01-22-1992 MinutesJANUARY 22, 1992
Su~imors ~ Attendance:
Mr. Harry G. Dmnlel, Chalr~an
Mr. Arthur S. Warren~ Vice Chrm.
Mr. ~dward B. Barber
Mr. Whaley M. Col~rt
Mr. J. L. Mc~ale, III
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
County Admlni~trator
Staff
Mr. N. =. carmiohael,
~ir. Richard Cordle,
~r. William Davenport,
~. J. A~y Davis~ Exec.
Asst. to Co. Admin.
~. William D. Dupler,
Fuil~ing Official
~ief Robert L. Eanes, Jr.,
Fir~ Department
Mr. Bradford S.
DeDu~y Cu. A4mln.,
Dir., General
Dir., Purchasing
Mental Health/Retard.
M~. Mary LO~ Lyle~
Dir., Accounting
b~puty Co. Admin.,
Mr. R. John ~cCrackmn,
~. Richard H. McEl~ish,
~m. Pauline A. Hibohell,
Dir., New~ & Public
~, F. O. Parks, Dir.,
Information Syst~s
Deputy Clark to ~e Board
Chi%f, D~v. Review~
~lannin9
Co,unity Development
Dir., Budget &
92-45
Dr. Robert Wagenknecht,
Dir., Libraries
Mr. David H. Welchons,
Dir., Utilities
~r. B. R. Wilkinson,
shuriff clarunc= williams,
Sheriff'~ Depar~ent
Mr. Frederick Willis, Jr.,
Dir., Human R~source ~gt.
Mr. Daniel called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at
3:10 p.m. (EST].
1. REO~TS TO PO~ONR ACk, ION. ~ER~;C~ ADDITIONS OR
On motion of ~. Warren, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
~u~pe~de~ its ~les to ~ove Ite~ 9., A~roval of ~i~tes
Item 11., Board Co~ittee Reports to follow I=~ 2.,
Reco~ition of the Chesterfield Co~ty Employee-of-~e-Year
for 1991; replaced existing It~ 3.D.4.a., set Date for a
~lic ~earing to Consider an Ordinance to ~end ~ticle II,
Division 2, of ~a C~e of 'the County of ~esterfield, 1978,
a~ ~ended, Relating to ~i~t~ric Di~tri~t~ a~d Lan~ark~;
added Item 3.D.11., Re~e~t for a Bingo/Raffle P~= for
to ~e Planning Co~on a Zoning Ordinance ~en~ent
HomeE ~n B-l, B-2, B-3, B-T, M-i~ M-2 and M-3 zoninq Districts
to follow It~ 1~., Behests for Mobile Home Ps, its and
Rezoning; moved Item 12.C., Resolution Recoqnizing Dr. Robert
B. Stroube, ~tate Health C0~issi0~er, to follow Item
Re~asts to Postpone Action, ~erg~ncy Addition~ or Changes
Vote: Unanimous
12.C. I~ESOL~TIOW R~-~)GNIZIWG DR.
~. ~sden stated Df. Stro~e had demonstrated leadership and
had recently ~n ~9~ointe~ a~ th~ Co~i~sioner of ~eal~ for
the S=~tR of V~glnia. ~e fu~th~ stated Dr. Stroub~ had be~n
inst~tal ~n helping plan and constr~ct the Human services
On mo~ion of %h~ Board, the following resolution was adopted:
~S, The Honorabl~ Robe~ ~. ~troube, H.D. was
appoin~e~ s~a%e Heal~ Co~issione~ on Deoembe= 1, 199~; and
~s, Prior to his uppoin~ent as Co~issiomer, Dr.
majo~ responsibilities including Deputy Co~issioner for
Co~uni~ Health Services, ~aaical ~idemiolo~i=t, Director of
Health Hazard Control and Director of Preventive Medicine; and
~S, Dr. Stroube served ~e citlzen~ cf Che~terfleld
from M~ch 1, 1986 to September 16, 19~7; and
~S, Dr. Stroube was inst~ental in h~lp~ng pIan and
construct o~ H~n Services Building which curr~tly house~
the ~esterfleld County Wealth D~part~e~t; and
92-46 1/22/92
in health services delivery in Chesterfield County and
throughout th~ S~ ~f ~irginim.
NOW, THER=FORE BE IT RESOLe'ED, that the Ch~st~rfleld
County Board of Supervisors hereby commends Dr. Robert B.
Stroube for his outstanding services to the citizens of
Chesterfield County and the state of virginia.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED~ that the Board of
~upervisors ~×tends it~ h~artlest congratulations to ~r.
Streube on his appointment to the high office of Commissioner
of Health for the State of Virginia.
vote: unanimous
Fur. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Dr. Stroube
and thanked hi~ for his 4edieated service to the County and
the State. Dr. Stroube presented Mr. R. M. Spencer,
Admini~trati¥~ Manager for the Health Department, with the
f£r~t a~nual "Cn~is~ioner'~ Award" recognising the
Chesterfleld County Health Department for their support of
public health activities within ~e County.
Iq~AR FOR 1991
Mr. Willis introduced the 1991 nominees for the Chesterfleld
County ~m~loyea-of-the-¥eer Award~ who were as follows:
Mr. Barry Arnold
M~. Joyce Bellamy
l~r. Perry Bornbarger
Ms. Wanda Jenkins
MS. Jo carol Mayton
Mr. David Phillip~
H~. Janice Rasn~ke
MS, Bhari Rumble
Hs. Ann T. Smith
Mz. A. Marie Smith
Hs. Deborah stone
~e. Kamen Thompson
l~r. Willlam Wrlqht
Sheriff
N~rsing Home
Library
Pe~k~ and R~ereation
Pu~ohasinq
~ntal ~ealth/Mental Retardation
Accounting
Buil4ing Inspection
Police
Utilities
Mr. Ramsny congratulated all those nominated and announced Ms.
Janice Re, hake had bee~ selects4 a~ the 1991 Employee-of-
the-Year. Mr. Daniel congratulated M~. Raenake and presented
her w~th a framed resolution, an engraved silver Revere ~aw1,
a $~0 saving~ bond, a r~erved parking space for the yea~ and
a gift certificate to the ~wlft Creek ~iI1 Playhouse fr~ the
Chesterfield County Employee's Association.
O~ me,ion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted:
W~EREAS, M~, Ja~fc~ P. Rasnake has been selected by her
fellow empleyess to represent the Department Of Real Estate
~sessments as th~ 1991 Employee-of-the-Year nominee as a
person 9oa=e~slng the ~ual~tie~ of superior performance and
dedication to excellence in public ~ervic~ required of the
recipient of thi~ coveted award; and
W~REAS, During four years of servioe which begun in 1987
as an Appraiser until ~. ~a~nake's current position as Senior
Appraiser, nar enthusiasm, professionalism and responsivene~
have gained w~de~pr~a~ respe~ from her peers, superiors and
citizens alike; and
9Z-47 it~2/92
E~ployee-of-the-Year in 1989 and 1990; and
W~AS, Ms. Re,hake has recmived acclaim for her
co-work~rs ~d County citiz~n~; and
out~tandinu manner while dedicat~nu t~m to var{ou~
professional ~o~ittee~ a~ ~ member o~ the Virginia
~ER~S, MS. Ras~a~a wo~s to build the ~orale of
department co-workers within her department by observing
birthdays, annivers~ie~ and family losses; and
~ER~S, Ms. ~s~ake'm enthusiasm, dete~i~ation and
cooperative spirit are evident in her work as a volunteer
coordinator for the United Way Campaign for the past five
y~ars, her role as ~r~sid~n~ of the chesterfield County
~ployees' Association for 1991 and countless other civic and
charitable activities.
NOW, T~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, ~at the ~este=~ield
superior perfo~ance and dedication of Ms. Janlce P. Rasnake
for 1991.
On motion of Mr. colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale,
approved the minutes of January 8, 1992, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
the Board
Mr. M~Hale stated he~ Mr. Daniel and Mr. Colbert had at~ended
the opening ceremony for Route %-~9~ between Route 10 and
op~a am scheduled. He further stated he had attended a social
meeting the needs of thome affected by the downtu=n in the
scheduled for February 3, 1995 in which the %opic would focus
on an overview of the ~cahool and th~ g~n~ral County budget~.
Mr. Daniel stated he had attended the Virginia Association of
court,ism (VACO) Executive Committee ~eeting in which a general
ammes~ment of m~r~hlp in the g~n~ral Assembly had been
discussed. He noted ~e Beard would be requested ~ VA~ to
S~rve on ~everal co~ittees and he had reco~ended various
staff persons to participate in general activities of VAC0 as
well. ae further stated he had a~=endeR a Ric~ond Regional
Virginia Waste Manag~ent Au~ority and its ~oals had been
di~cums~d a~ wall as the study for a regional ai~ort. He
Organization m~eting in whi~ they had reviewed various
aspects of the Transportation Efficiency Act and as it r~lat~d
to the Environmental ~oteatlan Agency.
Mr. Daniel noted he had been contacted by citizens residing in
eetabliehed eubd±Vi~i0n~ who were concerned about lower
quality housing standards and, spe¢ifieally, smaller hemes
being b~ilt and ~equested the County Administrator to add
quality development issues to the agenda fo~ the Board's
weekend work ~ession ~chedeled in Pebruary.
~r. $al~ ~Sa~ ~taff had prepared thio agenda it~ at th~
request of the Board for the Planning Co~i~io~ to
an~ r=oo~end approRrlate watershed studi~s for Upper Swift
Creek, Lake Che~din and Falling Cre~k.
