the request wa~ for a conditional use to
operate a day ~are cemter; that they reside within the County
centers located within two miles of the site and this re,est
would provide a needed service in the area; that the
clarifled the bu~e~ currently stop i~$ide the parking lot of
thi~ center; and regueste~ the Board to approve the reguest.
Mr. Daniel ~mi=h, representing the surreywood Civic
Association, stated they were opposed to the requezt; that
they had met' with the applicant and based upon information
residents in the S~bdivision; that ~he residents were
co~msrcial development; that although ~he request would
enhance the traffic O~ Providence Road, they felt the
Provideno~ Road from Elk_hardt Road should b~ p~ovided; that
loading and unloading children on Providence Read; that the~
in c~o~e proximity to a tributary of pocoshock Creek; that
they were concerned about the impact the development would
have on thc ~djoining properties and their property value=
read into the record a letter Sram ~r. Robert Ryder and M~,
Carolyn Wheat opposin~ the request. When a~ed, ke stated he
felt the Board should consider not only the h~ghest and best
use of the applicant'~ property b~t also of the propertie~ in
eleven day care centers within a two m~te radlum~ tha~ he was
operating at an approximate capacity of ~ixty percent end felt
operating at m~hty percent or better and of several operating
at 1~ than fifty percent of their capacity, etc.
Mr. Zcher=er stated staff's recommsnda=ion impemed a~qua=~
conditions on the request and ~a~ ~ conditionul use to permit
center would be connected to public water and sewer; and that
the request was the highest and best use of the property and
would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
F~r. server oiarified tho sites of the other day care centers
in the area and noted he had also surveyed the ~urreywood
~ubdivisisn in which t~e f~rst seventy out cf one hundred
respon~e~ had been positive.
advising him of the opposition in the neighborhood and
although the day care center was co~ercial, it could be
slasslfied as a echoel and should belong in a neighborhood.
He further ututed he wus fumiliur with the property and felt
the uso of ~ho property was limited and, therefore, felt tho
decision wa~ a land use issue. ~e noted when previously
ad,reseed wi~h the Virginia Department of Transportation, they
advised although sipnalization was needed at the intersection
cf Providence and Elkhardt Roads, it had not been funded.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~aconded by Mr. Curtis, the Board
approved Case 91S~0270 subject tc the following conditions:
~xcept as noted herein, development shall comply with the
requirements of the zoning Ordinance for office,
Commercial and Industrial Districts in Emerging Growth
Arose. (P)
A ~inim%h~ fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained
along the eastern property boundary. Thi~ buffer shall
O0~ply with the r~quirenent~ of the Zoning Ordinance,
Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-22~.
$. A minimum fifty (50) foot ~etbaok s~all be maintained
along the southern property boundary, within thi~
setback, land,coping shall be provided in accordance with
Perimeter ~and~caping ¢ Of the Zoning Ordinance.
The parking area~ ~hall be designed and/or landscaped so
as to provide initial year-round screening of vehicles
from area residential development. The exact method of
~creen~g shall b~ approv=d by the Planning Department at
~he time cf site plan review. (~)
Density of deYelopmo~t shall net exceed 5,000 square feet
of gross floor area per acre.
6. structnrem shall have an architectural style compatible
with surrounding residential neiphborhoods.
Compatibility may be achieved through the use of similar
building msterialm or other architectural features. (P)
7. Hours of operation mball be limited to between 6:00
and 9:00 p.m.
8. ~ubllc wastewater shall be umed. (u)
9. No additional drainage g~n~rated from impervious areas of
the site shall drain south under Elkhardt Road ad)scent
And, further, thc Board accepted the following proffered
condlt~ons:
1, Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet 0f
right of way on the east side of Providence Road meaeured
from the cost,line of that part of Providence Road
ii~ediately adjacent te the ~roperty shall be dedicated,
free and unra~tricted~ to end for the benefit of
Chesterfiel~ County.
