03-25-1992 MinutesBO~.D OF SUPEI~V~SO17~
~H 25~ 19~2
~pe~rvi~or~ in Attendance:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. ~_hur S. Walren, ¥i¢a Chrm.
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mr. Whal~y ~. colbert
Hr. J. L. Mc~ale~ III
Mr. Lame ~, R~m~ey
County Adnln~stratsr
$ta££ ia Attendance:
A~=. to Ca, Admin./Dir.,
Office on Youth
Co~mis$ioner of Revenue
Asst. CO. Admin.,
Intergovern. Affair~
Mr. William D. Dupl~r,
~uil~ing official
C~i~f RObert L. ~an~,
Fire DeDa~tment
Mr. Bradford S.
Deputy CO. A~in.,
Management
Dir., G~nerul
Mr. Tho~a~ ~. Jaoobson~
Dir.,, Planning
~ntal Heal~/Retard.
Ms. Ma~y LO~ Lylx,
Dir., Accoun=ing
Mr. Robert L. Masden,
Deputy CO. A~in.,
Dir., Transportation
~r. Richard ~. ~cElfish,
Dir., E~v. Engineering
Mrs. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir., Mews & Public
Col. J. E. Pit.an, Jr.,
Planning
M~. Richard F. Sale,
Deputy Cu. A~n.,
Co~ity Development
Soclal Serv~c~
Mr. M. D. Stit~, Jr., Dir.,
Sheriff Clarenc~ William,
sheriff's DeDa~tm~t
92-207
Mr. Frederick Willis, Jr.,
Di~.l Human Resource Mgt.
Ms. ~udy L. Worthington,
Circuit Court Clerk
Mr. bahia1 called the repularly scheduled meeting to order at
3:05 p.m. (EST).
On ~otion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, the Board
suspended its rules to adopt the agenda as presented since it
was not in sequence per the Board's adopted Rules of
1.A. NARC~[ 5, 1992
On motion of Mr. Colbert, ~eoonded by ~r. ~¢Hale, the ~oard
approved the minutes of ]4area 5, 1992, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
1.B. }~a~R(3H 11. 1992
14r. Daniel clarified the intent of a statement made at the
Hoard meeting on Herch 11, 1992, regarding the Circuit Court
Clerk's Office ~eqnest for it~ employees to participat~ in the
County's Personnel System.
Mr. Warren indicated he felt the inten~ of the request
approving the Circuit Court Clerk's Office participating in
be ra£~ected a~ such.
Mr. Co,bert, the Board approved the ~inutes of ~mrch 11, 1992,
vote: Unanimous
CH 12 1992
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. ~arber, the Board
~pproved the minutez of Mare~ 12, 1992, as s~bmitted.
~ote: Unanimou~
Chie~ =an=s s~ated Hr. Barber had recently assi==ed in
extinguishing a fire at his nelghber'~ ho~e a~d due to hi~
actions, had prevented the £ire from dolnq grea~er damage by
holding it under control until the flrefighters could art{ye.
He exprasee~ appreciation to Mr. Father and presented him with
Ms. Lynda Furr, Assistant ~orgeney Services cost,ina=or of
the Fire Department, presented a brief overview on the
County's emerq~n~y op~ration~ plan amd recent exercise
disaster. She noted she would be presenting the Beard with a
92-208 3/25/92
participation in the exercise and their ability ho respond to
Mr. Warren noted he had a=tended numerous meetings and stated
be and~. Co]bert would be co-sponsoring a joi~t ¢OnStituent~
meetin~ on April 6, 1992 with the topic being the budget,
environmental activities as it relate~ to Swift Creek
Reservoir and functions of the Trea~ur~'~ Office.
Mr. Colbert stated he had attended n~meroUs meetings including
had been discussed. He further stated a program entitled
"Don~t Feed the Lake*~, sp0~sored by the County Extension
Service, would be held on March ~, 199~ at Clover ~i~1 ~igh
School and en¢ouraged all =o partiolpate in this event.
Mr. ~csale ~tated he and Mr. Colbert had attended an industry
b~eakfa~t meeting with several medium-sized indua~rle¢ at
Virginia Powar'a training facilities in Bermuda District and
he felt it Was an opportunity for the County to tour the
facilities of t-here companies; that he had elm0 to, red the
WACO Chemical Company and the Primary Oil Company; and had
held ~is ~0nt~hly constituents ~eeting in Which the topic had
been the proposed Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor Plan.
Mr. Barber stated he had attended a Taxicab Advisory Committee
mae=lng in w~ich t~ey had discussed addressing ordinances
which would place the ee%n~y in compliance with it~
neighboring corm~nit~e~; that he had represented the County at
Dhe ¢ov~rnor'~ Commission on the "Dilllen Rule" on Local
Government; and that he had aI~o attended a cltlzens~ meeting
%0 consider initiating a ~MCA in Kidlnthian District. He
meted ~is "Firut Monday" constituent's meeting would be held
April ~9, 1992 in which the topic would be economic
development.
Mr. Daniel stated he had attended th~ Richmond Regional
Plan~ing bia~ri=t Commission and Metropolltan TranSportation
Planning Organization meeting in which the focushad been on
~he ramtru=turing of the planninq 0rganizatione; the
Metropolitan Economic Development Counoll Board of Directors
meeting; and had alee attended a dinner and tou~ of the
Bensley Fire Station and noted the need for reDalrs at the
Stahlon. He noted the Arts Council of Richmond was sponsoring
a children's art festival at Falling Creak Elementary School
on April 4, 1992 and s~bmitted to the Board, bookanarks
announcing the event.
0n motion of Mr. Warren, =mcond~d by Mr. Colbert, thc Board
~usan Harris, Item 8.B.4., Mr. Phil Spa~ and Item 8.B.5.,
and G~ for Various Sports Ctu~ and P~o~s %o follow It~
I3., Re~olutions and Special R~cognitions; a~de~ Item 6.C.13.,
of aarbour Points Parkway and Route 360 to follow Item
6.C.12.c., Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along W~st Hundred
Road from Rudy L. ~awkins Electrical Contractor, Inc.; and
~dded Item 6.C.14., Resole%ion ~upporting the Brondcast of
cable Televisi0n Service~ U~ing Teleco~unica~i0n.Networks to
fo~low Item ~.C.13. and, adopted the agenda, as amended.
Vote: ~a~i~uu~
92-209 3/25/9~
5.A. V-A~I,~F.A D~AI~T~TOFTRANSPO~TATION 199~-93 PFcT)~ARY
I~OAD FUNDING
~. McCra~k~n pre~nted an overview of the p~ima~y allocation
heaxing which would ~e held by ~e Virginia Dspar~ment of
Transportation ~VDOT)~ the curr~nt primary allocation process
used for ~he ~istribution of trust funds; th~ ourren~
T~an~por%ation Trust Fund distribution formulas; ~e
distribution of highway transportation Trust Fund revenues
including %he urban system, s~condary system and net prima~
system; the development of a ~ix year plan for the ~econdary
pr~r~m; and ~e construction improv~en= pro. am for ~e
Ri~mond District including public traosit.
loss in r~v~nue from the toll~ on Interstate 95 would have on
Mr+ McCracken reviewed 1992 t~ical road censtruction costs;
VDOT~s FY91-97 primary interstate six year ~on~truciion plan;
~e new f~d~ral transportation bill and how it would impact
priority list for highway project~.
priority li~t f~r highway project~; the estimated costs for
th~ highway project~ and, ~Declficaliy, the Route 360 widening
project; and the adopted priority li~t v~r~u~ ~taff'~
reco~ended priority list.
~, Daniel instructed staff to reco~end to the Board a list
of those highway projects which could e~edited and to relay
~en asked, ~. ~cCracken s~ate~ the ~n~taltat~on of
streetlights on Route 1, between Chlp~enham Parkway an~
~. MOHal~ stated he felt this section of Jefferson Davis
~ighway was a serious safety hazard and requested ~e Board Co
con~ider e~editi~g thi~ ~roJ=ct on the priority list.
The~e wa~ ~onslderable discussion relative to installing the
~%re~tllghts on Jefferson Davis Highway ~ue to h~mlth, =afety
and welfare reasons; whe~mr VDOT WO~ld f~d a ~eq~e~t for
stxeetllghts in gen~rai; and the f~s availa~le ~n ~e
Be~uda and Dale Di~trictz Road and St~eetlig~t Funds.
O~ ~otio~ of Mr. War~e~, zecunded by Mr. Barber, ~e Board
approv~ th~ priority list of ~ig~way p~ojucts, as ~und=d,
and approved t~e public heuring stnt~t regarding pri~
and in=era=ate roa~ const~c%ion need~ for t~e Co~ty. (It
Route 1, b~tw~an Chip~enham Parkway and Kings~ale Road, wo~ld
~ addressed wi~in the ~blic hearing statement and not
included on ~he priority llst.}
Vote: Unanimous
lights on Route 1, between Chlppenhan ~arkway to Ki~g~dal~
Read, would be brought to the Board ~der the Capital
Improvement Pr~ram at th~ ~oard ~ePting oa A~ril I, 1992. ~e
indicated s~aff would prepare a statement to ~OT re~esting
92-210 3/25/92
Hr. Jeffrey MincJ~s, bsputy County Attorney, preeente~ an
overview of the existinq franchise agreement with Storer
Cable; the local regulation of Oable television; the history
of the County's cable ordinance and franchise agreement; the
Cable TV Act sf 1984; the franchise renewal process; the
proposed franchise renewal action plan and the issues to ~
service standards and other standards whi:h would assist the
County in providing quality service at reasonable rates; the
County'~ abillty to regulate ra~es established by storer
Cable~ the methodology used by Stsrer Cable in expanding its
s~rvice area~ within the County; the increase in rates versus
the increase in costs; and available dis=lo,ute methods to
ensure public awareness regarding rate increases.