Mr. Barber stated ~ere was a case before the ~upr~ Ceurt
regarding waSer quality standard~ and wetland~ and in,ired
the proposed reco~endation would be affected by the decision
before ~e Supreme Ceurt was r~lat~d to vested right8 relating
to the applicstion of Chesapeake Bay to existing d~velop~e~t
reco~end~tion wa~ different, the Board could
to th~ Planing
Mr. Warren stated he supported th~ reco~endation ms he felt
ther~ was a need for prut~ction of water ~ality standards
and, particularly, for driving water resources.
On motion of ~r. Warren, seconded by ~. Barber, the
assessment and reco~endat~on for co~sfd~ratlon by the Board
~ sup~isors to ~dentlfy needed info~mati0n, studies and
qnaltty strategies -- one each for 8wilt ~=~k Reservoir, Lake
Che~din and Palling Creek
vote: Unanimous
3.R. STR~ETLI~a. INSTALLATION OOSTA~ROVAL~.
On ~o~io~ Of ~r. Warren, seconded by ~. M~ale, the Beard
approved the gtreet light in~tallu~ion cost oS $2~4S5 for th~
intersection of Tall ~cko~y COUrt and Tull ~ickory Drive,
Clover ~ill Magisterial District, with sai~
~nd~d fTom the Clover ~ill Di~%rict Street Light Account
and th~ street light tns~allation c0m= 0f $770 at 1591~ Gary
Argue, in Bermuda Hagisterlml Dimtrlc%, with said
e~end~4 fro~ the B~a Die,riot Street Light Account.
APP~OPI~IATTON OF FONDBFO~]~EPAIi~S TO ~~G~ ROAD
brio~ discussion, on ms,ion of ~r. cold,t, ~eoon~od by
McHale, the Board au=horized t~ county Admin{~trator to
=dvmnce funding of $1,uoo ~rom the FY-93 Matoaoa District
Cent Road Fund for repairs to C~dar Springs Road.
Vote: Unanimous
92-49 1/22/92
This day the County ~nvironmental ~nginaer, An accordance with
directions from this Board, ~tade report in writing upon his
examination cf He, lin Terrace, Hamlin Circle and Hamlin Way in
Hsmlin Estates, Bermuda District.
Upon consideration whereof, and 0H motion of Mr. McHale,
seconded by Fir. Colbert, it is resolved ~hat Mamlln T~rrace,
Hamli~ Circle and Hamlin Way in Hamlin Estates, Bermuda
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And bo it further rosolved~ that ~he Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested tc take into the
secondary System, Hamlin Terrace, beginning at the southern
end of existing ~amlln Drive, ~tate Route ~5~6, and going
southeasterly 0.05 mile, then turning and going easterly
mile tc the intersection with Hamlln circle and continuing
easterly 0.08 mile to end at the intermeotion with He, lin Way;
Hamlin Circle, beginning at the intersect/on with Ha~lin
T~race a~d going southerly 0.05 mile to end in u cul-de-suc;
and Hamlln Way, beginning at the intersection with Kamlin
TerraCe and going ~outherly 0.10 nile to end in n cul-de-sac.
Again, Hamlin Way, beginning a~ ~.he in~ersectlon with Hamlln
Terrace, and going northerly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request i~ inclusive of th~ adjacent ~lope, ~ight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
~neme roadm merve 49 Lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to t~e Virginia Department of Transportation an
unres~rlcted right-of-way of 40~ with necessary easements £or
c~te, fills and drainage for all of the~e road~ except ~amlin
Terrace which has a 5~' right-of-way.
H~_mlin Estates is recorded as Sollowo:
Plat Book 64, ~age ]9, Dscs~ber 7~ 1988.
Voto: ~nsnimnus
Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made r~per~ in writing upon his
examination of ~ine 0ru~ard Drive in Branch'~ Trace, Phase
Dale Dietr~ct.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. McHale,
seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is re$olvod that Pin~ orchard
Drive in Branch's Trace~ Phase 3, Dale Di~t~ict~ he and it
hereby is established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the virginia Depart~uent of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Pine Orchard Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Lori Road, State Route 655, and going
northerly 0.13 mils to smd in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation ~ainage eamementm.
This road se~ves am aeoesm to multi-family units.
~d bo it further resolved, ~hat the Board ef Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
~est~i~ted ~iqht-of-way of 6~' with n~c~s~ry ea~emente for
cuts, fills and drainage for this road.
This phase of Branch's Traoe is resorfled as follows:
Phase 3; Plat Book 63, page~ 18 & 19, sept~mb~ 29, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
~.D.2. AG~IE~ENTFOR~'x~AN~OF A..~TOF~WATK~DFa%INAG~
~Y~T~[AI~D B~T ~AG~~ICE FACILI~ ~R ~
On m~ion of Hr. ~cHale, ~econ~ed by ~. Colbert, ~he Bo~d
a~thorized the County A~mi~trator to exeo~te ~ ~to~uter
Man=gem~t Syst~ and Best Management ~actice Facilitie~
Maintenance and Indemnification Agroom~ with Cro~ Central
Petrole~ Co, oration, with the County's only involvement
being to a~ur~ the ~alntenanc~ Agreement ts roll.we4 ~y ~e
o~er, as approved by the County Attorney. (It i= noted a
cogy of the Agrooment is file~ wi~ the Da~ers of t~is Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
On ~o~ion of Mr. ~cHale, ~econded by ~. Colbert, the Board
relied to the 9lan~i~q Cotillion, for a p~lic hearing an4
recu~enda~iun~ an or~inmna~ to amend the code of the County
of Chesterfield, 1~78, as amended, by a~$~Oing and reenacting
s~ot~on~ 18.1-9~ ~1-9, 21.1-17 ~d 21.1-280 ~lating to
appllca%ion fees in co~ection wi~ land use and ~ev~10pment.
Vote: Unanimous
refe~ed to the ~lannin~ Co~ismion, for a public hearing and
relating to historic ~i~trlcts and lan~ark=.
Vote: Unsnimous
3.D.4.b. TO CONBIDER.r~Oh¥~ANC~ OFLF-%~F~F
0n motion OS Mr. ~cHmle, ~econ~ed by Mr. Colbert, the Board
~et ~e date of February 1~, 1~9~ at 7:~0 p,m, for a public
hearin~ to consider the oonveyanoe of leases of real proDert~
in t~e Chesterfield parkn sysD~m for operation of ~oo~
co,cessions by athletic associations. (It is noted a list of
the curr~nt 1~ hold.rs an~ a copy 0f the ~a~e
are filed w~th ~ papers of ~is Board.)
#AllEIIOU~E
on notion of ~ MoHale, seconded by M~. colbert~ the Board
approved a Utilities Con~ract for Conner Office Warehouse,
Project Number 89-0837, as follows, which project includes the
extension of 1373 L.F. ~ of sewer mains; lI~O L.~. ~ water
lines of whick 165 L.F. ~ of the 8 inch water line is off-site
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
Developer: Douglas G. and Jean C. Conner
Contraotor: Excalibur construction'corporation
Contract Amount: Estimated Total -
Total Estimated County Cost:
Water (0f£site) - $
(Refund thru
Estlm~ted Developer cost: -
Code: (Offsite) 5H-58~50-8907~E
Vote: Unanimous
approve~ a tttilitie~ Co~tract for De~r Run~ S~tion 7, ~roject
Number 91-~201, a~ follows, which project includes the
extension of 1~,906 L.F. ~ u£ ~ew~r main~; 9,~50 L.F. ± of
water lines of which 140 L.F. ~ of 16 inch ~ater
oversized and authorized the County Administrator to execute
Contractor: Coastline Cont=aotor~, Inc. (Sewer)
Bookman Consti~ctien Company (Water)
Contract Amount: Estimated Total $368,477.00
Water (Oversizing) $
(Refund thru connections)
3.D.?. AWARD OF ~N~Y~O~TON CT~NTT~ FO~ WATER
P~HABILX~ATION. PHASE II
On mo~ion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board
awarded Construction contract for Water Rehabilitation - Pha~e
II, ~roject ~89-0~1~, to Richard ~. crowder construction, the
low bidder, in the anount of $298,952.00, for ~eplaoemsnt of
old water lines located in' wake Avenue, Hilo Road, shop
Streat, Werth Street, C=ntral A~enue and tile Che~terwood oreo,
wni~n are not of adequate size %0 provide fire protection and
are frequently failing causing interruption of service to
customers and autherized the County A~inietrator to execute
th~ necessary doc~ent~. (It is noted this project is part of
the approved Capital I~rovemest Program and fund~ have been
appropriated.)
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
92-52 1/22/92
' I
permission for a portion of a garage to encroach on an
existing 8 foot alley easement on Lot 11~ Block A, Marlboro
~ubdivieion, subject ~e ~he execution of a llcon~e egree~ment.
(It is noted a cody of the Plat is filed with the pnper~ of
thi~ Board.)
Cote: Unanimous
on motion of Mr. No, ale, ~ezondc~ by Mr. Colbert, the Board
with the Ja~es River Trunk Sewer Project. (~t i~ noted a copy
of the Plat is filed with ~he papers of this Board.)
Unanimous
~.D.IO. AC~TANC~ o~ ~ ~ OF LAND F~R ~"LDERO5E
On motiom of ~. HcHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
accepted, O~ behalf of the co~ty~ the conveyance of a parcel
extension of wylderose Co~t f~o~ 01i~e~ D. Rudy, Trustee
authorized the Co~ty A~inlstrator ~o ~xeou~e the necessary
de~d. (It i~ noted a cop~ of the Plat is filed with the
Vote: Unanimous
3.D.11. ~O~ FOR BINGOIRAFF/~EPER~(IT
On ~otion of M~. ~cHale, re=ended by Nr.
approved a bingo/~afflc permit for
ASsociation, Inc. for calendar y~ar 1992.