2. In eonjunotlen with site plan submission, a r~vised
centerline ba~ed o~ VDOT'$ Urban. collector s~andard~ (40
MPH) for =lkhardt Road shall ~ submitted to and
by the Transportation Department. Prior to site plan
approval, thirty-five (35) foe~ of righ~ of way on the
~ert~ sid~ of Elkhardt Road measured from the approved
revised oenterline of that part o~ Elkhardt Road
immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated,
free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of
Ch=sterfield County.
91-8S2 12/11/91
exact lec&tion of thle accede shall be approved by the
Prior to the issuance of any o~cupaney permit, additional
the approved aoce~ te provide left- and right-turn
Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the
following shall be accomplished for fare pro=ed=ion:
1991, the owner/developer shall pay to the
If the building permit is obtained after June
1991, the amount of the required payment shall be
adjusted upward or downward by the same percentage
that the Marshall swift Building Cost Index
increase~ or decreased between June 30, 1991, and
the date of payment. With the approval of th~
county's Fire chief, the owner/developer shall
receive a credit t0wa~d the required payment for the
cost of any fire suppression ~ystem not otherwise
required by law Which is included as a part of the
development.
cr
The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression
system not otherwise required by law which the
County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduce~
the need for ~ounty facilities otherwise fo~ the
protection.
In Clover Hill ~agisterisl Dietr~ct, BRAND~fILL D~¥~A~I~T
~O.. L. P. leND ]~W~BOUI~ POINT ~C~ repasted rezoning
from Light In~ustrlal (~-1), Re~id6n~ial (R-7) and Office
Bu~ine~ (0) to Co.unity Bu~in~ (C-N) w~th Condi~ional Use
to De~t a ~hoDD~q C~mter, multi-family re,idem=iai and
tO--dUSe re~idential u~e~. The density of such ~en~ent
will be controlled by ~oning oondition~ o~ Ordinance
standards. The Compr~h~n~ive Plan deslgnate~ the property for
mixed use corridor. Thi~
approximately 1,910 feet on the north line o~ Hall Street
Road, also fronting approximately 1,600 feet on the south line
of Harbour Polnte Parkway. approximately l,loo ~eet we== of
~e int~r~eotion of th~se roads. Tax Map 61-16 (1) Parcel 2
and ~art of ~arcel
Mr, Pools presented a summary of case 915N028~ a~d stared the
Planning Commission recommended approval ~u~j~ct to conditions
and acseptanae of =he pro~sere~ o0n~i~ions and had deleted a
condition from staff's recommendation which would require
access to Harbour ~ointe Parkway from Road B within tho
project and for road improvements to be made to Karbo~r ~ointe
~arkway for the prov~on of turn lanes.
Mr. Applogate inquired as to the cost of the traffic
mignalization at dither thc Road B/Rsute 360 intersection or
the Harbour Points Parkway/Route 360. inter,cc=ion us it
re~ated to th~ o0st being prorated between the applicant and
12/11/91
~r. JQb/~ Cogbill, representing the applicant, stata~ the
signalization had been bonde~ and a private contract had been
signed regarding the signalization and the applicant wonld be
bearing the cost. He presented an overview of the request and
stated the proposed rezoning would permit the construction of
nad submitted a proffered condition limiting the number of
dwelling unite to ninety-five on the east side of the property
and had i~ereased the buffer on Harbour Points ~arkway and
requested nc access ~e provided to ~arbou~ Points Parkway.
~ointe, the applicant had worked with the residents and they
~up~orted the r~9~ae~t. ~e further mtated the resident~ had
expressed concerns relative to the width of ~he wooded buffer
on Harbour Points Parkway and the applicant had agreed to an
B0 foot buffer and requested the Board Co increase the
to t00 feet since the project would consist of ninety-five
m~lti-family dwelling units.
~s. Gloria Fry, an associate o~ Nr. Cogbill's, ~ead into
record a statement from htr. Robert Maddo×, an adjacent
property owner, supporting the request.