Mr. Daniel instructed staff to develop e h~tory ~etailing the
past and present cbannei offerings by Storer Cable.
F~r. Minck~ reviewed the ~ane~i~e ~ene~al action plan and the
appropriate process ts follow to begin addressing the
eem~nity needs assessment; the appointment of a ¢itiz~ns'
cs~mittee to ~artioipate in the community needs a~essment.
He stated ~taff wa~ requesting tho Board to approve the
recommended action plan in order to begin the proces~
outlined.
There was brief discussion regarding the implmmentation of a
citizens' eonmittee and its defined ~esponsibilitie~.
M~. Daniel i~tz~/eted stuff to review the County's proposal
with Storer Cable.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved the franchise renewal aetlon plan; authorized the
setting OS two public hearln~s for the oomm~nity ~e~
assessment; and the appointment of a citizen~' committee to
~articipate with County ztaff ~n preparing t~he semi,airy needs
assessment. (It was noted the composition of the committee
would he decided at the appropriate time.)
Vote: Unanimous
~.A= ]~ORT ON COMMISSION ON SOIL~ AND FOUNDATIONS
~r. Sale introduced ~r. aobert olean, chairman o~ the
Commission on Soils and Foundations~ and stated he ~oUld be
updating the ~oard on th~ status of the commission.
Nr. 01sen presented an overview on the Co~iesicn's ~issicn
and vision statements including making recommendations to
assist homeowners who have been impaote~ by soil and/or
~tructural problems; the proce=~ for gathering information for
causiv~ fa~tore relating tQ the oonoerns under review; making
recommendations to predict and prevent soil and structural
related failures from occurring~ investigating ooncern~
objectively; encouraging and supporting cooperation; using the
most oompetent resources available; focusing on benefits;
using oonstr~¢tive motivation; emphasizing responsibility and
aooountability; co~ununioating openly and honestly; and
maintaining and supporting the highest self esteem for
individuals and groups. He reviewed information received by
the Commission and the average cost of repalr~ to homes
experiencing ~oil related problems.
92-211 3/25/92
~he~e was brie~ di~euesion relative to the number of homes
impacted by shrink/swell soils conditions and %he average oo~
~ir. Olsen stated the Cc~%mission was addressing different
aspects of financing and developing a concept for a ratief
fund; the investigation and feasibility Of a public endewnent
fund; a ceY~binatisn insurance fund; and the possibility of e
government building industry fund or one or a combination
thereof; and addre~sinq the cause of fa~to~ retati~g to the
soil concerns under ravlew. Be reviewed their recommendations
such as increasing the ~embership in the Panel from th~
present five me,ers to nin~ members t0 inGlude a soils
scientist, u realtor/developer, ~ ~i~i~en at-large ~d a
mortgag~ banker~ re~esting ~he Beard to instruct the Building
Inspection Department to cite all Building Code violatlon~
fo~d ~ a ho~eo~er or discovered ~rough the normal course
of inspections regardlenE of the ag~ of the h0~e; requesting
any soil related problems noted in the subdivision review
process be addressed in the conditions of ~onlng se=tion
rather than ~e n~te section; r~est~ng the Boa~d ~tudy and
i~pl~en% a problem soils ordinance similar to s~ctlon 107 of
the Falrfax County Code and includim~ geote~ical guideline~
outlined in Article IV of ~he Falrfax County P~llc Facilltie~
pr0~eo= all the citizens of the County.
Co~ssion'~ p~oce~s of dete gathering; whether the Co~isslon
was s~ject to the rules on disclosure per the Freedom of
I~fo~a%ion Act; wh~ther the co~ission provided p~i~hed
agendas for each m~etln~ and whether ~ve~ ~u~ addressed by
~en a~ked, ~. Olse~ ~tated the reco~endations su~itted by
the Co~ission had b~en voted on and be ~ett it woul~ be
feasible to report back to =he Board wi~h a d~ta~led ~tudy
plan in approximately four to ~ix weeks.
st~ct~re of ~e Co~ission and their reco~endation to
implement a problem soilm ordinance ~i~ilar ~o Fairfax C~unCy.
Mr. Bmrbar ~nst~cted staff to review ~* ordinance adopted by
Palrfax County and report tO the ~oar~ on its applloatlon to
Che~t~fiel~ to review ~ reco~dation~ by the Co~ittee
regarding ~e imple~e~t~tio~ Of a Statistical database and
whether zoning condlti~n~ and, ~n pa~icular, as ~ey related
regarding soils as it related to con~t~cti0n.
~en asked,'Mr. Olsen ~tated citizen ~es we=e protected when
providing info, etlon to the Co~isslon.
~mplementation of a problem soil~ ordinance as such ~n
ordinanc~ would protect and serve the public.
procedur~ policies and legislation to prevent these types of
Co~i~s~on ~ho~ld include other professional levels of
expertise to provide adequate representation for all citizens.
~en asked, ~. Micas stated un,er the existing ~uil~ing cede,
all foundations must be constructed and designed to be
consistent with soils oonditions =nd provide protection for
those subject to special ~oil~ conditions. He noted th~
existing BoGs =ode, would re~ire ~e developer ~f Magnolia
with soils uondi=iuns.
92-212 3/25/92
Mr. Daniel instructed ~taff ts ~eview the conditions of the
~agnelia Green zoning requast and ensure the applicant was
conditions.
6. B. APPO171~T~S
appointed Rs. Jill Quinl~y~ ~4p~nting ~idlo~hi~n Di~ri~t,
to serve on the Solid Wa~t= co~ittee, whose term is effective
~ediately and will expi~= December 3~, 199l.
Vote: Ununimous
6.C.1. DONATION OF ~35.GO0_TO BON AIR VOLUNTEER FIRE
0n motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by ~. Colbert, ~e Board
~e County's contribution toward ~ P~9~ to ~ p~ased by
Bon Air Vol~teer Fire Department. (It is noted the
wolun%~er~ anticipate working towards th~ balance ~ needed
f~ds wi~in the next two
6.C.2. P-VPROPR~ATION OF (~{I~12 DA~ CARKANI) DEV~LORM~N~
On motion cf Mr. ~cHale, seconded by ~. Colbert, the Board
acoept~d the ~hild Day ~are an~ Development Bl~ck
~ amount of $93,094, and appropriated ~ai~ amour to the
enhance the existing Day Care F~e $y~m -- 80 percent for
enhanc~ent; and 7 pero~n~ for loQal County
(It is noted since all of the a~inistrativ% f~ding
applied to Social ServloeE operations, costs incurred by
County Eupport departments ~uch a~ accounting, legal and
acQount~ pmyable will be absurbed in ~mlr existing budgets.)
Vote: Unanimous
6.C.~. A~i'aORI~ATION T~ PERMIT 'l"WE T~%~YTR~R ~ I~]DERTA~R
~HORT-TI~{M Ih'~'~_TI{ ..T_..,~A.N BORRO~ING~ FOR CASH FLOW
and the rate of interest as determined is in compliance with
which loan~ would be negotiated, as headed, to pay opera=lng
mad~ from moneys held in various County f%~d~ including
Capital Maintenance Project~, Ri~k Management and I~ternal
$~rvice Funds to be repaid prior to June 30, 1992.
On motion of Er. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
approved request~ for ~ingo/raffl~ p~r~its for the fei!owing
organizations for calendar year 1992:
O~C~ANIZ~TION
Swift Creek Elementary School PTA
Midlothian Rotary Club
Cavalier Athletic Club
Vote: Unanimous
TYPE
Bingo/Raffle
Raffle
Bingo
~.O.6. ¥IKGINIA DEP~ OF TRAN~-POR~ATI(~/~ 1992--92
~TXW~_A~ON~G
Hr. R~m~ey ntat~ at th~ work ~e~ion earlier, th~ Soard had
approved am ~u~ended priority list of highway pro3ects amd an
~men~ed public hearing ~tatement regarding primary and
set the date of April S, ~992 at 7:0~ p.m. for a public
County of ~esterfi~l~, 197~, ~ am~nd~ b~ am~ding and
incorporation u~ all driving violations into the County
On motion of ~Ir. ~c~{ale, ~eoonde~ by Mr. Colbert, tho
set %he date of May 13~ 1992 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing
to con~ider the prohibition of any through truck or truck and
trailer or semi-trailer combination except a pickup or panel
truc~ from using 01d ~undred Road (Route 6~2) b~tw~en Ganitu
Road (Route 6~4) and Bull Street Road (Route 360). (It
noted the recommended alternate route would be ~enito
Warbro Road end H~ll 8tree% Road.)