Vote: Unanimous
Colbert, the Board
Bensley Athletic
On motion of Mr. ~cHale~ ~eaonded by Mr. Warren, the BOard
order Item i~.B., R~fer to Planning conn~i~sion a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Relative to ~obile Home
Exisbin~ ~obile Home~.
Mr. McHale ~tated =he majority of mobile homes were located in
Bermude District and ther~ were approximately twenty-four
mobile homes looated in areas previously zoned Business and
Industrial, He further ~tated the new Zoning Ordinance would
prohibit the Board from renewing p~l~mit~ for t~e~e mobile
homes without rezoning the properties to remain consistent
with the new zoning ordinance Or a~e~ding the Zoning
Ordinance. ~e indicated he felt tho ~urrent prosess would
County and, therefore, requested the Board to refer this
ordinance amendment to tbs Planning Cs~mission £or their
On motion of ~4r. McHale, seconded by ~4r. Warren, the Board
referred to the Planning Commission, for a public hearing and
recommendation, a zoning ordinance amendment which wo~ld allow
consideration of mobils homs ~ermits for exis~in~ mobile homes
in B-l, B-2, B-3, B-T, M-l, M-2 end M-3 zoning districts.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~r. McBale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Phillip G. cunningham
to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the
Ric~mond Regional Planning District Commission, whose term is
effective immediately and will eXl~ire December 31, 1995.
~ot~: T3nanlmoun
CAPITAL AI~EA T~AININ~ ~ONSOI~TIUN
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. colbert, the Board
deferred consideration of nominations to the Capital Area
Training Consortium until February 1~, 199~.
on mo=ion of Hr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Warren, the ~nerd
deferred consideration of nominations to the Co~ittee on the
Future, representing Clover Hill District, until February 1~,
199~-
Mr. Micas stated the Board had appointed Ms. Brenda Johnson to
serve on the Community Services Board at its meeting on
January 8, 1992 and confirmed her term, representing Clover
Hill District, would be for one year ex/0iring December ~1,
1992.
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mrs. Pamela M. Womack to
at-large, whose teI~ is effective immediately and will expire
P~ONRE~ APPEAL~ BOAR~
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by }ir. colbert, the ~oard
1/22/92
: I
simultaneously nominated/appointed ~r. David B. Harrln~ton to
serve on the ~sreennel Appeals Board, reprmsenting the County
at-large, whose term is effective immediately and will exDire
December 31, 1994.
on ~otlon of Mr. BarDer, ss=ended by ~r. Warren, the Board
deferred Consideration of nominations to the Solid Waste
Committee, representing clover Hill and Midlothian Districts,
Vote: Unanimous
TRANSPORTATION
O~ ~otien of F._r. Barber, seconded by Mr.
deferred consideration of nominations ~o the Transportation
safety Committee, repre~entin~ the County at-large, until
February 12, 1~92.
Vote: Unanimous
AIRPORT ADVISOR¥
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
~eSerre~ consi~eratlon of nc~inations to the Airport Advisory
Board, represmnting MidlothiaD Di~triot, until February 12,
1992.
~ (~q~ST~RFT~T~D ~maN COR~Oi~ATION
On notion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
simultaneously nomlnated/~ppointed Mr. Luther Strlngham to
~erve on th~ Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation, representinq
~idlothian District, whoze te~ is effective January ~0, 1992
and will expire January 31, 1993.
Vote: Unanlmous
.C]~ISSION ON ~OX~ AN~ FOI]NDATIONS
On mo%ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bmrbe~, ~ Board
~imultaneou~ly nominated/appointed ~. RU~ell Matt,
representing Dale Di~trlct, to serve on the co~i~sion on
soil= and Foundations, whose term is effective i~edi~tely
will ~ at the pS~a~ of the Board.
on notion of ~. Mc~ale, mecond~d by ~. Warren~ the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed. Mr. Wolfgmng web~,
soils and Foundatlon=, whom~ ter~ i$ ~f~ective i~ediat=ly
will be at th~ Dleasur~ of the Board.
reqardlng the Co~i~ion on Soils and Foundati0n~ and has
fo~arded ~s ~nformation to fha County A~inis~ator for his
response. Ke indicated the five district representatives
weuld b~ making reeemmendatlons for members to serve on the
Con,mission.
It wao indioatod the Board needed to suspend its rules to
allow oimmltaneou~ nomination/appointment at this time for all
the previously named and all other oommituee appoletm~nts.
On motion of Mr. McHate, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Beard
suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/
appnintment at this time for all the previously named add all
othor committee appolateonts,
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of F~r. ~arber, seconded by Hr, NeWels, the Beard
simultaneously nominated/appointed the following ps, sons to
serve on tho Commission of soils and Foundations, whoso terms
are effective immediately and will be at the pleasure of the
Boazd:
Mr. Russell Fmit
Vote: Unanimous
District
Clover Kill
Dale
Midlothian
Matoaoa
he ~ad attended a neighborhood
representative council meeting sponsored by the Brandermii1
Neighborhood Association in which Mr. Phelps~ Mr. Olean a~d
Mr. Karnos word present and noted tho Commission was actively
gathering input.
Mr. Denial stated he felt it should be the intent of ~he Board
to have the district representatives meet csllectlvely and
organize au agenda for the establishment of the Commission.
with the district representatives~ provide direction as to the
para~eters o~ the commission and discuss available County
There was brief discussion relative to meeting with the
district roprosontatlves.
Mr. Daniel stated ho Solt the cummission needed ti~e to
organize and establish its agenda and meeting with the
Commission at this point in time, could be inter~retad ss
direct involvement and perceived as t~e Board guiding t~e
Commisoion.
Mr. colbert sta~ed he felt r~e Board should allow the
Commission to establish its guidelines amd organize before
moo~ing with them.
Mr. KcNale stated he felt the Board ~he~ld net become i~volved
the Commission to formally report to th~ Board.
Mr. Daniel ~tated the Commission should be allowed muffieient
time to develop their issues and noted they would have
re~ourc~ available to them s~eh as holding public hearings
and work ses~ion~ as well e~ other resources from County
staff.
Mr. Barber stated ho felt the Board should uonsldor setting
wider parameters for the Commiz~ion'~ functien~ am ~e had Docs
92-56 1/22/92
: I
~xoludlng certain industries could impact the end result.
Mr. Daniel stated any information received f~c~a individuals or
groups who feels they ere being excluded, would be documented
and forwarded to the County Adlainist~at0r and the comission.
It was =he general ooneensus of the Board, the Commission on
Soils and Foundations would formally r~port to the ~oard of
Supervisors, as to the status of ~e Co~i~s~on~ no late~ tha~
May 1, 1992.
~fI'FX)~OLITANECON~C
After brief discussion, on notion of Mr. Daniel, ~econde~ by
Mr, MoHalk, ~ Board simultaneously nominated/appointed
on ~e Metropolitan Economio Development Council Operating
e~ire F~ruary 5, 1994.
A~%/~AN~/~TTOPTRGIR~A ~TOFFDEBT ~ON A~
On notion of Mr. McHule, seconded by Mr. Colbert~ the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed ~, Richard Cordle,
Treas~er, and Ms. ~ry Leu Lyl~ Director ~f Accounting, to
serve on th~ App~al~ ~anel P~r~a~t to ~irglnla Set Off D~t
Collection Act~ whose =e~ a~ ~ff~c=iv~ i~diatety and will
be at the pleasure of the Board. ~, further, the ~oar~
deferr~ con~eration of mominations =o the Appeal~ Panel
~rs~ant to Virginia Set Off D~t Collection Act fur citizen
Mr. Daniel ncte~ it was the intent of the Board ~u appoint a
~itize~ representative to the Capital /h/aa Training Consortium
and instructed the County Administrator to aaviss the
Consortium as to zuch.
Mr. Ste~ier stated conmideratlon Of a~ a~gl
May ~, 1991 Board meeting. He reviewed
Policy including the definition of cash proffers; the la,al
constraints regarding cash profferg; pollcy considerations and
~ methodology used when developing the c~ent Ca~ P~ff=r
~olicy.
Discussion, co~an~s an~ ~e~tionm ensued ~ela~iv~ ~o l~al
~e~i~ement~ regarding delaying capital improvement plans
and Inf~a~t~uotu~ Co~ittee; the Co~ty~s ~ility to collect
Mr. Steamier fu~er rmviewe~ rmve~e~ g~era~ed by gro~
a~d co~t~ of p~oviding ~ervices for new r~nid~t$;
~en~a~e4 by ~o~ of~e~%ing operating costs; the
~thodol~y Used when calculating comtm Of p~lic facilities
related ~u gr~h lnclu~in~ dmmun~ generatorm, service level
~tandards, gro~ cc~t, credit~ and net =cst and other adopted
policy items; consld~ratlon~ ~of adjustments in ~he cash
proffer amount for future years; credits ~sed on ~m turret
methodology; ~ecommendations for adjustments and the effective
date of such adjustments being July 1st ef each fiscal year;
the net cost calcula~ioss for FY92 for all facilities in the
proffe~ program including roads; road cost calculations
and south e£ Route 36~; and cash prof£ers for residential
There was brief discussion relative fo average net cost
calculations per dwelling units and whether ~hs revenue
generated per dwelling unit paid the costs of providing
services.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated the Board could adopt a different
policy regarding %he payment of ca~h proffers for rezoning
proffers both below and above the current policy ameu~t.
Mr. etegmaier also reviewed cash preSSers for ce~arcial
development including the previ~ion for a fire suppression
sys%amnot required by law.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to r_he
provision of fire suppression mystemm am it related to credits
and ~ew t/ua pr~vision applied tu ~han~ing cumm~rcial uses
existing building~ per the Cash Proffer Policy; the differene~
in coats and credits for read~ south of Route 360. verau~
nort~h of Route 360 and other roads within the County; and
raY,mum ~enarated by gasoline taxes as it related to the
County's Six Year Road Plan; etc.