~r. Glen White eta=ed he was a life-long resident of the
County; that h~ was opposed to the request although he did not
object to a she~ing center ~n the area; that he felt the
R6~t& 360/Ro~t~ 2~8 corridor was overcrowded and noted there
were six other ~iten available which could accommodate the
request; that he felt the zoning of more property would hays
an adverse ~ffeut on property values and would not be
consistent with eon=rolling and managing the growth in the
area. ~e further ~tated he felt Mr. Curtis and Hr. Applegate
should declure conflicts of interests as Mr. Curtis was
directly involved ~ith commercial development ~n the a~ea and
Mr. Applegats was associated with ~r. Currln through business.
Mr. Curtis dis¢losed to the ~oard that he did no~ have
ownership to property in thi~ area but due to th= concern
expressed by ~r. white, declared a potential con~liot OS
interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of
Interest Act, an~ excused ~imsel£ ~rom the meeting.
~r. Cogbill stated the site was currently under contract,
would provide economic conslderation and r~qu~nt~d the Boar~
to approve the request in the Pest interest ef ti~e eo~unity
and the County.
Mr. Applegate inquired as to the increase in the buffer to 100
feet on Harhour Points Parkway. F~. Cogbitl stated he felt 80
feet was ~uffi¢ient and requested it remain as'such.
Mr. Applegate stated the applicant had the consensus of the
neighborhood and felt the Planning Co~mission's recommendation
a~dre~sed quality development and, therefore, made a ms, ion,
seconded by F~. Daniel, to approve case 91SN0286 subject to
the following conditions:
1. The application, as revised, and plan, titled "Harbeur
Points zoning Map" prepared by Gerst~nmuier Design
Studio, dated September 12, 1991, and last revised
November 15, 1991 (Exhibit A), shull b~' considered the
plan for the development or this property. (P)
2. The ~ublic wastewa=er system shall be used.
The developer shall be responsible for one-third (1/3) cf
the full cost for traffic slqnalization, .if wal~ranted a~
determined by the Transportation Department, e% the Road
A/Deer Run Drive/Route ~60 i~ter~ection. Thi~
improvament ~hall be included in and Constructed i~
accordance with the phasing plan required by the
And~ further! the Board a~oepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. The areas designated Area A an~ Area D on the plan ti~led
"HarbOUr Point ~oaing Map" (the "Plan") prepared by
Geratenmaier Design studio, dated september 12, 1991r and
last revised November 15, 1991 ("Exhibit A'~) shall be
used for retail sutparcel development. The architecture
of the outparcel facilities shall b~ cf a
contemporary/transitional style aa set forth in Proffer
13. ~xcept as qumlified herein, uses peL~i~ted shall be
t/~0se ~sed pu~mittsd by-right and those permitted with
except that the
restrictions in th= ~-3 District
following uses shall not be permitted.
Ex~luded Uses:
h.
d.
f.
g.
Hospitals.
Pawn shape.
Department stores.
Frozen food locker and sales.
Funeral homes or ~ortuartes.
Meat merket~.
Occult sciences, such a~ palm readers,
astrologers; fortune tellers, tea leaf read~r~
prophets,
h. Rest~ nnr~i~g and convalescent
i. Drug store/pharmacy.
Grocery ~tor~ containing more than 4,~00 gross
square £set; provided, however, a ~raosry store
such a~ a mini-market er food-mart shall be
permittud provided it contains leas than ~,000
gross square feat and is located only on Parcel
A.
Automobile and motorcycle sale~ aRd, as
accessory ~o sales, service, ~epalr or rental.
The area ~ssi~nated Area C on the Plan shall be ~sed for
development of a neighborho0~ shopping center as intended
within the Comprehensive Plan reference to neighborhood
mixed use nodes. Uses permitted shall be those uses
permlttad by-right and tho~e per~itted with restrictions
in the C-3 Di~trlct except in accordance with the
Condltlemal Use Application. The shoppin~ c~mte~ ~hall
be ~mbject te the following rastricticns~
a. The total building area of th= sho~plng center shall
not exceed 127~500 qro~ square f~et, exclusive of
the outparc~l~.
b, Individual t~nant spaces within the shoppln9 =em=er
shall be limited as follows:
(1) No more than three tenants at the mentor may
e~csed 12,000 gross sc~are feet each;
(2) Two of such tenants ~ay each contain up to
maximu~ of 30,~00 grass square feet each; and
(3) One Such t~nant may contain up to 70,00~ gross
.square feet;
provided, however, the total g-ro~ square footage of all
~pa~e at the shopping center shall not e~ceed
gross square feet, exclusive of the outparcele.