6.C.?.C. TO CON, IDEK A$~GN~qT OF A WOOD WASTE
CONTIiA~TA~D]/~TR¥ I~A USE
0n motio~ of ~. KcHale, seconded by ~. Colbert, the BoaTd
set the date of April 8, ~99~ at ?;00 p.m. for a public
contra:t to the Central v~rqinia W~ste Management Au~ority
92-214 3/25/92
permit the County to continue to use the services o£ the
Vote: Unanimous
~ 21.1 ~ ~ING ~G IN
~e~t~rfi~ld, 197S, ~ amended, by ~n~ing ~e Or~inanc~
adopted April 12, 1989, adopting Chapter 21.1 ~nd ~ending
Chapte= 21 and by amending an~ reenacting S~cbions 21-67.12,
chap=ers 21 an~ 21.1 and clarifying wording in C~apter ~1.1
and an ordinance to amend ~e Code cf th~ COuD~y
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and
21.1-25~.9, 21.1-266, ZI.1-267, 21.1-2~7.1,
~1.1-~75 and 21.1-~81 revi~ing %h~ villaqe development
standards and outdoor advertising sign standards.
Vote: Unanimou~
ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR B!?.?.~OA~DS TO
After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. McHale, seconded 'by
Mr. Colbert, the Board referred to the Planning Commission,
for a ~ubli¢ hearing and recommendation, the current zoning
ordinance standards for billboards.
Vote: Unanimous
SYSTEm, S AND B~T ~ANAGEMENT P~ACTICE FACILITXE9
6.C.9.a. ANTLER RIDGE. SECTION 5
On motion of Mr. McHale, seoonde~ by Mr. Colbert, the ~sard
authorized the county Adninist~ato~ to execute an Agreement
for ~aintenance of a stormwater Drainage systea~ and Be~t
M&~ege~e~t P~aetiee Facility with Mr. willium B. Buval, the
developer oS A~tler Ridge, Seutlon ~, with the County's only
~nvolv~ment being to a~sure the Maintenanc~ Agreement is
followed by the owner as apDrowed by the County Attorney.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded .by Mr. Colbert, the ~eard
authorized the County Administrator to execute an Agreement
£o~ Maintenance of a ~te=mwater Drainage System and Best
Management Practice Facility w~th Mr. Gle~ N. ~itl, the
developer of =xbury, section 2, with the Connty'~ only
involvement being to assure the Maintenance Agreement is
92-215 ~/25/92
JJ ..................I ............... ; ..... ! I ..........
followed by the owner as approved by the County Attorney. (Zt
is noted a copy Of ~he pla% is filed with the papers of this
Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
O~ notion Of ~Lr. McHale, seconded by ~Ir. Colbert, the Board
authorized tJ~e County Administrator to execute an Agreement
for Maintenance of a Stormwater Drainag~ System and Best
F~lnagement Practice Facility with oliver D. Rudy, Trustee, the
developer of The Highlands, with the County's only involvement
Ling to as~u~e the Maintenance Agreement is followed by the
owner as approve~ by the County A~turney.
Vote: Unanimous
On me,ion o~ ~. ~cHal~, seconded by Mr. Colbert~ the ~oard
an~orized the Chai~an of the Board and the County
A~inistrator to exeout~ an ea~ent ~greement with Virginia
~lectrlc and Power Company to iu~t=ll uader~o~nd cable within
a 15 foot easement for the Central Library Addition.
6.C.lO.b. ~A~ ]~LTR/M~TALRETARDATIONST;BSTANCBAB~SB
..BUILDING
On ~ot~on of K~. MeHale, ~econded by ~. Colbert, the ~oard
~orize~ the Chai~an os th~ ~oar~ and the County
A~i~ist~ator to e~ecute an ~as~e~t agreement with Virginia
u variable width easement for the new Mental ~alth a~ Mental
Retardation building. (It is noted a copy of the plat is
filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimong
D~" ~ ~
After bri~ di~cu~slon, on motion of ~r. ~c~al~, ~econ~m~ ~y
~. Colb~rt~ ~e Board accepted ~e donatio~ Of a 1.276 acre
parcel from Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., on behalf of
~er~iel~ Historical Society, w~ic~ parcel contain~ the
~arthworks of a significant C~vil War fortification and
au~orized the County Administrator to execute the
de~d. (It i~ note4 the Ch~s~erfiel~ Historic Society
agreed to maintain and provide interpr~tatioR services for the
Vot~: Unanimous
6.C.1~.
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
accepted. On behalf of th~ County, the conveyance of a parcel
92-216 3/25/92
of land containing 0.165 acre alonq Cou~thou~ Road from
Tru~tes~ of Good Naw~ Free will ~a~tlst churah and authorized
thm County Administrator to exeoute the necessary deed. (It
is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
~eard.)
Vote: Unanimous
6.C~/2.3b. ALON~ aU~STRE~TROADFRO~TACOBR~X.~O~ORATION
On motion of ~. ~cHal~, ~eco~ded by ~. Colbert, the Board
accepted, on behalf of the County, ~he oonveyanoe of a parcel
0f la~d containin~ s52 s~ure feet along Hull Street Road from
Tao~ ~i1 Corporation an~ authorized the county Administrator
pla= is filed with the papers of ~is Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
6.c-~2-c- .i~L~.~_.WESTHUNDREDROADFROg RUby L. HAWKINS
accepted, on behalf of the C0~nty, the conveyance of a pa~oel
L. Hawkins Electrical Contractor, Inc., and authorized the
noted a oopy of the plat is filed with t. he papers of
Boa~d.}
Vote: Unanimous
6.C.13. R~O~RST T~E~-/R~INI%_D~PARTMENT OP ~ATION
TN~ A ~IC SIGN~ AT ~ T~ION OF
On ~otion ~ ~. ~Hal~, seconded by ~. C~lbe~t, ~e B~urd
appropriated $75,00~ from the State Ro~d Improv~ent Account
~or ~e ~nstallation of a traffic ~i~nal at ~ int~section
of Harbo~ Points ~arkway and Rout~ ~60 and adoptm4 the
following resolution:
~S, the Harbou~ ~ointe Parkway/Route 360
int~rsectlon is unsa~ due to the h~gh volume and h~gh
of v~icles using Rout~ ~60; and
~EAS, citizen~ have requested tke County and the
virgiDia O~par~men~ o~ Trans~ortatlon {VDOT) to install a
WH~S, VDOT has conducted a traffic Eignal
~te~ined ~at a ~ignal is warranted a= ~e inte~seotion; and
~AS, VDOT ha~ advised ~e County that no funds are
available for ~e inntallation of ~e t~aI~io sipnal ut this
NOW, ~EFORE BE IT ~SOLVED, that ~e
Cowry Bo~rd of Supervisors re~ue~tm VDOT ~o i~e~iately
in,tall a t~affic signal at the Earbour ~oint~ ~arkway/Route
36~ ~n~section.
~D, B~ IT F~ RES0LVED~ that the Board ugrees to
provide VDOT wi~ $75,00S for the installation of ~
with ~h~ understanding that VDOT will reimburse ~ Co~ty
·oon ns fund~ become available.
92-217 3/25/92
B.C.14. ~8OL~TION ~._.~P~O.~TIN~.T~E BROADCAST OF CA~I~
T~.RVI~ION $~R%-/CE~ USING TELECOMMUNICATION B~I~0RKS
O~ motio~ of Mr, MeHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
A REBOLUTION OF THE C~ESTEP~FIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RE~ARDING THE PROHOTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENTEP~RISE IN
THE VIDEO SERVICE BUSINESS TO COMPETE WITH CABLE TELEVISION
OPERATIONS
~HEREAB, competition is the hallmark of American
enterprise and business philosophy; and
~HEREAS, there is a need for more competition in cable
television ~ervices as described in a recent Government
Accounting office Study of Cable Television Enterprises across
WHEREAS, technology is rapidly advancing in the areas o~
telecommunications, data transfer and television through the
use of cable, microwaves, fiber optis and ~a=ellite
c~unicatiens; and
%~IE~EAS, competition can fogt~r more affordable rat~ for
services and products procured by the County~ residents; and
WHEREAS, County resldent~ de,ire quality televimion
choices a~ af£erdable prices.
~OW, THEREFORE B~ IT R~SOLV~D, that the Chesterfield
County Board of supervi~or~ support~ competition between ~able
providers through the use of tsleoommunloatlon~ technology and
the free enterprise system.
Vote: Unanimous
6.~.~I~E~ISIONTO 1992 PROC~RES FOR T~E~ONDUC~OF
~. Ra~y s~a~d staff wa~ re~esting ~e Board to revise its
Rule~ of ~roce~ures for ~ conduc~ of meeting~ by changing
the order of ~e ~re~n~atio~ O~ th~ ~g~nd~. He fur~r
Citizen~ on Unscheduled Matters or Claims in the
~. Barber ~tated citizens hav~ exprez~d the ~veninq
was moas =onv~ient to attend than the afternoon due ~o work
~chedules and, therefore, hm felt thiz cat~qory of t~ agenda
should be heard in~e evening.
the afternoon ~f po~ble, but the Board could allow
flexibility, when applicable, for thos~ who uoul~ mot
~e afternoon session of the meeting.