Mr. Daniel ~ated he felt the Beard should consider moving to
the next step aa contemplated by the Cash P=offer Policy from
$2,00~ to $3,0S0 per dwelling unit.
Mr. Colbert stated he felt due to the financial situation
the County, the cash p~offer paltriest should be i~er~a~ed as
recommended.
~r. Warren staued he felt =he existing oas~ proffer pa~rment
wa~ inadequat= to meet the co.ts of development us development
~r. Berber' stated he agreed with the comment~ expressed.
~r. McfaCe ~tated he agreed with the con,apt of the Ca~h
Proffer Policy and clarified the methodoloqy need ~ega~ding
the uni~ormit¥ of cost.
On motion of the Beard, the cash proffer a~eunt was increased
fre~ $2,000 to $3,000 p~r dw=lling unit effective immediutely.
vote! Unanimous
(It is noted a copy of the Cash Proffers. -~re~ent Adopted
Policy is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Mr. Rummey prement~ the Board with a statu~ report on the
General Fund Bslanos; Reserve for Furze Capital Projects;
District Road and Street Light Fund~; and Lea~e ~urcha~e~.
~r. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department of Tr&nspor~ation
has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the
following roads into the State Secondary System:
ADD~?~ON~ I~GTH
Route ~000 (Buckhorn Road) - From Route 3001'to
0.44 mile South Route 3001
0.44 Mi
Route 3746 (Trophy Lune}- fr~m Route 3000 to
0.07 mils East ROUte 3000
0.07 Mi
RU~e 3747 {Trailhrook Drive) - From Route 3000 to
0.~4 mils Southwest Route 3000
0.24 Mi
Mr. Ra~sey pre~snted the Board with a report on the developer
On motion of Mr. McHels, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
rses~ssd at 5:15 p.m. (EST) to the Ad~iDistratlon Building,
Koom .502, fqr dinner.
?. IRVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Dennis E. Tucker,
B~thl~h~m Baptist Church,~ who gave th~ i~vocatlon.
Pastor of
8. pLR~GE OF ~L~.RGIARCR TO 9~{E FL~g OF '~n~. ~NTTED ~TI%TE~ OF
A~EP~CA
Members of Boy ~c0ut TrsoDs B19 and 880 led the Pledge of
Allegiance to th~ Flaq of the United ~tat~ of A~erlca.
12= ~OLUTFONSi%ND ~ECIALI~O~N~TIO~
chief Pittman stated Lieutenant Shulton had been a loyal and
de~i~ted ~ployee and the Polic~ Department would sincerely
mis~ hi~ diligent service.
On motion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted:
~S~ Lieutenant Herbert N. Shelton retired fro~ ~
~s%erfleld County Police Department on January 1, 1992; and
~ali%y service to the citizens o~ ~esterfield counuy; and
~R~S, Lieubenan% ~helton ha~ served the County in ~e
=a~uclty of Patrol Off~ce~ Deteotive, ~ergeant and
Lieutenant; and
~R~$, Lieutenant Sheltun has, for ~e la~ ~everal
years~ overseen ~e investigation of ~any major cri~e~
including homicides; an~
~E~S, Li~ut=nant sheldon ~as significantly impacted
=he safety of ~a co,unity ~y arresting ON =auslng ~e arrest
of major criminals d~ing his lon~ tenure as a Superviso~ and
92--59
Co~mender in the Crimes Against Persons Unit within the Police
D~Dartaent;and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Shelton bas provided t~e C~esterfield
County ~olics Department with many years of loyal and
dedicated service; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of supervisors
will miss Lieutenant Shelton's ~iligsnt service,
NQW~ T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the chesterfield
Co~nty Beard of Supervisorm publicly recognizes LieUtenant
Herbert M. S~elten and extends on be~alf of. its members and
the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his
service to the County.
~D~ ~ IT F~ER R~SOLV~D, ~hat a copy of this
re,Diaries be presented to Lieutenant Shelton and that thi~
Board of Supe~i=orm of Chesterfield Co~ty.
~. Daniel presen=ed the executed resolu=ion to Lieutenant
his dedicated se~i=e to the Co~ty an~ w~=he~ him well in
retirement.
contribut&on toward providing quality ~ice to the citizens
of Chesterfield cowry and ~ Ut{litie~ Department would m{~
hi~ diligent
On motion of the board, the following resolution was
County Department of Utilities on Janua~ 3, ~991; and
~E~, ~. Wyatt has provided ~8 year~ of quality
~S, The ~e~t~field Co~ty Board of Supervisors and
all fellow employees will certalnly mis= Mr. Wyatt~= service;
~E~AS, Mr. Wyat~ was employed as one of ~ree
Con~u~tion Insp~=tors and started working with the County
~arch of 19s3; and
~S, Nr. Wyatt has inspect%d many o~ ~e major
col!~ctor sewer linem, p~ping stations, water lines and water
t~ in all sections of the County; and
~S, M~2 Wyatt has been instrumental in training new
ln~pector~ and supervising these ~plQy~e~ a~ ~a Coumty has
~S, ~. ~att by ~is continued interest in ~is
an~ ~ertise and ~owledge o~ the wa~e~ and sewer syst~s
the Utilities Dupa~munt ham ~us mad~ a
contribution towar~ providing ~ality sur~iue %o the citizens
of ~=sturfield County.
NOW, ~RREPORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ~m ~esterfield
Boar~ of Su~erv~or~ Du~lioly reoogniz~s Mr. John L. Wyatt and
ext~nd~ on b~alf of its me. ers ~d the citizens
Chest~flel4 Coun=y =heir appreciation for ~his service to
92-6~ 1/22/92
AND, BE IT PURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this
re~lution be presented to Hr. Wyatt and that this resolution
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Hr. Daniel presented the executed re~olutien =c Hr. Wyatt,
aecomDanied by his wife, thunked him for his dedicated ~erviee
to the County and wis~e~ him well in his retirement.
Mr. John Long, reDresentative £or r~o Southern Christian
Administrative Officer for tho County's General Services
Dep~rt~ent~ who coordinated the activities. He ~tat~d
recognition of FebrUary as "S!auk His%dry ~onth" highlighted
opportunity to e~ucat~ and entertain others. He e~pre~$ed
appreciation to Phillip Morris, USA; C & P Telephone; Virginia
Power; and the Board of Supervisors for thei~ donations to the
On motion o~ the Board, the following res01utiun was adopted:
W~R~AS, In 1991, Che~terfi~l~ Co~ty, with the generous
eup~or= ef local b~sinesses and institutions, was the only
local government in the C~O~W~alth %0 hold a month~long
~R~AS, African-~e~icans have ma~e significant
contributions to the bUildin~ of ~erica from pre-C~l~u~ to
the space age; and
~E~, ~e Co~nty is cognizant of the contr~but~on~ of
African-~ericans to the building of thi~ CO~n%ry and
Che~temfi~ld cu=n~y; an4
~ative Virginian, se% aside Feb~ary as a time to focally
ac~owledge the tremendou~ ~ontributions o~ African-~e~icans
to the world and OUr ~ation'~ heritage; and
. ~A$, Dr. Woodson~s dream to co~emorate the history,
become the largest ethic ¢~l~bration im ~rica; and
~, Che~ter~i=l~ Co=nty wishes to again provide a
the role of African-~ericans in shaping ~rlcan history.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~0LVEO, ~at th~ Chesgerflel~
the "Celebration of Heritage and Aehievem%nt" t~o~g~o~t the
Pollard and stated the Board wa~ O0~itted to providing
92-61 1/22/9~
methods which would help others expe~ien0e oultural diversity
~ith~ ~a C~un~y. Reverend Pollard expressed appreciation,
on behalf of the NAACP, for the County's recognition of "Black
History Month".
12.E. BOX $CO~TSA~"~AININ~i%ANKOF ~A~
12.E.1. ~. ~ J. DA~B. ~P 880
On ~o~cn of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
~E~S, ~e Boy Scouts of ~erlcu was inco~o~ated
~. Wi11iam D. Boy=e on F~bruary ~, 1910; and
~E~, The Boy Scouts of ~ica w~ fo~n4~d to pro~ot~
oitiz~ship training, personal' d~v~lopment and f~tnes~
indlvi4uals; an~
~R~S, 'A~ter earning a~ lea~t twenty-one merit
in a wide ~arlety of fields, se~ing in a leadership
in a truoR, carrying out a se~ice project beneficial to his
co~uni~, b~ing active in ~e ~oop, demonstrating
s~irit an~ living u9 to ~ Suu=t Oa~ and Law;
~S,' Mr~ Mat~aw J. Dav~, B~ul~ unite~
Church, Troop ~0, ha= accompllshed those high standards of
co~itm~n~ and has reached ~a long-~oug~t qoal of Eagle Scout
which is received by l~ns than two percent of those
individuals entering the. scouting mov~nt; and
~EREAS, 8rowing through hi~ experiences in Scouting,
learning ~ 16sgon~ 0f responsibl~ citizenship and priding
himself on the qreat accompli~ents of his County, Mat~ew
~ndeed a m~er o~ a new generation of.prmDare~ young citizens
of whom we can all be very proud.
NOW, T~FO~ B~ IT R~S0L~D, ~ut the
~e County to have ouch an outstanding young man a~ on~ oS
citizens.