91-885 12/11/91
3. subject to the limitations set forth in Proffers 4 and 6
below, the area designated as Area B on the Plan shall be
used only for office, office/warehouse, and/or
multi-family/townhouse development. This area shall he
retail uses along ~ull Street Eoa~ and the existing
residential uses in ~arbour Points. Uses normally
permitted hy-rlght and with restrictions within the
District are hereby excluded from Area B, except those
uses spesi~ioally set ~orth below.
e 'tt maes:
a. Offices: business, gsvern~ental~ medical and
professional.
Section 21.1-146 (a) of the Ordinance, when
such uses ars located ~n easements, or in
public roads rights of way.
c. Office/warehouse where the retail portion of
the ~are/%ouse £or each individual tenant
occupies forty percent (40%) or less of the
individual tenant's space. The loading/
warehouse areas shall be oriented away from the
ad, scent residential or office uses. Each
individual tenant space ~hall he limited to a
single loading door or dock for the warehouse
portion of the tenant's
~, Residential ~ulti-family and townhouses
soce~di~g to the following conditions:
Multi-family and/or residential to~nhouse
u~es ~hall be incorporated into an
integrated schematic plan. If
multi-family unit~ and/Q= residential
townhouses ars developed, they shall be
~imilar in architsutural style to Old
Buckingham Station or the apartments at
Stony Point. No such residential uses
shall be permitted ~til construction hms
begun om a minimum of fif=~ percent (50%)
~f the gross site area devoted to
commercial uses. Such uses shall comply
with the r~qulreme~t~ Of the residential
townhouse district or the residential
multi-family zoning di~trlct, except that
the acreage may be less than twenty (20)
aor~ b~t not less than five (5) acres in
accordance with the Conditional Use
Application.
e. Such other uses are deemed ?~aoosssery uses" to
those set forth.
4. Between the shopping center and the ~i~tin~ Harbou~ Wood
section of Harbour Points a buffer shall be maintained
With a horizontal distanss of not less than 150 feet as
measured from the rear property line of the Project
the adjacent community a~$oeiation property of the
~arb0ur Wood subdivision as depicted on the Plan. The
edge of pavement at th~ shopping center shall be no
closer than 200 feet as measured from the closest rear
homeowner p~eperty li~e in ~arbour Woo~. Thi~ ~0~ foot
measurement shall be inclusive of the' variable width
ee~/~on eden space adjacent to the rear h(~meownsr property
lines in ~arhsur Wood. The 150 foot buffer area shall be
~evelcDe~ in accordance with Section 21.1-217 and
21.1-2~8 (a) {3) of the 0r~inance except as
herein. Retention ponds or BM~S may ~e permitted within
the ~outh~xltmo~t ~eventy-five (75) feet of the buffer by
a~d b~ffe~i~g Ca~ be provided. In addition to required
tree preservation and landscaping within the buffer and
required screening, the buffer shall be supplemented with
six (6) foot evergreens alon~ the shopping
boundary where deemed necessary hy th~ Director of
reslden%ial proper%les.
Along the northern property llne of the
po~tio~ of Arua B or that portion cf the site adjacent to
Watch Kill, a buffer $hall b~ maintaine~ wi~h a
horizontal distance of 75 feet as ~easured from
development and the rear homeowner property lin~g
Watoh Hill. Thi~ buffer shall be inolusiv~ of a 30 foot
co, on open space located on ~e applicant's Property and
~ill. The 75 foot buffer shall be develop~
accordance with Section 21.1-227 and ~1.1-228 of the
Ordinance.