Afte~ brief discussion, ~. Micas stated the Rule~ of
Item 13., entitled Additional Hearlng~ of Citiz~n
~schedule~ Matter= or Clain~ Not Heard at the Afternoon
Session.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~. Warren, the
amende~ its 1~2 Rule~ of P~oced~=es to amend Section 5 to be
consistent wi~ the following order of ~sin~ at
~2-218 3/25/9~
Beard shall be as follows beginning at 3:00
(a) Approval of Minutes
(b) County Administrator's Comments
(c) Board Committee Rspsrts
work Sessions
(f) New County Business
(h) Hearings of Citizens on Unscheduled F~tters or Claims
(i) Reports
( ~ )
(1) Reselutio~ and Special Reeeqnitions
(m) Hearings of citizens on Unscheduled Matters or Claims Not
Deferred Public Hearings
Public Hearings or Zoning Public Hearings
(p) Adjournment
7.A.i.
Mr. Barber nominated Mr. Michael Murphy, representing
Midlothian District, to ~erv~ O~ the Solid Waste Committe~.
Mr. Warren nominated Mr. Bill Barthlow, representing Clover
Hill District, to serv~ on ~he solid Waste Commit%ea.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
nominated F~r. Michael Murphy, representing Midlothian
District, and ~r. Bill ~arthlow, re~r~mnnting Clover Hill
District, for appointment to the Solid Waste Committee, whome
formal appointments will be made at t2%e April 8, 1992 meeting.
Vote: Unanimous
7.A.~. ~M~IS~TON ON $0I~ AND FOUNDATIONS
Mr. Ramsay stated nominations/appointments to the commission
o~ soils aRd Foundations had bae~ defected from the Board
meeting on March ~, ~992. He further stated M~, COlbert wa~
also requesting the replacement of his representative tO
Commission.
on motion o~ Mr. Colbert, seconded by ~Lr. MoHale, thc Board
~e~0ved Mr. Robert Karmas, representing Matoaca District, fro~
the Commission on Soils and Founda=~onm.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated th~ Commission had earlier recommended
membership to the Commission on Soils and Foundations be
increased to includ~ a soils eoientiet; a ~eYa!oper/realtar; a
citizen at-large; and a mertgaqe banker. He f~ther stated he
felt me~ber~hip ~hould also include other repr~sen%ation es
necessary.
3/25/92
Mr. Warren stated he fait a citizen or representative of a
oivi~ a~eoeiation should he c0nmidered as well as ene citizen
at-large.
Mr. Daniel ~tated the commission could be comDrised to include
one member from the Richmond Home Builder~ ~00iati0~; o~e
m~J~ber from the Chesterfield Buslness Council; a realtor/
developer; a soils engineer/soils scientist; a financial
institution/har~er; a civic association representative; a
citizen at-large or an attorney for a total of twelve members
including one representative from each di~trict.
F~T. B~rber stated ~e felt twelve was ~ large committee and the
member from the Chesterfield Business Council could also be a
representatiYe of one of those designated suc~h a~ the
tie vote~.
There was bri=f discussion relative %c the appropriate nu~er
On m~tion of Mr. Warren, seconded Dy ~. Colbert, t~e B0a~d
e~anded .~e me,er=hip to the Co~on on ~o~]= and
soils engine~r/~oil~ scientist; a financial institution/
banker; a ~ivi~ a~oclat~on representative~ a citisen at-large
representat~v~ from each district.
~. Daniel ~tat~d reco~endatlcns for name~ to serve O~ the
co--lesion, including a representative for the ~atoaca
District~ would be adverted at th~ Board m==tlng on A~ril
1992 and inst~cte~ the Co~ty Admini~trat0r ~o send a
~suuiatlon of R~ond requesting th~m =o submit the name of
a representative for
7.B. ROu,cg 360 F~FJ.D~ING (FRq~ROI)TE288 T]~qOUGH 0~
~o~)
Transportation (V~) to tran=fer R~utm 288 Worth d~mign funds
to a Route 360 design Droj~t. H~ ~Oted this re~e=t had been
deferred from %he ~oard meeting on MaTC~ 11, 199~ and s=aff
had reviewed ~i~ project earlier at ~e work
After brief di~e~i0~, on motion of ~. Warren, ~s¢ondsd by
~. Colbsrt, ~e Board authorized the County A~inls~ator
enter into contract~ wi~ ~e Virginia Dep~r~en~ of
Transportation and/or private con~ultant~ for ~e desi~ of
the Route 36~ project and adopted th~ follQwing resolution:
~ER~S, traffic congestion on Route 360, from the Old
o~¢atu~ an unsafe condition; and
~S, ~i~ congestion i~ expected to grow worse in
Suture; and
~S, ~mst~fleld County and ~e Virginia Department
of Trsn~po~ation (VDOT) flnance~ with "revenue shying"
the design of Route 288 No~th from the Powhite Parkway to the
Powhatan County llne; and
92-220 3/25/92
WHEREAS, the balance of ~l~e ~revenue sharing~ fundm
the Route 288 North design project is approximately
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RE$OLVED~ that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors requests VDOT to transfer the
balance of the Route 288 NOrth "ravenna sharing" funds to
Route 960 design project for the widening of Route 360 to
eight (8) lanes from the Route 288 interchange through the Old
Hundred Road intersection.
A/~D, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests
VDOT's authorization to proceed with the design if VDOT
determines that it cannot proceed with the design in a timely
fashion.
Vote: Unanimous
?.C. LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY AT IRON B~IDGE PAT~ A~D I~Oc~WOO~
OP~TION OF F~D
Mr. Nagden ~tated the lea~e Of real property at Iron Bridge
and RockwoQd Parks to ~m~mrfield Base~ll Clubs, ~nc.
for the operation of food concezzion~ had ~n d~f~ed f~om
~ Board m~ting on ~ar~h 11, 1~. Re indicated leases
~i~ of th~ ~leve~ food co,cession stands had ~en agreed to
and contracts si~ned. Ha no,ed staff had attempted to contact
~e attorney representing ~esterfleld Bas,ball Clubs, Inc.
the attorney representing CBC but ~taff ha~ b~e~ ~able to
reach the attorney to this date.
Dis~s~ion, Co~nts and questions ensued relative to
t~ of ~ County's leas6 and the County's ability to
the concession stands if necessary; ~e difference i~ C~C~u
all the leases ~hould ~e
n~e~ of year~, wa~ a large-scale operation and was co~itted
therefore, he felt the lea~e zhould b~ extended for
already signed contract~ could be given the ~ame option ~d,
therefore, ma~e a motion, ~econd~d by Warren, for the Board
instruct ~taff to ~odify the existing leases to confo~ tQ ~e
Discussion, co--eats an~ ~es~iuns ~n~u~d relative to
be uniform; %h~ fo~ula used in the a~signment of fields;
other provisions of the coun~y~ lea~$ exolu~in~ ~e three
~en a~ked, ~. Micas clarified the motion would be to approv~
for the operation of food COnCessicn~ at Iron Bridge and
~ockwood Parks ~or a ~ree year
There wa~ brie~ discussion regarding the leases already
by ~e other athletic a~so¢iations and the option of
included all of the County's standard lea~ provisions.
92-221 3/2§/92
Mr. Daniel stated the intent of the motion was to approve a
for the operation of food concessions at Iron Bridge and
Rockwoed Farks subject to the County's standard provisions and
to include a three year option. And, further, for staff to be
instructed ~o review the leases already signed and, i~ so
desired by the lease holderr to bring back to the Board tho~e
~lr. Micas indicated the appropriate stap~ would be taken if
the leases were amended.
Mr. Barber clarified the intent of the motion would be to
approve a lease of real property to Chesterfield baseball
Clubs, Inc. for th~ operation of food ~on~e~nioR~ at Iron
Bridge end Rockwead Parks subject to the County's standard
lea~ provi~ion~ and to include a th~e~ year option.
After brief discussion, Mr. Daniel called for the vote on the
motion made by hi~, seconded Dy ~r. W~rren, to approve a lease
of real property to Chesterfield Baseball clubs, Inc. for the
operation of food eonce~ien~ at I~oo Bridge and R0ckweed
Parks subject to the County's standard lease provisions and to
i~clud~ a three year option.
Vote: Unanimou~
(It wa~ noted staff would review the leases already signed by
the other leame holderm and, if desired, would take thc
appropriate ~tep~ to amend the leases to include ~e t~me
~26, 1992 ~ ~OR~ OF TH~ B~I~
~. Earn~s ~tated ha had addr~e~ the Boar~ at its meeting on
Februa~ 26, 1992 and had ~ubmltt~d espies of Pla~ing
Co~i~on doo~ent~ from 1987; that he felt tho~e dec, ants
~garding conditionE for g~ot~nXc~l ~ngine~rin9 analyses
being D~fo~med to det~rmlne fo~dation desiqns for lots with
high clay content ~oils had not protected his home ~d
eEpressed concerns relative to anfo~c~e~t Of the Building
requested %he Board assist him wit~ ~is claim and outlin=d ~e
system had not p~ovided ~im wi~ edemata protection and
did not ~uel hi~ concerns had been ad~a=~ly a~dr~ =~ ~e
full, st pos~ibte
~en a~k~d~ ~. Ramsay stated thc County would, if ~
~ arrang$ m=~tlngs bmtween Hr. Kamas an~ the builder
attempt to neqotiate the repairs and the County was continuing
parties. He noted if ~e issue co~ld not bs
a~roDrlate legal action would b6 taken ~ ~e co~ty against
the builda~.