~0te:
ar, Daniel presented ~e ~x~d r~solution to ~. Davi~ and
12.~.2. MR. JOS~ T. "T~" ~/~, III- TROOP ~80
On motion of the ~card, ~he following ~eoolution wac =doDtod:
WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts c~ ~e~ica was in=or~crate~ by
Mr. Willi~ D. Boyce ~n Feb~ary 8, 1910; and
~ER~Sr ~e Boy Scout~ of ~erica wa~ founded to promote
citizenship ~aining, personal development and fitness of
individuals; and
in a wide variety of 'fleldo, serving ~n a lead~shlp position
in a troop, car~ing out a se~ice project beneficial to his
co~unlty, being active in the t~oop, demonstrating Scout
spirit and l~ving Up to the Scout Oath and ~w; an~
~$, ~. Joseph T. Schmlerer, III, Beulah Uni~
standards of co~itm~n= an~ has reache~ ~e long-sought goal
those individuals entering the Scouting movem~t; and
WHEREAS, =rowing through hi~ experiences in $¢suting~
learning the les~ens of rsse0nsihl~ citizenship and pri~ing
indeed a member of a .new ~eneratlon of pr~pare~ young cltizen~
of whom we can ali b~"very'proud. ' '
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations
to ~Lr. Joseph T. $ohmie~er~ III and as~owledgcs the good
for%uns o~ the County to have such an outstanding young man ae
one of its citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
F~r. Daniel pre~ented the ~cuted resolution to Mr. Scl~mlerer
and congratulated him on his outstanding achievement.
I~-E-~. ~fR- i~ANDY JOHNSON. TROOP
On motion of th~ Board, the following reselution was
WHEREAS, The Bey Scouts of America was incorpora%e~ by
M~. William D. Boyce on February 8, 19~0; and
W~EREAS, The Boy Scout~ of ~erioa wa~ founded to promote
citizenship ~raining, personal 4eveloement and fitne~ of
individuals; and
~EREAS~ Afte~ earninq at least twenty-one merit ~dgem
in a wide variety oS fiel~, serving ~n a leadership position
in a troop~ ca~yinq o~t a ~urvice project b~efioial
co.unity, being active in t~ ~ruop, ~emonstrating Scout
~pirit and living up to the Scout Oath ~nd Law~ and
~EREAS, Mr. Randy Johnson, ~t. John's Episcopal Ch~ch,
and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scou~ which
received by less than two percent of ~ose individuals
enter~n~ th~ ~=out~ng movement; and
~, Stowing ~o~gh his e~eriences in
l~arning the lesson~ of re6ponsible =itizenskip and pridinq
himself on the grP~t accomplishments of his County, Ran4y
indeed a m~ber of a new generation of prepared yegg c~tizen~
of whom we can all be very proud.
NOW, TKEREFORE BE IT ~SQLVED, ~a% =he
County Boa~d of SuperViSOrS hereby extend~ its con~atulations
to Mr. ~ndy Jo~son and acknowleOg~s ~e good fo~e of the
County to hove ~uch an outstanding young man a~ one of it~
citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. McHale pre~ented ~e executed resolution to ~. Johnson
O~ ~otion of the B0a~d, t/~e following r~solution wus adopted:
%~HEREAS, The Boy Scouts of ~erica was incorporated by
Mr. wi11iam D. ~oyce on February 8, 1910; and
~s, The Boy Soouts of America was fo~ded to promote
citizenship training, personal development an~ fitness of
individuals; and
~/22/92
WI~RFAS, After earning et least twenty-one 'merit badges
in a wide variety of fields, ~e~ving in a leadership position
in a troop, carrying cut a service project beneficial to his
community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Seo~t
spirit and living up to ~he 8coat Oath and Law; and
WI{ERKAS, ~r. Na~ew J. Thysell, St. John's ~iscopal
Church, Troop 819,. has accomplished those hig~ standards of
cor~itment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout
which is received by less .than two percent of those
individual~ ~ering th~ Scouting mordent; and
~S, Growing ~ough his e~arienc~s in Scouting,
learning the l~ssons of responsible citizenship and priding
himself on ~e q~eat accompli~hment~ of his County, Mat=hew i~
of wh~ we can all be very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Boar~ of SuDe~isors hereby extend~ its congratulations
%o ~. Mat~ew J. Thysell and uc~owledges the good fortune of
~e County %o have sush an outstanding young man as one of its
citizens.
Vote: Unanimou~
and congratulated him on his out,tending achievement.
Mr. Oaniel recognized Mr. Art mallory of Phillip Morris, USA
check in support of the "~lack ~istory Month" celebration.
The Board expressed app,=statism to F~. Nallory for thei~
generous contribution.
Mr. Davenport stated he had recently been appointed to the
Governor's Commission addressing the Dillion Rule in th~ 8~ato
an~ woul~ be coordinating his efforts with th~ Board. ~e
for Drug and Alcohol Abuse and he would be appointing an
advisory COuncil to a~ist in addressing drugs within the
future, to appoint a representative from each district ts form
this advisory council and felt the input received from various
school groups such aa the ~TA's would be beneficial. ~a also
stated he would represent the County to t~e beet of ~ie
ability and looked forward to working w~th thR Board.
.13 ... IIF~%~NGS OF C~TIZ]~S ON UNS~U~..~ ~A'rr~ ~R
~-RT~ ~ ~ HOUS~G
~. Dyke, ~re~ident of Endico=t Construction Company, Inc.,
~tated he has been a builder width ~e County for
approximately tw~y-seven y~rs a~ w~ll a~ a ~e~ident; that
he had recently sent a letter to the County A~in~=trator
ae~res~ng ~Ue~ of affordabili~y in new housing relating
speclfically to ~e n~w~oil a~ footing r~irem~nts and
s~i%ted a copy of his lette~ to ~e Board; t~t he had
applied for a b~ildlng p=~it and hud concerns as hm fmlt the
implementation of the new footings policy had resulted in
delay~, extra costs an~ ~estioned whether any benmfits were
being derived for ~e customers t~ough the proce~; ~at he
felt ~ere were o~e~ methods available which woul~
costly and as effective; that h~ f~lt ~oil COncerns should be
addressed by the Co~is~iQn cn sails and Faundatices~ etc.;
and ~d aDp~eeiatio~ to the Board for the opportunity to
address his concerns.
Mr. Daniel stated he.would forward Mr. DyKe's lettsr =o the
Co~ission on Soils and Faundatione.
~- Barber stated h= ha~ talked to Dr. Gary zavik~ ~e
repre~tative fo~ the veterinarian~, and hud ~en info,ed
they w~r~ in c~nta~t w~th the appropria~ ~taff and would not
be p~ese~t to address their concerns at this time but rather
e~ressed a desir~ ~o wait an~ a~e~ the Boar~ at a later
On motion of ~. Morale, n~oo~ded by ~. Daniel, the Boar~
collection of revenues when applying for a busineSS license,
under ~earings of Citizens on Unscheduled Matters or Claim~,
until F~ruary 12, 1992 a~ 7:00 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
14. P~LICHF~%JLINGS
Mr. Micas state~ ~t~ date ~n~ tim~ had b~n advertised
public h~aring to consider ~e sale of property located
3~1~ Logandate Aven~, Ri~ond, Virginia, to
~e Coun=y to ~ati~fy a debt for services received at the Lucy
Corr Nursing ~e when a fo~er paPient was retroactively
~eclared ineligible for Med~cald. ~e noted due to a
pre-existing debt~ th~ COUnty would receive
There was no ~ne pre~ent to address thi~
On motion of Mr. Warr~, z%conded by M~. Colb~, th~ Board
approved the ~al~ of property locat~ at 5415
Avenue, Ri~ond, Virginia, to Romeella ~atter$o~ ~n the
amount of
In Bermuda Mag~turlal ~ietrict, C~qL D. AD~NA~ requested
a Community Business (B-2) D~strict. Th~ density Of =~
proposal ~ approximately .9~ units~acre. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property for general commercial use. This
p~eperty fro~ts the west line o£ ~effersan Davi= Righwa¥,
approximately 600 feet south o~ Fore~= LaJ~ Road~ and ~s
better known as 13900 Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 135-7
(2) Mid City Farms, ~look A, Lo= ~2B ($~ee% %1).
In Bermuda Magisterial Distr~ct, H~fY AD~Au~K requested
renewal of Mobile Ho~e Permit 86S060 ta park a mobile home ~n
92-65 1/2~/92
a Travel Trailer Park (B-T) District. The density of the
pr0po~al i~ approximately .2~ uni~/a~re. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property for residential USe Of 2.51 to
4.0G units/acre and general commercial use. This prnperty
fronts the west line e~ Seffersen Davis Highway, appruximately
625 feet south of Forest Lake Road, and is better known as
1390Z Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 133-7 (2) Mid City
Ferns, Block A, Lot 12 (Sheet 41).
In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~. THO,/AS r~bL~' AND BT.RTR
R. HAL~=i-&' requested renewal OX Mobile Home permit 865R170 to
park a ~obile ho~e in a Community Business (B-2) District.
The density of the proposal i~ approximately .94 units/acre.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial
USe. This property fronts ~he north line of ~ast H~ndred
Road, approximately 350 feet west of Rivers Bend Boulevard,
and is better known as ~10 East Hundred Road. Tax Ma~ 117-12
(4) Westcver Farms, Let 22 (Sheet ~).
~r. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 915R0254 and stated
for mobile h~me pe~-mlts loon=ed within commercial areas
currently zoned by the Old Zoning Ordinance and we~e affected
by the earlier action of t/le Board to refer to the Planning
Corm~ission, for a p~blie hearing and recommendation, s zoning
ordinance amendment relative to mo~ile hQma ~r~its for
e~fEting mobile homes and, therefore~ staff was
deferral of all three requests. He noted all three requests
would be readvertise~.