~. The u~e~ ~et torch in Proffer 3 abov~ notwithstanding,
~lthin the portion of the 9rop~rty d~mignated as Area
adjacent to Harbour Pulnte Parkway, a 200 foot transition
urea, measured from th~ existing property line along
Harbour Polnte Parkw=y, shall be establtsh~, wi~in
~is tra~sitio~ a~ea, only tho~e ume~ specifically
forth below shall be
a. offices: ~usine~, gover~entsl, me~ioal and
professional.
b. Under~ro~d utilities uses except ag
in seo~ion 21.1-146 (a) of ~e Ordinance, when
public roads rights of way.
Residential ~iti-family and tow~ouses
ao¢ordlng %o the following con~itlun:
Multi-family and/or residential
integrate~ scha~tlc ~lan. If
multi-family unit~ and/o~ residential
tOW~OUuum ar~ de~mlu~md, they shall
similar in a~itectural style to Old
b~n on a minimum of fifty percent (50%)
tubercle1 u~e~. ~ U~$S $h~!1
Wi~h the requir~en~s of the residential
to~ou=~ district or the remidentiat
~ult~-family zoning d~t~iot, except that
th~ acr~agu may be le~s ~ twe~=y
ao~ but ~ot less than five (5) acre~
Application.
?. ~e transitional area along Harbour Pointe Parkway'
defined in Proffer 6 ~hall have an eighty (S0) foot
buffer in accordance w~th Section 21.1-227 and 21.1-~28
(a) (2) of the Ordinance. Any modification to the buffer
91-887 12/it/91
in the transition area shall be controlled by the
permitted Dy the Director of Planning within the buffer
at the time of site plan review if necessitated by site
design and if adequate screening and buffering can be
provided. The retention ponds or B~Ps may be placed
within the buffer if approved by the Director of Planning
afl described above.
The acreage identified for uny specific use ou%llna~
herein may vary as more detailed site development
considerations are explored; provided however~ that the
aggregate acreages for land u~es may be increased or
decreased by no mere than twenty percent (20%)~ provided
the maximum densities do not exceed the densities set
forth in the traffic report applicable to the Project and
prepared by the Chesterfield County Transportation
Depal~c~ent, dated November 13, 1991 (the "Traffic
Report").
In conjunction with the development of the shopping
center~ a pedestrian/bicycle path shall be constructed
from the cul-de-sac at Harheur Points Parkway and Harbour
Points Road to the shopping center. The pathway shall be
designated to facilitate pedestrian/bicycle assess from
the residential areas of Marbour Points to the shopping
center and ether elements of the development.
10. For the~ per,ion of the site which drains into Swift
Creek Reservoir the silt basins and plt~ shall be ~ized
twenty-five (25] percent larger than the minimum storage
volu~e required by the ~tat~ ~rosion and Sediment Ccmtrol
Manual,
11. If Area B is developed for residential uses, then for
each residential unit developed in exce~s of the
t~irty-one (31) units currently permitted (and for which
no cash proffers are required) under the existing R-7
zoning, the applicant, ~ubdivider or his assignee, at the
~ime of building permit application, shall pay cash
proffers to the County of Chesterfield for infrastructure
improvements within the service di~tr~ct for the
property:
a. The amoun~ currently approved by the Board of
Supervisors {the "Board") of $2,000 per let, if paid
prior to January 1, 199~; or
b. The amount approved by the Board not ~Q exceed
$3,000 per lot, ~f paid between January ~ 199~ and
c. The amount approved by the Board not to exceed
~A~ooo pe~ lot, if paid between July 1, 199Z and
·une ~O, 1993 inclusive; or
The amount approved by the Beard ns~ to exceed
$4,000 per let, adjusted upward by any ~n~ea~ in
the ~arshall and Swift Building Cost Index between
July i, 1992 and July I cf the fiscal year in which
~he payment is made if paid after June 30, 199~.