Aft~ b~i~f discus=ion, ~. ~i~a$ stated ~e County would not
allow ~e s~a=u=e of limitations to expire and that it was
violations civilly before doing ~o criminally. He noted the
County ~as ~rrently wafting the results of the appeal by ~.
Droce~ which wo~ld be followed by the County if the builder
did not take approDriate action.
Mr. Karnes stated the meeting of tho Appeals Board had been
continued in o~der to seek an opinion from the Attorney
General. Mr. Daniel stated the county would take t~e
appropriate steps to ensure the claim wes addressed prior to
~r. Litton ~t~ted he had r~ceived a letter from ~e principal
a% M~adowbroo~ ~igh Sohool r~es=ing the Board r~ove the
baskets from th~ outdoor basketball courts for the remainder
of the ~chool year an~ into ~e su~er to acco~odate th~
youth leagues using the baseball field~ during th~ ~u~er as
they w~r~ experiencing a high level of foul lan~ag~, traffio
and trash fro~ %hose using the ~sketball co~rts. He
submitted copies of the letter to the Board and ~tated ~e wa~
also concerned about the assignment of fleld~ and g~s for
adult open ~; ~m~ the field~ for CBC had continued to
consistently increased but the assignment of fi=ldm an~ ~s
~ad still de0reased; and repasted the Board to conmide~
that he felt the you~ needs should be considered prior to ~e
Were being ~sed by ~o~-~e~idents of the Co~ty; and that they
were ~e only league within ~he Coun=y which n~d~d to
scheduled games fiv~ nightm at week.
JIM CLINB
~r. Cline, Second Vice President of Chesterfield Baseball
Club~, ~tated h~ had coached baseball for the 9asr six years
and was actively involved ~n the youth football program; that
h~ wan ~on~rnad an to th~ welfare of the shildren$ that they
felt the County ~hould a~ign organized sport activities at
the children's respective schools; that they felt the county
should provide the necessary field~ and glrm~ for the Children
to practice and requested at least one azs~gned field for each
qreuD be maintained et all times for games; that h~ was
oon=ernsd as to the maln~snance and unavailability cf fields
and gyms for use by the children and requested the Board to
consider restricting the hours for the use of glrm~ for adults.
District Road and Ztreet Light Punds; Lease Puroha~es~ and
had formally notified the County of the acceptance of the
following ~oad~ into the ~tate Secondary System:
92-223 3/25/92
Route 4949 (Hill Spring Terrace) - From 0.04 mile
Northweet Route 494~ to 0.05 ~ile goutheast Route
4948
Route 9~5 - Section 4 of old Route
Project 0036-020-102, c501, B601
Route 9S5 - Section 24 of hew COnnection from Route
1121 to O.O~ mile West Route 1121, Project 0036~
Route 627 to 0.03 mile Ra~= new Route 627, Project
0036-020-102, C501, 9601
Route 627 - Section ~7 of new location
Project 0036-020-102~ c50I~ B601
Route 627 - Sect{on lB of new looatie~
Project 0036-020-102, C~Ol, B601
Route 628 - Section 16 of new location
P~ojeot 0036-020-102, C501 and
Route 1107 - Section 20 of new connection from
Route 1121 to 0.03 ~le We~t Route 1121, Project
0036-020-102~ CS01~
Rout~ ~107 - Section 21 of n~w loc~tion
Project 0036-020-102, C501, B601
Route 1121 - Section 22 of new location
~roject 0034-020-102, C~01, B~01
Route 1121 - Zection ~ of new connection from
Route 36 to 0.04 mile North Route 3S, Project
DISCONTINUANCE - {E~$ectlve 2-26-923_
Route 627 - Section 9 cf eld location
Project 0036-0~0-102, C501, B60~
Route 1107 - Section 12 of o1~ location
Project 003~-020-182~ Cso~, B601
Route 1107 - Section l~ of old location
Project 0096-920-102, C~01, B~O1
Route 112I - Section 14 cf old location
Project 0036-020-102, C501, B601
Route 1121 - section 15 of old location
Project 0036-0~0-10~, C~01, B601
Route 628 -- Section 8 of old location
Project 00~-020-102, C501, ~601
REN~H~ERING - (Effeotlve~-26-92)
Route 986 - Section 10 of old Route 627 from Route
0096-020-102, C501, B601
MAYFAIR ESTATES. SECTION F__t..(Effective
Route 4~40 (Lunlay Road) - From Route 2080 to 0.05
mile ~a~t Romte
Route 4541 (Diana Wood Drive) - From Route 4S40 to
0.07 ~ile South Route 4542
0.09 Mi
0.07 Mi
0.06 ~i
0.03 ~i
0.28 ~i
0.04 Mi
0.08 Mi
0.0~ ~i
0.04 ~i
0.02 ~i
0.04 ~i
0. ~ ~i
o.~4 Mi
0.03 ~i
0.04 M~
0.09 ~i
o.o~ ~i
0.15 Mi
92-224 3/25/92
10. D~NNER ~
On ~otton o~ I.{r. ¢o~ert, secon~e~ hy 1.~. ~ar~en~ tbs ~oa~d
rece~¢d at 6:30 p.m. (EST) to tho Administration Building,
0.04 Mi
Vote: Unanlnous
11. INVOCATION
Hr. Daniel introduced Reverend Nell ~ut~aker, Pastor of
Sherb~rne Unitsd Msthed~st Church, who gave the invocation.
/Tr. Micas led the ~l~dg~ u~ All,glance to the Flag of =he
13. ~OLUTION$ A~D S~ECLm_L ~COGNITIONS
.
There were nc resolu ions or special recognitions s~oduled.
Mr. Eumber, Vice President o~ ~oolridge Athletic Association,
stated thsy and W~odlake Athleti~ A~0cia%ion hud been
the County; that ~h~y had approximately twenty-six coed
athletic teams and a:ro a~ignmd to only two practice flml~s;
~at they felt thim ~as not ade~at% to m~et the needs of
teams; that they were concerned as to the maintenance of
field~ and requested the Board to azzi~t in addressing the=e
Mr. Dani=l stated th~ Co~ty Administrator amd the D~rector of
Park~ and Recreation~would review the conoer~
stated she was opposed to the propo=~d $~.00 Sports fee for
use cZ county faci~t~m~ ~hat she felt ~ere wore other
options available ~n which the County could rai~
that ~he f~lt these ~acilitie~ we~ al~o bcin~ used by others
and not just residen~ of the Coun:y; that she felt mn entry
fee into ~e park~ would better serve ~e County and would be
an attempt to addres~ non-r~i~ent~ usln~ ~ fa~ilities; and
requested the Boa~d ~to consider a park entry fee ~ lie~ Of
the proposed $3.00 sports fee. she e~Dr~ed appreoiatlon for
the opportunity to add~ the Board and gu~i~d copies
her state~mnt.
addressed at ~ budget pu~li~ hea~ing on April 1, 1992.
92-225 3/25/92
Mr. Sparks, Secretary of Chesterfield Baseball Clubs, stated
they had been in existence for thirty-two yeur~ and were
comprised of twenty-seven associations within the elementary
school boundaries; that they ~trlve to build character and
integrity, teach good sportsmanship, improve the physical
fitness of youth, and instill the value of teamwork; that they
hays approximately 1300 persons who serve as volunteers; that
they were concerned as to their relatienehip with the Parks
and Recreation Department and felt they needed to work
together in order to address the concern~ expressed; and
consideration be given to increasing the number of fields for
CBC.
M~. Daniel stated the County Administrator would review the
H.B.1. I~R. DONALD L. UNNUSSIGG
Hr. Unmus~igg, President of Chesterfield Baseball Clubs,
e~ressed appreciation ~or the opportunity to addres~ the
Board and stated he was concerned a~ to the number of teams~
available f~elds and a~sign~ent of fields and he was also
concerned a~ to CBCt~ l~a~e for the ~e Of the concession
stands at Iron Brid~e and Reckwond Parks. ~e noted
appro×i~ately fifty persons were presen~ fr~m CBC. When
amked~ he state~ he was co,corned as to the provision in the
le~se which would allow tho County use of their faailities and
There was brief discussion r~Iativ~ to the lease for CBC and
it~ provisien~.
Mr, Danlel disclosed to the Board that he was an alumni of
Chesterfield ~aseball Clubs.
~ir. Warren stated CBC had contributed significantly to the
County and had been in ex~steno~ for a number of year~ and,
therefore he felt their concerns regarding th~ lmam~ mhould bo
addressed a~oordi~gly.
Mr. Colbert noted there wer~ approximately nin~ fields in
Matoaca District which he felt were net being utilized by the
MT. Daniel stated the County Adniniztrato~ would ~eview the
concerns adctressed and meet with the administration of the
youth organization if necessary.