There was no opposition pre~ent to the recommendation by ~taff
to defer =he requests until such time as the Planning
Commission would address ~he Zoning Ordinance amendment and
the Board of Supervisors permitted to consider the request.
on motion of M~. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
deferred Cases 91~R02~4~ 91~R02~ and 92SRO10~ until such ti~e
us th~ Planning Commission would address the Zoning Ordinance
amendment and the Board 0£ Supervisors permitted ~o consider
these requests.
Vote: Unanimous
91SN0~46
In Midlothia~ ~a~isterlal D~strlct~ [~A¥ BII6( requested
~mendments to Conditional Use Planned D~v~lo~m~nts (Cases
79S065 and 89~N0174) to permit ~e and bulk' exceptlon~, as
ambient will be con,oiled by zoning conditions or ordinance
standards. The Co~pr~ensive Plan designates the property for
residential use of 1.51 units per acre or less and ligh~
industrial u~. This request lie~ in office ~usiness (0) and
a~proximately 282 feet on the south line
Boulevard, approximately 850 feet east of Bran~way Road. Tax
~ap 17-13 (1) Pa~ of Parcel 12 an~ Tax ~ap. 17-13 (5)
So~po~, Section 2, Lot 13 (Sheet
Mr. Jacob~on pres~te~ a s~ury of Case 91SN0246 and stated
to conditions.
~. Ray Birk stated the rec~endation was acceptable. There
. 92-66 1/2~/92
Mr. Warren, t_he Board approved Cas~ 91SN0246 subject to the
following conditions:
In addition to the uses currently p~rmit~ed on the office
Business (0) portion of the props~ty, ~he following uses
shall be permitted;
All Light Industrlal (I-1)
(NOTE:
This Condition is in addition to Condition S cf Case
BPSN0~74, relative to uses for the subject property
only.}
2. With the approval of thi~ request, the required twenty
(a0) foot buffer along the Light Industrial (M-l) portion
of the ~ubjeot property shall be deleted.
(NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 9 of Case
79~065 for the Light Industrial (M-l) portion ef this
request.)
3. With the approval cf this request, a ten (lo) foot
exception to the twenty (20) foot ~ide yard building
sethaok requirement in 0flies susiness (o) Districts
shall be granted.
(NOTE: This condition is in addition to C0n0ition
Case S9S~0174, relative to setbacks ~n the Office
Busines~ (O1 tra~t.)
(NOTES:
vote;
a. All other applicable conditions of zoning
approval for Cases 795065 and 89SN017~ remain
in effect.
Condition 9 of cass 89~N0174 ~equires that ~ite
and architectural plans be submitted to the
Plannin~ Coi~ission fo~ approval.)
Unanimous
In ~ermuda Magisterial D~strict, ~-£~ A~D ~YNARD BOS~k~K
E~e~ted Conditional Use to p~it a two-family dwelling ia
an a~cultural [A) District. ~e dan~ty of ~nch a~en~ent
will be con,oiled by zoniDg ¢0nditlon~ or Ordinance
standards. The' Compr~en~ive Plan ~m~natem =he property for
li~s on 1.03 acrem fron~ng ap~r0xi~=~ly 160 feet on the
south line of Baldwin Road, approximately ~,~00 feet east of
Happy ~ill Road. Tax Map 13~-8 (2) Grave~ Hill, Section A,
th~ Pla~g c~i~io~ race--ended upproval s~Ject to
There was no opposition present.
On motion of ~. McH~le, =econded by ~. warr~, ~e Boar4
aDDroved Ca~ 91SN0~90 subjeo~ ~o ~e following conditions:
1. occupancy of the second dwelling nnit shall be limited to
th~ occupantn Of the principal dwelling unit, thai:
family m~b~ and quests. (P)
92-67
Prior to release of a building permit, a deed restriction
~hall ~ re,or,ed indi~a%in~ the requirement in Condition
1. The deed book and page number of such restriction and
a copy of the restrict/on shall be submitted to the
Planning Department.
Vote: Unanimous
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ~.~N TAYLO~ WOOD
requested rezoning from Agricultural
(0-2). The density of such amendment will be co~trolled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The comprehensive
Plan designates the property for office ume and stream valley
slopes, floodplains and easements. This reguest lies on a
§.9? acre parcel fronting approxim~tely $~0 feet on the east
line of Turner Road, approximately 150 feet north of
Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 17 (sheet 9).
)fr. Jacobsen presented a s~a~ of Case 9I$N0304 and stated
staff ~d ~e ~la~ing Co~ission race--ended approval and
acceptance of ~e proffered conditions. He noted the re,est
confound ' to ~e Turner Road Corridor Land U~e and
~. Bill Walden, repres~tlng the applicant, s~ated the
reco~endation wa~ acceptable. ~ere wa~ no opposition
present..
On motion of ~. Warren, meconded by M~. Colbert, the Board
conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the
A. The owns, ~eveloper or assignee(s) shall pay to the
County $150 per 1,800 s~are fee% of gross floor
percentage that the Marshall Swift Building Cost
and the date of pa~ent. Wi~ the approval of the
required pa~ent for the cost of any fire
which i~ included as part of ~e development.
OR
B. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall provide a
fire suppression system not otherwise rGq~ired by
law whiah the county's Fi~e Chief determines
substantially reduces the need for county ~acilities
otherwise ~ece~sa~y fo~ fire prot=ction.
Applicants agree to accomplish A or B prior to
obtaining a building permit.
Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) f~et of
right of way on the east side of Turner Road, measured
£rum the centerline of that part of Turner Road
immediately adjacent to the property, shall ~ dedicated,
free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of
Chesterfield County.
92-68 1/22/92
Access to Ttt~ner Road shall be limited to one
entrance/exit. The exact location of thle access shall
91~N0313
in Midlothian Magisterial District, aAS~.-r AHD COMPANY
requested amendment to a previously granted zoning (Case
895N032S) to permit Community Business (C-5) uses within 150
feet of Robious Road. The density Of SUCh amendment will be
controlled by zoning condition~ er Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive ~lan d~ignates the property ~or general
commercial use. T~i~ ruquest lies in m Community Business
(C-3) District on a 4.6 acre parcel frenting approximately 528
feet o~ the north lime of Midlothian Turnpike, across from
Pocono Drive, also fronting approximately 5~7 ieet on the
so~th line of Robious Road, approxi~ately 50 feet west of Old
Ben Air Road. Tax'Hap 19-11 (t) Fareal 20'(Sheat 8).
~r. ~acob~on presented a mum~ary of Case 91MN0313 and stated
staff and the Plannin~ Ce~i~ion race--ended approval.
Mr. Oliver Rudy, r~pres~nting the applicant, state4 the
recommendation was acceptable.
I% was noted although there was opposition present regarding
this request, it was the n~xt request to b~ heard per the
regular sequence on the agenda.
Mr. Jacobsen continued h~s presentation of Cuss 91SN0313 and
stated the request conformed to the Northern ~.~ea Land Use and
Trenspol-tation Plan. ~e further stated staff had received a
proffered condition relative =o security concerns.
Mr. Rudy stated the request was in asoordanoe wit~ the
r=commendation hy staff and he had recently been r~q~e~ted by
a representative o~ the Peecno Civic Association to
consider submitting a proffered condition r~lative %o security
concerns. ~e su~mlttsd to the Board two alternative proffered
conditions regarding ~ee~rity measles and stated the
applicant would accept either eonditi0n, He further ztated
although the proffered condition had been submitted a~ter the
deadline, he felt the Board should give consideration to the
request since h~ had been notified at a late date am to the
concerns e~prasse~ by the neighborhood association.
Mr. Rcs Figs, representing the Poceno Civic Association,
stated they had con,ems regarding security in the area of the
proposed re91~est and had at a late data, addressed these
concerns with the applicant. He Sur~her e~ated they would
rathe~ have the proffered condition relating to a certified
on-site police officer rather than a =ertlflad securi~y guard
aceept=d as they felt a security guard would not have tho
necessary training to quar~ agains~ all incidents which might
]~r. George Beadles stated he felt since the proffered
condition had not been submitted in accordance with the
guideline~ established by the Board, it would be inconsistent
to accept the condition and indicat=d h= felt the request to
delet~ the 150 foot line should require a unanimous decision
by the Board ~ there was a purpose to the line originally
bclng installed, etc.
Colonel Joseph Pitt~an, ~hief of Police, stated he was
concerned as to the proffered condition which would require aA
on-site police officer as they are currently provld~ng service
to approximately twenty-nine contracts, ~e further stated he
9~-69 1/22/92
felt they would not be able to meet this demand and was
process. He noted State law required security officers to
meet basic minimum training standards.
Mr. Rudy stated they felt the circumstances regarding the
requcs~ had uhanged whiuh wa~ t. he basis ~or the
reo0~endatio~ by ~taff and requested th~ Bc~d to give
favorable consiOeration to the re,est. ~ asked, he stated
he felt ~e proff~r~d conditio~ relating to a
seedily guard versus an on-site police officer was adequate
~t~ brief discussion, Mr. Barber mtated h~ felt it would not
consider the submittal of the proffered condition as
aDDlioan= had followed the aDDroDria=e procedure. He further
~tat~d when th~ Board had adopted ~e~r procedures, it had
teen their ~ntent to protect citiz~s who may not have teen
aware of zoning re~ests and did not feel that =oncern existed
with this =e~est. He f~her stated he felt i= would ~e
difficult to mandate ~e Police Depar~ent to assign an
off-duty police officer to ~e area b~t in~tead re~sted them
to monitor ~e area closely due to ~e activity which woul~ be
taking
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Mohalk, the Board
suspended its rules to allow for the consideration of the
acc~ptanc~ of a proffered condition r~lative to Ca~.91SN0313.