The overall architectural style of the nsn-resldential
development ~hall be of a contemporary/transitional
~ature similar to (a) the Sovran ~an~ locate~ at Hat,our
Points Parkway mud Rout~ 36~, or (b} th~ Laburnum ~ark
Shopping Center. The ~eveloper shall submit copies of
all architectural renderings and plans to the Planning
Department at the time Of site plan approval. At the
same ti~e~ the devulop=r shall provide copies of the
91-888 1~/11/91
plans to the President of the Harbour P0inte Association
and the Brundermill Commercial Architectural Review
13. No clearing on any portion of the Property ~hall be
undertaken until a site plan fQZ that psrtion of the
Property has he~]~ approved by t/~e COUnty and natural
vegetation on the Property shall remain undisturbed until
provided, however, normal sc~l tasting, engineering
studies and other such field tests shall be permitted as
well as csnstraotlem of ~tilitiee as necessitated by the
site plans. Buffers will be marked with engineer's tape
before any clearing in accordance with an approved site
the development of the s~epping center may clear a
portion of the western portion e~ Area ~ in order to
(DBH] or greater in caliper within the setback along
Ordinance.
14. Prior to any site plan approval or in conjunction with
recordation of the initial subdivision 91at, whichever
occurs first, one hundred (100) f~et of right of way on
the north side o£ Route 360 measured from the oen=erliBe
of %ha~ ~art of Route 360 i~ediatel~ adjacant to the
property ~hall be dedicatad, free and unrustrlcted, to
and for the benefit Of chesterfield County. All yard
calculations ~hall be measured from the existing right o~
way line.
15. The maximum density cf this development shall not exceed
the density level~ ~et forth in the Tra££1c Re~ort.
16. Aoce~ to Route 3~0 shall ha llmA=ed to three (3)
Transportution Department.
17. To provide for an adequate roadway ny~tem at the time of
the complete ~evslop~ent of the proposed project, the
developer aha11 he re~ponnibl~ for th~ following:
a. Closing the existing crossover east of Road A.
construction of an additional lane of pavement along
the westbound lan~s Of Route ~6~ for the em=ire
property frontage.
right t~n lane at each approved site acces=.
eastbound lane= of Route 360 to provide dual left
the time cf site plan revle~. ~f dual left turn
lanes are not warranted than a single left skall be
constructed at the Road A intersection. A left turn
lane at the Rou~ B intersection shall be
constructed.
consist cf a five (5) lane typical ~ectiun (i.e.,
three (~) ~outh bound lanes and two (2) northbound-
lanes) if required at tke time of ~ite plan review.
91-889 12/11/91
g. Dedication to and Sot the benefit o£ the County of
Chesterfield, free and ur~r~strictad, uny additionul
right of way (or easement) required for the
improvements identified above.
Prior to any site plan approval or tentative ~ubdivision
approval, whichever occurs f~r~t, a phasing plan for th~
required road impr6vements outlined in Proffer 18,
together with supporting traffic analysis if requested by
%he Transportation Department, shall be ~ubmit~ed to and
approved by the T~an~po~tation Department.
19. The maximum number of dwelling chits constructed on Area
B shall not exceed ninety-five (95).
2~. The maximum ~uildlng height of any res±den=iai m:ructure
developed on the sate shall not exceed two (2) stories.
Ayes: Mr. Su11ivan, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and.Mr. Mayes.
Absent: F~. Currin.
Mr. Currin returned to the meeting.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
s~sp~nded its rules and ~ended th~ agenda to add Item
11.D.1~., Appropriation o£. $11,000 from hhe CloYer ~ill
ii.D.I4. APPROP~[IA?ION OF ~11.000 FRO~T~ECLO~3~tILL
On motion of Mr. Ap~legats, memonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the appropriation of $11,000 from the Clover Hill
District S~ree~ Light Fund to the County Administrator and
Budget and Management offices for the purchase of oom~u~er
~quipment.
On motion of F~T. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adjourned at 1:40 a.m. until January 2, 1~92 at 2:0~ p.m.
Vote: Unanimou~
County Admlnistrato~'
91-890 12/11/91