14. PUB~.TC RF/iltI~G$
Hr. H~mmer stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to business
itinerant merchants. He further ~tated provisions of the
current ordinance were difficult to enforce a~ the proposed
~lr. Bill BerRer, Vice President of Public Affairs for the
Retail Merchant~ A~ooiatio~ of Greater Richmond, stated they
ordinance wa~ difficult to enforce regarding road-side
92-226 3/25/92
vendors; that they felt the p~oposed o~dinance would ensure
accountability and enforcement; that they felt the proposed
f~ was acceptable and, therefore, requested ~he Board ad,pt
Nr, Norton Thalhimer, Jr., Chairman of the Petersburg Pike
Drive-in Corporation, stated he was actively involved with the
Bellwood Flea Market and was concerned aa to the impact the
a variety of license fees should be e~tabli~bed; that the Flea
Market had been existence of a long period of time and
attracted various businesses throughout the Stat~ as well as
neighboring states; and that based on the average sales at the
Fleu Market, he felt the $10.00 fee would be inappropriate.
~e expressed appreciation ~o the ~oard for the opportunity to
address their concerns and requested the Board to decide a fee
in the best interest of all concerned.
There was brief discussion relative to the rate~ char~ed to
vendors of the Bellwood Flea Market; the n~mber of vendors
usinq the Flea Market for a weekend period; the average total
sales for v~ndsrs a~ the Flea Market; an~ whether the rate for
vendors at the Flea Market had increased in the past.
opportunity to address his concerns and su~mitte~ a petition
opposing the proposed ordinance and stated he felt the
proposed $i0.00 fee was excessive; t. hat the merchandise sold
at the Flea Market varied; and that the Flea Market attracted
a considerable amount of business for the County.
T~ere was hrie£ discussion relative to the number of vendors
of the Bellwood Flea Market per weekend and the number of
patrons; the other contri~utlons attributed to t~hs operation
of the Flea Market such as attracting patrons for various
other businesses within the County; and the reliability of the
Flea Market in validating license taxe~.
~en a~ked~ Mr. Clin~ ~tated he felt a $,~0 fee per vendor
would be appropriate.
M~. ~ary May, representing Baseball World Cards and
Collectlble~, sta~ed she her husband were promoters e£ monthly
sport~ card shows; that she waz in favor of the proposed
ordinance but felt the proposed $10.o0 fee was excessive; that
a flat fee would batter ~erve th0~e imtereeted; and that the
pro. felon to allow the sale of ~old" and "new" merchandise
Shonld be ~et at an equitable tax rate. When a~ked, she
stated she felt the same fee should be resulted for all
There was brief discussion relative to fee~ charged to venders
to conduct baseball card shews; the average ~mber of venders
at th~se types of ~hews; and the definition of "old" and "new"
merchandise as ~t related to baseball cards.
Mr, David Moore stated he was not a resident of Chesterfield
County but was an active hobbyist dealing in =radimg amd
~elling baseball cards; that h~ w~s opposed to the proposed
$10.00 fee as he felt it was excessive; that he. was concerned
a~ to the process which would be used in collecting the fee;
and that he felt the ordinance should remain a~ i~ wit2% =he
~xception of defining the word "new" when referring to
merchandise.
F~. George ~eadles ~=ated he felt th~ proposed $10.00 fee
should be assessed on a quarterly ba~i~ rather than a per
event basis; =nat the promoter of the events shonld be
required to collect and remit the money to the County; and
that the County should review bus~nes~ licenses and develop a
method which woul~ encourage generating business within the
County.
92-227 3/2D/PZ
Mr. Gene Mccord stated he had been a resident of the County
for fifteen years; that he was an active sport~ card hobbyist
and attended baseball card shows sponsored by Ms. ~ay; and
that he felt children should be afforded the opportunity to
participate in hobbies with the least amount of cost.
There was brief discussion relative ts charge~ impo~ed by
surrounding jurisdictions £er sinilar events.
Mr. Bishop stated he was a resident of Dinwiddie C0un~y
was concerned a~ to the impact the proposed les would have on
the Bellwocd Flea /{arket; that ha ~el% many of the users of
the Flea Market were purchasing needed items and, therefore~
requested the Board to deny the ordinance.
h~a~ing was closed.
~en ~sked, ~. Micas stated Mr. Daniel did not have a
conflict Of interes~ ai~ough he had been a fo~ar baseball
show card dealer.
Discussion, co~ents and que~tlong en~u~d r~lativ~ to
impact the proposed fee would have on children d~lln~
baseball cards; the r~idual ben,fits to the Co~ty ~rum those
pur~aslnq it~ w~th~n the County at the Flea Marke~;
used for ~ettinq the fee; whether the ~rmnt ordinance
re~itted to. the County; th~ d~finition of "old" a~d "~w"
merQh~ndlme; comparison of rate~ for the County of Men~ioo and
the City of R~c~ond; admini~t~ation and collection of the
licenses and the respons~b~llty of the promoter to enforce the
ooll~tio~ of the fee.
Aft~ brief di~c~io~, Mr. Barbe~ mode = notion, seconded by
Mr. Warren~ to adopt an ordinance to amend ~he code of ~e
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~ended, by ~ending Sections
12-39.1 and 12-138 rela~ing to business license taxation of
flea markets, craft ~hows, trade shows and itineran~ nerchants
which ordi~aMo~ would be am~ded to reflect a $5.00 fee per
event.
Discussion, co~ents and q~estio~$ ~$~d r~latlve to how the
fee Wo~ld bo imposed; whether the fee should be per event or
$5.00 fee would be excessive for c~rtaln events.
Mr. Wa~Ee~ ~ade a substitute motion, geconded by ~,
to adop~ an ordinan~ to a~d ~e Code of the Catty of
~t~rfield, 197~, as amended, by am~n~X~g Sections 12-39.1
an~ 12-13~ relating to business license taxation of flea
which ordinance WORld b~ ~mended to reflect a $2.00 per day
pe~ vend~r.
There was brief discussion relative to ~e ~ount of the
~. Daniel called for ~e vote on %he notion made by
Warren, seconded by Nr. Mc~ale, for ~e ~oard to a~oDt
~ O~IN~E TO ~ND THE CODE OF THE CO~Y OF
~STERPI~SD, ~978, A~ ~D=D, BY ~E~DING SECTIONS
12-39.1 ~D 12-138 ~TING TO BUSINESS LIC~NS~
SKOWS ~D ITIN~T MERC~S
BE IT O~AINED by the Board of Supervi~o~ of
~e~terfiel~ County that the ~ode of thm County of
~esterfield, 1978, aS ~ended, i~ amended by amending
section~ 12-39.1 and 1~-158 as follows:
3/25/92
~ec. 12-~9.1. Flea markets, craft shows and trade shows.
(e) Every person engaged in the business of organizing,
promoting or managing a fles market, craft show or trade
business in the county and' shall pny a license tax calculated
in aooordanoe wiLh ~ubseotion (d).
(b) "Flea markets, ora£~ shows, or trade shows" shall
include any show consisting of a group of five or more persons
articles, or a~y oo~Dina%ion of ~hese, a~ a single location.
(c) NO 9ar~an participating in a flea market, craft show
or trade show as a merchant shall be liable for any license
this chapter if the ~romo~sr, manager or organizer of the show
obtains a licease ~nd pays the license tax as provided in this
section.
(~) The license tax impo~ed by this section shall be
equal ts two dollar~ ($2.00} for each me=chant participating
in a flea market, craft show or trade show during a single day
or any ps,ties of sUCh day. Such license tax ~hall b~ due and
payable on t~e ~onday following each such day.
(e) A premoterw manager or organizer cf a flea ~erket,
=raft show or trade show shall not be liable under this
seonion to pay more than five hundred dollars ($500.00} per
individual uerchant ~er single location per tsx year.
Aocordingly~ even if a merchant participates in a show at a
~ingle location for more than ~50 days during a tax year,
promoter, manager or erganiler of such show sh~ll not be
liable under this sestlon to pay mor~ than five hundred
doll~r~ ($500.00) for such merchant at that location during
that tax year.
(a) Unle~ otherwise provided in some other section Of
this Code, the license tax for each itinerant merchant, other
than those described in subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and
(f) =hall be two hundred and fifty dollars ($2~0.00) for cash
leoation used during the first half of the tax year (January
through June 30) and shall be two hundred and fifty dollars
(~250.00) for ~aeh le~ation need durinq the second half Of tbs
tax year (July I ~D_rsugh Decmmbsr ~1).
ese
Ayes: Mr. baniel, Nr. Warren, Mr. Bar~e~ a~ ~. ~oHale.
Nays: F~r. colbert.
Reconvening:
In Bermuda Magisterial District, GASSAN J. ABOULROSN rs0/~sted
rezoning from General Business (B-3) to General Business
(C-5). The density of such amendmen~ will be controlled by
~oning conditions or ordinance standards. The
Plan de~i~nate~ the property for commercial uss. This request
lies on a 2.17 acre parcel fronting approximately 185 feet
the north llne ef Willie Road, approximately 300 feet east of
Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 8I-8 (1) Parcel 91 (Sheet
~. Jacobsen presented a summary of Ca~e 92SNOll~ and stated
the Planning Commission and staf£ recor~cnded approval and
acceptance of the proffered condition. He noted the request
conformed to thc Central Area Land Usm and Transportation
Plan.