Warren, to approve Case 91SN0313 and to accept the following
proffered oondition~
In th~ ~vent ~at four buslne~me~ and/or ~ivic
a~mociat~onm located wi~in a on~-fo~rth (1/4) m~le
radiu~ of the mite file bona fide co=plaints regarding
a~y i~doo~ recreation use with th~ county police
department concerning separate spmcific instances
loitering and/or any c~er activity that ~y have
detrimental ~mDact upon ~e co~i=y, ~e applicant
shall provide a codified s~c~ity ~ard d~ing the hours
of concern until ~uch complaints are
Bo~d would need to rec0nsi~er its adopted policy regurdin~
the deadline for the submittal of proffered conditions.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt ~e inter of the Beard had been to
protect cltlzmns from requests moving rapidly t~ough the
zoning process and the Board ~hould be fl~ible when
conEid~ing ~usual tire,stances.
Mr. Daniel called for the vote on the mu%ion ~made ~
associations lccat.d within a one-fou~ (1/4) mile
any indoor recreation use with the County police
~m~a~ent c~ncernin~ ~e~arate ~ecifi= ~n~tance~ of
!oit~ing and/or any other activity ~hat may have
~etrim~ntal imDao= upon the co~uni~, ~he applicant
shall provide a certified security guard during the hours
Vote: Unanimous
92-70 1/22/92
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9).
Residential use of up to 4.B4 units per acre is permitted in a
Residential (R-9) District. The Comprehenmive Plan designate~
the prepay for residential use of 1.~1 to 7.00 units per
950 feet no~th of ~illewbranch Drive, also lying at the
western tea~nlnus of Wimterleaf Drive. Tax Map 66-9 (1)
Parcels 26 and 27 (Sheet 22).
Hr. ~acobson presented a summary of Came 915~0265 and stated
acceptance of the proffered ce~ditiens. He noted the request
There was brief discussion relative to aucesm through
Winterleaf Drive.
Mr. oliver Rudy, representing the applicant, presented an
overview of the request and s=ated the density wac comparable
with Will~whurst Subdivision~ that ~hey had agreed tc the
insreaeed amonnt for proffered condltionn; that they proffered
all conditions required for transportation; that the drainage
and erosion conceyBs had bee~ addressed; that they had
but did not feel they could reduce the density of the request
any further, crc.; and requested the BSa~d to give favorable
consideration to th~ request.
Mr. G. W. Dillion, representing the reeident$ OS Willowhur~t
Subdivision, stated they were concerned u~ to the density of
the request and had attempte~ to resolve ~heir concerns with
the applicant; that they felt the integrity of the area should
be maintained; that they ~elt the property on the north side
of the request w0~ld not be buildable due to the location of
the £1~od~lain; that they felt the ns~mting 2.2 units per ao~e
as a m~n~mum lot size should be maintained and would help to
S~bdivision; that the density Of t~he project had been
should be considered when deciding the request, etc.
pr~ent who ~re concerned as to how quickly %he decision had
perception of others the request went through the process too
quickly.
Mr. Melvin Taylor stated he was an adjacent p~operty owner and
felt th~ proposed density was =oo hig~ and, therefore, oppomed
but rather the number 0£ proposed units per acre; and that he
located in the floodplain.
/~r. Tom Miller stated h~ was an adjacent property owner a~d
was opposed to the re~ues~ a~ he fel~ ~he proposed density was
too high ~inCe a portion of the property w~s located iR the
floodplain.
and the request was a land use decision; that the Planning
as well as staff; that due to the wide floodplain, there was a
92-71 1/22/92
buffer between the smaller lots to be developed on the request
· i~e and the lar~r le~ ms,th o~ the e~eek which vas an
acceptable method in providing a land use transition; and
requested the Board to give favorable consideration to the
request.
There wam ~rief discussion relative to the lotm located south
of the creek and east of the request and their average lot
sizes and the average price of the homes in the
area.
Mr. Daniel stated there had been numerous meetings among all
parties involved including himself and the concerns
were not based on the use of the land but ratchet the density.
~e further stated he felt the continuity of use for the
property in ~he surrounding area should bs addressed and noted
it was mostly large lot~ with ~ingle f~m~ly uae. Be indicated
he felt the requested R-9 was tee intense but that R-15 Would
be more feaslble and would permit approximately 1~ lots. He
further stated he had concerns regarding' the proffered
condition submitted which would permit the applicant, within
fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval to pay, Der
approved lot, ~igh~y-fiv~ percent of th~ prevailing cash
service district p~r lot for the prop~rty~ ~e clarified
this type of negotiated discount rate and the proffer payment
should be received at the time of building permit application
and, therefore, felt the pro£fered condition should not be
accepted.
on any form of zonlnq and, therefore, the ~oard should accept
was approved rat~er than R-9. He further stated
eighty-five percent provision was i~validated
tentative subdivision approval had already escorted and
indicated the Board could accept all proffered condltlon~ with
~he R-15 motion.
Discussion, comn~ents and questions ensued relative ~o the
acceptance of the submitted proffered ~ondi~ion regarding tho
applicant, within fifteen days of tentative subdivision
approval to pay, per approved lot, eighty-five percent of the
prevailin~ cash proffer amount for infrastructure improvements
within ~he service district per lot for the property and the
acceptance of all the proffered conditions in general.
Mr. Mica~ clarified th~ Board did not have the authority to
either accept or reject per=ions of a proffered condO=ion hut
its entirety.
the proffered eonditxon which would permit the applicant,
within fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval to pay~
per approved lot, eighty-five percent of the ~revailing cash
service district per lot for the property and advised that nc
such discounted proffers would be considered until the Board
ad~ressed rheas types of'proffered conditions and established
a policy for t~eir acceptance.
1. In con, unction with recordation of a ~ubdlvieion plat,
one hundred (100) feet of right of way on the east side
i~ediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated,
free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of
Chesterfield County.
2. In order to~inimiz~ the traffic impact oh this project,
the proposed development shall be limited to a maximu~ cf
twenty-four (24) iDts, and there shall be no access from
' Route 10 to the proposed development. This shall not
preclude u~e of the subject property for widening cZ the
adjacent access located On Parcel~ 29 Tax Map 66-9 (1).
9. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall wlthln
fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval pay, per
approved lot, s5% of the preyailing per lot amount
specified below for in~ras~ructure improvements within
the service district for the property. If payment do~
not oooltr within fifteen days of tentative subdivision
approval, the applicant, subdivider, or ammig~ee(S) shall
pay ~he following to the County of Chesterfield at the
time of building pmr~it application for infrastructure
improvements w~th~n the service district for the
property:
a. $2,000 per lot, if paid prior to January t, 1992; or
b. The amount approved by the Board of supervisors not
to exceed $3,0~0 per let, if paid between ~anuary
199Z, a~d J~Re 3~, 1992, incluslve; or
¢. The a~ount approved by the Board s~ Supervisors net
to exceed $4,~00 per.lot, if paid between July 1,
1~92, and Jgas 3~, 1993, inul6slve; mr
d. . The amount approved by the Beard of Supervisers not
to exceed $~,000 per lot adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Costs
Index between July 1, 199~, a~d J~ly i of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made if paid after June
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the
number of lst~ under the R-15 zoning; whether the cash proffer
payment conformed to the amount approved by the Board earlier
not to exceed $3~000 per lot; and whether a deferral of the
request would Rrovide an opportunity for the residents and the
applicant to reach a compromise.
Mr. Daniel stated there were petition~ on file with
approximately one hundred signatures 'in opposition to the
request and he did not feel a deferral would reach a different
conclusion by either the applicant or the residents concerned.
~r. Colbert ~ressed eenoeTn as to the size Of the lots
located on Winterleaf Drive and the impact of the floodplain
on the lets and after some disoussion~ stated he felt if th~
floodplain was taken into consideration, the existing lots
w~s basically the o~me size as the proposed lots.
];n-. Daniel called for the vote on the ~otion made by him,
seconded by ~4r. ~arber, to deny R-9 zoning and approve
zoning for Case 91SN0265 and to accept the following proffered
conditions:
1. In conjunction with recordation e~ a subdivision plat,
one hundred (100) feet of right ~f way on the east side
of Route 10 mea~nrsd fro~ that part of Route
immediately adjacent tO the property shall be de~i0ated,
Chesterfield
92-73 1/22/92
Nays:
In order to minimi=e the traffic impact on this project,
~hm promoted ~mvoiopmant shall bm limited to a maximum of
twenty-four (24) lots, and there shall be nO access from
preclude use of the subject property for widening o~ the
adjacent access located on Paroel 29 Tax Map 66-9
The applicant, subdivider, or assignee{s) shall within
fifteen days of tentative su]~ivi~ion approval pay, per
a~roved lot, 85% of the prevailing per lot amount
specified below for infrastructure improvements within
the service district for the property, tf payment does
not occur within fifteen days of tentative subdivision
approval, the applicant, subdivider, er assignee(s) shall
pay the fo%lowing.to the Coun=y of Chesterfield at the
time of building permit application for infrastructure
improvenento within =he service district for the
property:
a. $2,000 per lotI if paid prior to ~anuary 1, 1992; or
b. The amount approved by the Boar~ of Supervisors not
to exceed $3,000 pe~ let, if paid between January 1,
1992, and J~ne 30, 199~, inclusive; or
c. The amount ap~roved by the Board of Supervi~or~ not
to exceed $4,000 par lot, if paid betweem July
1992, and June 30, 1993, in=lus~ve; or
d. T~e a]uoun< approved by the Board of Supervisors nat
in~reass in the Marshall and swift Building Costs
Index between July 1, 199~, and July i of the fiscal
year in which the payment is mode if paid after June
30, 1993.
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Warren, ~r. Barber and Mr. MeHale.
l~r. Colbert.