~. John Dot,on, representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation was acceptable. Ther~ was no Oppositiom
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, s~conded by Mr. Warren, the Beard
approved Case 92SN~114 and acosDtsd the following proffered
condition:
Prior to site plan approval for any development other
than a communication tower and support equipment,
forty-fiv~ (4~) feet of right of way on the north side of
Willis Roa~ measured fro~ the Centurline of that part of
Willis Roa~ immediately adjacent to the DreDert¥ shall he
dedicated, free and unrestricted, to end fen the benefit
cf Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
92SN0133
In Midiothian M~gi~terial District, ~LEN R. SWADER requested
amendment to conditional U~e (case 79S066} relative to ~igns,
hears of eperatlon, p~an of development amd lighting
restrlctlens plus Conditienal Use to permit outdoor
recreational facilit~ on an adjacent paru~l. The density of
such amendment will ~e contrelled by zoning ~endition~ er
Ordinance standard~. Th~ dempr~hen$ive Plan designate~ the
property for residential uss of 1.00 unit~ per acre er le~s
~nd mix~ USe corridor. This request lies in an Agrlcultural
(A) Distr~ot on a~ app~OXlmately 77.O acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,$00 feet on thc north line of Mi~Iothian
55arnpik~, approximately 400 feet west of ~uguenot Springs
Road. Tax ~ap 14 (1) Part ef Parcel 5 (Sheet 5/6).
Mr. Jacobsen presented a summar~ of Case 925N013~ and stated
~o conditions and acceptance of the proffered cenditions.
~r. ~ilton Phillips~ representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation was acceptable. There was oDpoeltion present.
it would be place4 in it~ regular ~aguenoe on the agenda.
(Amended)
In Bermuda Magisterial District~ JAME~ ~. DANIEL~ requested
rezoming from Residential (R-?) to Neighborhood Business (C-2)
of 2.73 acres plu~ a Conditional US~ to permit u fast food
re~t~%hramt on 0.7~ acres of the 2.73 acre trac~. The density
of ~uch a~end/~e~t will be controlled by zoning cenditions or
Ordinance standards. The Compre~hensive Plan designate~ ~e
D~ope~ty for neighborhood c~rcial use. This re~e~t front~
a~roximately 133 f~ on the no~ line of Wemt Hundre~ Read,
approxi~tely 140 feet we~t of Ecoff Avenue, al~o front~
92-23~ 3/25/92
approximately 550 feet north of West Hundred Road and located
northwest of the intersection of thes~ reads. Ta~Map 115-10
Mr. Colbert disclosed ~o .the Board that ihs owned property
across the street from this requeet~ declared a potential
conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Act, and exc~ed himself from the
meeting.
the Planning Com~issi0~ ahd staff reoo~e~ded approval
conformed to ~e ~es%er Village ~lan.
~. James Daniels stated the reco~endation was acceptable;
~at it had been datelined ~e request would not generate a
significant in=rea~e in traffic; that he had att~pted to
ad~ss the concerns expressed by the residents in the area
regarding noi~ level~; that the request confo~ed to
~e~ter Village Plan and~ therefore~ requested the Board to
give favorable consideration to ~e re,est.
There was ~rief discussion relative to the impl~entation of
probable p~asing of contraction for ~e prop0med development,
~. Ro~rt Smi~ stated he resided in the Village of Chester;
that he did no~ support tho r~qu~ in itu ~ntirety; ~at
was co~cer~ed abo~t the re~e~t for a conditional ~e to
pa~it a fast food restaurant; ~hat he felt the request would
generate ~n increase in traffic and, specifically, on
been developed to ensure revitalization of the Village; and
zubmltted m petition to thm ~oard c~o~in9 ~ re,amt.
that he was not opposed to the neighborhood co~ercial use on
Route 10 in genial but he felt the request would generate
increase in traffic and, npesifically, 0n Eooff Avenue and
Buckingham Street; that he felt a fa~t food restaurant wo~ld
change the character of the resid~tlal area and, therefore,
r~q~eSted the Boa~d to support the i~te~t of the Che~t~r
Village Plan by Oenying the proeosm~ request.
~. Albert E11iott stated he resided in the Village of
~aztar; ~at he felt ~e intent of the chester Villag~ Plan
shoul~ ba ~upport~d; that h~ felt the development of a fast
~e adjacent nelghbor~ to the re~t a~so opposed the
conditional use; that ~e applicant presently was not aware of
=ondltional u~e for a fa~t foo~ rem=aurant or to ~eny the
re,est tn its entirety.
that he did not feel the request would generate a significant
in=tease in traffic; that he felt if re=ideate were opposed
~igning u petition; that ~ere was a Pizza Hut locatea in the
~ame vicinity amd wa~ ~imila~ in nature to this ~e~est; that
he felt the re,est would provide a reasonable transitional
~one from r~identi~l to colorola1 und, therefore,
the Board to give favorable consideration to the
expressed by contacting tho=e re=ident= who had ~ign~d
tO the request; that th~ Bruc~ Fa~ Sub~ivlslon had polled
oppomltion to th~ r~qumst; that the request confu~ to
92-231
Chester Village Plan; and requested the Board to give
favorable consideration to the re~ueg%.
Mr. McHule stated he was concerned about the intent of some of
the wording in the cheater village Plan regarding special
circumstances and/or e~ceptioRg. He further stated hs felt
the conditional use for a fact food re~ta~ra~t would generate
an increase in traffic but he also felt the overall
appl~catio~ did confor~ to the Chester Village Plan.
On motion of Mr. McHEle, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
denied the request for a conditional use to permit & fast food
restauramt om the C-2 tract, approved C-~ zoning for Case
91SN0~4? and accepted the following proffered conditions:
1. ~rior to obtaining a building permit, one o~ the
following shall be accomplished for fir~ protection:
A. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shali pay to the
county $150 Dar 1,000 ~uare feet of 9-ross floor
area adjusted upward or downward by the ~ame
percentage that tho ~arshall swift Building Cost
Index fncrea~ed or d~reane~ bo~wee~ ~u~e ~0, 1991,
and the date of pa~rmant. W~th th~ approval of th~
County's ~ire Chief, the owner, developen or
m~slqnee(~) ~hall ~eeeive a credit toward the
r~quired payment for tbs cost of any fire
~uppre~sien system not otherw£ze required by law
which is included as a part of the devels~ment.
OR
B. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall provide a
fir= suppression system not otherwis~ req~i:ed by
law which the County's Fire Chief determlnem
~ub~tantially reduoe~ th~ ne~d for County facilities
stherw~e necessary for fire protection.
2. Prior to mite plan approval, forty-five (45) feet of
right of way on the north side of Route lS measured from
~he centerline of that part of Route 10 immediately
adja¢$nt tc the preper=y shall be dedica=ed, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County.
~. ~rior to si~e plan approval, thirty (30) f~t of ri~ht cf
~ay on the w~st side of E¢off Avenue measured from the
cen~rline of that Dart cf Ecoff Avenue immediately
adjacent to the property ~hall b~ dedicated, free and
unrestr~sted, to an~ for ~he benefit of chesterfield
County.
4. A thirty (3~) foot wid~ face of curb to face of curb
assess rca~ with no adjacent parking shall De provided
towards the northern property line from Ecoff Avenue to
=ne western property line. This access rued shall be
designed and constructed to be shared with adjacent
propertie~, as d~termin~d by the Transportation
Department. Upon request by the Transportation
Department, access easement(s), acceptable to the
Transportation Department, shall be recorded for this
Prior to the issuance of an ee0upancy permit for uny
development with access to Eooff Avs~e, e~ additional
lane of pavement shall be constructed along ~coff Avenue
for the entire property frontage.
Ay~: Mr~ Daniel, Mr. Warren, Mu. Barber and Mr. M¢~al~.
Absent: Mr. Colbert.
Mr. Colbert returned to the me%ting.
92-232
In ~idlothian Kaqisterial 51~trlct, ~r.'~X =. AND CAROL
BILT~ requested Conditional Use to permit either a dwelling
unit ~oparated from th~ principal dwelling or a twa-family
dwelling in a ~esidential (R-15) District. The density of
such amendment will be oontrolle~ by zoning conditions or
Ordinance ~tandards. The Comprehensive Plan designate~
~ro~erty for residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 unit= per ecrm.
This re~e~t lie~ on m 1.~ acre parcel lying at ~ north~n
Lan~. Tax ~p 10-1~ (6) Bonaventure, Se:t~on 1, Blo~ A, Lot
1 (Sheet 3).
approval subject to conditions and noted Condition 4 wo~ld
n~ad to be amendm~ if the Boar~ desired a different location
for the dwelling unit. He noted the r~est conformed to the
Northern ~ea Lan~ Use an~ Transportation ~lan. ~en asked,
There was brief diacu~sion relativ~ to the ~ize of the
Mr. and ~s. Alex J. Bitter stated the reco~endatiun was
acceptable and they had worked with staff on the re. est
c~ply with all ~uidelines es=ablished by ~e Co~ty.