· n Midlothian Msqistsria~ District, ALeX J. AND C2~ROL
BI~£~K requested Conditional U~e to permit a dwelling unit
separated from the principal dwelling unit in a Reofdential
controlled by zonin~ 'conditions or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan d~ignat~ t/~e property for residential use
of 1.51 to 4.0~ units per acre. Th{~ r~e~t l{es on a
acre parcel lying at the northern terminus of ~elleau Drive at
its {ntar~ectlon with Beau~et Lane. Tax Map 10-15 (6)
Bonaventure, Section l, ~lock A, Lot 1 (Sheet
F~r. Peele ~resentsd a s~unmary of Case 9~N0268 an~ stated
staff and th~ Planning co~i~ion race,ended approval subject
to conditions. He noted the request conformed ts the ~orthern
~ea Imnd Use and Transportation Pla~- W~en asRed, he stated
location of the current drainfields to the existing home.
~. Alex J, a~d M~. C$r01 M. Bilter stated the recommendation
w{th staff and had COntacted the adjacent property owners
r~gardlng the request; tha~ the location o£ the dwelling had
been seledted duc to in~¢ss/e~ress' of the ,lot as well
other considerations; that the dwelling would be use~ for
family men,herr und such a condition restricting the uss would
be impose~ on the deed.
~ir. Harry simon stated ~e was a ~eaident of the nelghhsrhood
and the entire nelghborh6od wa~ opposed to th~ r~q~e~t;
92-74 1/22/92
the neighborhood had submitted a petition to the planning
Commission regarding thslr opposition; that he felt the
location of the dwelling wag inappropriate and wcu~d
property values in the area due to the size of the building;
that the sis~ of the proposed dwelling was not c~nsistent with
the homes in the area and would be a separate ~esidence fro~
the existing home; that he felt a sewer line Gould be
installed to re~uire the applicant to connect to the public
sewer system; that the main re~idence wa~ a large home and had
a full bas.meat which could he utilized; that a business was
currently b~ing oenduoted cut cf the home and he felt approval
of the request would present an opportunity to generate other
b~siness activity; that a deed restriction imposing use by
only family ~e~ers of the proposed dwelling would be hard to
enforGe; that he felt t~ objection of ~he entire'neighborhood
should be a fuctor when deciding the request and, therefore,
~r. Joseph shobe state~ he was an adjacent propen~ty owner and
presented a summary of B~audet Lane a~ it was originally
planned; that there were drainage problems on Beaudet Lane and
the runoS~ currently drained onto his property; that he felt
onto his property; that he felt the proposed dwelling would be
F~r. Kaith ~cCrea stated ha and his wi~e were adjacent property
e£ ~hc provlcus Planning Commission meetings; that a petition
had been submitted to the Planning Commission by those opposed
to the request; that due to concerns expressed by the Planning
Commission, he felt the' request had been approved o~t of
£rustration; that he felt the proposed dwelling would oreate a
new subdivision and was attempting to utilize a cul-de-sac
setback; that the cul-de-sac was 0nly paper and did not
actually exist; that h~ felt ~he request would
property val~es in the arsa; that the proposed dwelllng would
be located clo~er to his hume than the applicant's exlst~ng
home; that he felt he wo~ld lose th= investment in his home,
etO,; and, therefore, requested the Board to deny the request.
~s. Dorothy O*~ryant stated she was in agreement ~ith the
not exist and she felt consideration should be given to
Beaudet Lane as it did exist; that the proposed dwelling was
net comparable to the homes in the area and would appear out
regarding earing for their parents but felt that was a
temporary situation as opposed to the .prep0~ed dwelling being
a permanent situation; that she was opposed to the request and
bad also signed the petition indicatlng such.
that a ~etltion hsd been submitted ~o the Planning COmmission
by all of the resldent= in the suk~ivision oD~osing the
regu~t; that if the Board did approve tho request, h~ felt a
re~trlctlon should b~ imposed which would a~ tho proposed
deorease property value~; that he felt'an opportunity wo~td be
provided for the applicant to run a business wlth~n the
proposed dwelling; and requested the Board to deuide the
request in the best interest of the entire
Mr. and ~rs. ~ilter stated the feasibility cf the request bad
the surrounding area; that if the proposed dwelling was
attached to the existing he~e it would constitute a duplex and
would De in violation of the County Code; that they had
written to their neighbors advising them of the request and
had asked t~em to contact them if they had any concerns
regarding ~he ~e~uest~ %hat the prspoeed dwelling would be
approximately 135 feet to the rear of their next deer
neighbor's hem= und locuted at the end of the C~l-de-sao; that
the proposed dwelling would only be slightly visible from
Bellsau Drive and Besudet Lane; that they also had an
investment in ~heir hems and fel~ the ~ropossd dwelling would
be an improvement, to their property as well as their
neighbors' property; that the proposed dwelling would not be
located in the front yard but rather the side yard; that they
have an office in their home but ds not operate any type of
business from it and conformed to County restrictions
~eg&rding ~ueh; that the proposed dwelling would be used to
care for their parents; that they had followed the ~etback
requirements as requested by staff, etc.; and requested the
~card to give favorable consideration to the ~equemt.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the
~etition which had been presented to the Planning £om~ssion
of those opposed to the request; the technical aspects of hhe
~l~nning Commission's recommendation; whether the deed
restriction regarding only family members using the proposed
dwelling was enforceable; whether the applicant could attach
an addition to their existing hone or garage without approval
by the Board of Supervisors; and the distance of the proposed
dwelling from the sloses= property owner.
Mr. Daniel s~ated the~e typem of repuests caused a lot of
concern from ncighborho~s but felt there were availabl~
inteprated addition to the existing home which could be
occnpied by family nembsrs and could provide the necessary
facility. He further stated he felt a solution ccul~ be
identified which would address the applicants' personal needs
as well as the concerns ex'pressed by the neighborhood.
When asked, Mr. Poole stated neither a duplex nor a separate
dwelling Was permitted in this honing district and a request
for either would ne~d to cone ~e£ere ~he Beard as a
conditional us~. ~e ~fur~her stated this request had
been advertised as a second dwelling on the property and,
therefore, due to ~egal requlr~menhs, the ~o~rd would be
re~trioted from approving a request for a duplex without
readvertising the request.
~r, ~¢Hale stated hc fclt ~ue to the concerns ~xpressed by the
neighborhood and a willingnes~ on behalf of the applicants to
dis~ss the request further, a deferral' could provide an
opportunity to allow the parties involved to seek a better
solutlon.
There was brief discussion relative to =he future development
of two adjacent pa~eels of la~d and the d~sinage cemee~s
which had been expressed by one of .the adjacent property
FLr. Burber stated he also felt a de£erral world provide an
opportunity for the partiem involved to seek a ~etter aclu=ion
~s currently styled.' He further stated he felt options such
as am addition to the existing home and other te=hnical
aspects such as investigating the cost of relocation of the
proposed dwelling to the back of the property should be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Barber made a ~etio~, seconded by ~r. 'warren, to defer
the proposed dwelling when the request cane 'back to the Board
92-76 1/2~/9~
merits. Hs further stated if there wa~ a desire to relscate
the house, the request would need to be advertise~ as such.
Mr, Daniel called for the Ye=e on the motion made by Mr.
Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, to defer Case 915N0265 until
March 22, 19~2.
Ve~e: Unanimous
In Dale Magisterial District~ SYLVIA M. R~BINSOM AND ~
S. T~m. requested rezonlng from Agrlcultural (A) DO General
Business (C-§]. The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for general
oe~merclal use. This request lies on a 2.48 acre parcel
fronting approximately 175 feet on the east llme of Turner
Read, alee frenting approximately 390 feet on the west line Of
Goodes Bridge Road, approximately 600 feet north of walmsley
Boulevard. Tax Map 40-2 (1) Parcel 91 (Sheet 15}.
Mr. Pools presented a summary of Case 91SN~282.
Mr. Daniel inquired if ther~ was opposition present to the
request. No one came forward i~ opposition to t_he req=est.
Mr. Daniel further stated th~ Planning commission had
recommended denial of th~ request aa the appli=ant had not
agreed to offer th~ cash proffer for fire protection b~t since
=hat time, a letter of intent had been submitted stating the
intent of one of the aDplioants to comply with the C~h
Proffer Policy adopted by the ~oar~ earlier in the afternecn,
addressing fi~e s~ppre~sion systems, ~ven though no proffer
was actually made.
~ir. Micas clarified a letter £rem the tenant a~d ~ot tl%e
applicant had been received ~tating they agreed to either
build improvements tu comply with the proffered condition
regarding fire service er to pay the proffer amotl~t. He
sta~ed the letter cf intent was not technically a proffer and~
therefore, was not enforceable and ff th~ Board accepted the
letter of intent, the zoning would be approved based on moral
representation.
Mr. Charles T~nnell stated the recomnmendation wa~ acceptable.
There was nc opposition pre,eat.
Mr. Warren inqnired if the letter cf intent was enforceable.
Mr. Micas clari£ied the letter of intent was net enforceable
but rather a moral obligation only.
When aeked~ Mr. Tunnell stated he was the co-applicant and had
agreed to the proffered condition regarding gire service and
had s~bmitted the lette~ of intent, however, the ¢0-appiiGant
wac the owner of the pr0per=y and was reluctant to agree to
thc proffered condition. ~e clarified he would be the tenant
OS the property.
on motion of M~. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved Case 91SN0282 and accepted the letter of inte~
re~arding the proffered condition relative to fire service
from the co-applicant.
Vote: Unanimous
92-77 1/22/92
On motion uf ~r. HcHale, seconded by Fir. Barber, the Board
adjourned at 10:30 p.~. until January 25, 1992 at 8:30 a.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman
92-78 1/22/~2