~r. Joseph Sharp ~tat~d he wa~ an adjacent property o~er;
d~sign~d and zoned for single ~amily ~wellings; that h~
the property was not large enough to build another single
family =welling unit; and if ~ re~e~t was approved, he
a condition should be imposed to re~ire the second dwelling
h~me.
that the r~mt had been in ~xis~enoe for an ex~ended peri~
of t~me; that they had met with ~ applicant in an attempt
to the location of the home; that they felt the home should be
felt the cost to the applicant to connect to the public sewer
re~a~t; that the applicant operate~ a buslnes~ from his hom~
r~m~t was epproved; and ~eguested th~ Board ~0 d~oi~
~u~aSt in the best intur=st of the entire n=ig~orhood.
ha~ ~esided in %~e n~ighborhoo~ for the ~ast twenty seven
y{nrx; thnt h{ felt th~ losation of the home would negatively
the value of his property; that he felt it was feasible for
the dwelling to b~ lo=a~ed in a different area of the y~d;
and ~at h~ wa~ conc~rm~d as t~ th9 impact the dwelling would
had reside~ in the neighborhood for ~w~nty-four years;
~welling an~ a petition ha~ been =ubmltted previously opposing
th~ ~t; and h~ felt the re.est should be decided in the
be~t interest of the entire neighborhood.
3/25/92
Ms. Dorothy O'Bryant stated she was opposed to the proposed
r~ua~%; that the applicant had net attempted to change the
location of the dwelllng~ that she felt the applicant's
e~isting ho~e was sufficient to prowids for the caring of
family me-hers; that the entire neigb_berhood was opposed to
the rsc~est and, therefore, requested the Board to de~y the
~. Bilter stated ~e proposed dwelling would be located in
~e side yard and not the front yard and under ~e
Zoning Ordinance, he could build a garage in that
a~su~ed t~e proposed dwelling would not be u~ed to operate a
System~ o~er alt~nat~ve~ were limited but he felt the
the applicant a~d the residents of the neighborhood, provided
the buildln~ would not extend beyon~ ~he front of ~e
dwelling and, th~efore, made a motion, seconded by
conditions:
1. Occupancy of the ~econd dw~lling ~it shall be limited
the occupants of the principal dwellln~ unit, their
f~ily memb~r~ and g~est~.
Prior to release of a building permit, a deed restriction
shall b~ recorded indicating the retirement in Condition
a copy of the re~triction =hall be ~ubmitted to
Planning DeRur~mnt. (P)
9. The size of the ~econd dwelling shall be smaller than the
~ize of ~e principal dwelling.
4. The applicant may const~o% either a separate dwelling or
convert ~e existing dwelling into a two-family dwelllng.
In eider cams, the ~cond dwelling or th~ addition shall
be located no closer to the western property line
adjacent no LO= 4 of Tax Hap 10-15 (4) Belleau Circle,
Block A, ~mn the principal dwelling.
location o~ th~ ~roDo~ed dwelling; the requirement and =os~
the applicant to connect the new addition to the ~ubllc sewer
~y~tem; wheth~ the dwelling would be attac~ed to or detached
stipulate ~e unit being attached or detached.
~en azked, ~. Bilter ~tated he agreed tO the ~it
attaohe~ to ~he existing
the re~e~t for a dwelling ~it s~p~rated from the principal
dwelling and approve the re~e~t for a ~wo-family
s~bject to the following ~onditions:
1. Co--panty of the second dwelling ~t ~hall b~ limitsd
the occu~antm of th~ principal dwelling unit, thei~
Prior to relea~ of a ~ilding permit, a deed restriction
s~all b~ recorded indicating the retirement in Condition
a copy of the re~t~iction ~hall be submitted to
Planning D~artment.
92-234 3/~5/92
The size of the second dwelling shall be smaller than the
size of the principal dwelling. (m)
4. The secomd dwelling shall bs located no closer to the
western prcper~y linc adjacent tc Lot 4 Of Tax Hap 10-15
(4] Belleau Circle, Block A, than the principal dwelling.
/~r. McHala inquired as to the point the prepomed dwelling
would extend beyond the from= of the existing building. M~.
Daniel clarified =he furthomt ~ost poin~ thm dwelling could
extend beyond the existing home.
Mr. PaRle1 called for the vote on the motion made by
sar~er, seconded by Mr. Warrmn~ to deny the request for a
dwelling u~it s~parated from the principal dwelling and
approve the requeot for a two-family dwelling subject to the
following conditions:
1. Occupancy of the second dwslllng unit mhall be limited to
the occupants of the principal dwellin~ Unit, their
~amily members and guests.
Prior to release of a building permit, a deed restriction
shall be recorded indicating the requirement in Condition
1. T~e deed book and page number of much restriction and
a copy Of the restriction shall be submitted to the
Plannlng Department. (p)
3. The mire of the second dwelling shall be smaller than the
size of the principal dwelling.
4- The ~eoond dwelling shall be located no close= to the
western property line adjacent to Lot 4 of Tax ~ap
(4) Sellcau circle, Block A, =ham the principal dwelling.
Vote: Unanimous
92S~R0107
In ~ermu~c Magisterial Diotriet, VIRGINIA ELEcr~C ARD PO~
CO, ANY requested a Conditional Ume to p~rmit expansion e£ an
electric subotat~on i~ a~ Agricultural (A) District. The
de~sity of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions mr Ordinanue standard~. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property ~er light industrial use. Th~s
re~uost lies on a 3.31 a~o parcel lyin~ apD~oMi~tely 280
feet off the eamt llne of ~orth Enos Church Road,
a~proxlmately 1~3~0 feet So~th of Bermuda H~d~ed Road. Tax
Map 13U-4 (1) Pcrcel 37 (~hest 4~).
Mr. Jacobsen preuentud a surmmary of Came 9~$N0107 and mtated
the Planning commission and stuff recommended apprcYal subject
to conditions. He ~uzther e~ated ~he Planning Cenmismion had
amended staff's condition reducing the buffer o~ the so~th
side of the proper~y f~e~ ceventy-flwa feet to forty feet. ~e
noted tn~ ~eq~t conformed to the Eastern Area Land Use and
Trmnsportatlon Plan.
Ms. Gall Lamp, representing =he &pplioant, stated they wer~ in
favor of the reco~umendatlon made by' the Planning Commission
ra~her than by staff. %~nere was no opposition present.
On motion of Mm. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Berber~ the Board
approved Ca~e 92~N0107 subject to the following conditions:
A security-type ~ence shall be installed a~eund th~
prepomed mubstotion and shall ba designed te pre01~de
trespassing. The exact height end design of T~he fence
92-23~ 3/25/9~
shall be approYed by the Planning Department at the time
of site plan review. (P)
on Parcel 22, Tax ~ap 135-4 (1), a minimum seventy-five
(75) foot buffer shall ha maintained between the se~rity
fence and~ the nortll, east and west property boundaries.
A minimum forty (40) foot buffer shall be maintained
between the security fence and the southern prop~r~y
bou_~dary. ~xcept as noted herein, landscaping shall be
accomplished within these buffers in accordance with the
buffering and landscaping plan submitted en February 18,
1992. Within those portions of the buffer located in the
existing Virginia Power easement, photinias shall be
substituted for wa~ Myrtles. (CPC)
In ~idle~hian ~agi~terial District,
· -~SO~TES requested amen~ent to a pre~iously granted zoning
(ca~e 90SN0244) relativ~ to ~ign~. T~e density of ~uch
amendment w~ll be controlSed by ~onlng condltion~ or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensiv~ Plan desolates ~e property for
light industrial use. Thi~ request lies in a Light Industrial
(I-l) D~s~ct on a 1.0 acre parcel Iy~n~ a~rox~mately 180
950 feet e~st of Robious Road, Tax Map 9-13 (1) Part of
~mrcel 1 (Zheet
~e Planning Co~im~ion and staff ~eeo~ended approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. He noted the
confo~ed to sign retirements of the Zoning Ordinance for
Light Industrial (I-l) Districts and insluded a proffered
eobdition which would further restrict ~e sign area~ lighting
been submitted prior to advertising the
There was brief dis=us=ion relative to th~ re~trfctionE of th~
Sign Or~inano~ r~garding ~he size of the si~ and the si~
area and the ~ifference between the original and proposed
zoning.
~. Ji~ Theobol~, r~pr~ntin~ ~e appllc~nt~ stat~d
reco~endation was acceptable; that tbs ap~lican~ was
re~e~ting to amend a previously p~offe~ed condition %o
one internally lit building-muunta4 si~ =o better i~entify
the facility; ~at ~e zign would b~ located ac~os~ f~om
co~mrcial property and b~ind ~m railroad traoks; tha~
lighting and ~ize of ~e ~ig~ Would be restricted and the
w~ul~ not be ilI~ina=ed between t~e ~o~rs of ll:OO p.m. to
6:00 a.~.; t~at the sign could not be se~n from any
that ~e ~ign was smaller ~Han permitted in I-1 Districts and
Was Consistent with signage for other ~o~erciml u~e~ in the
consid~ation tc th~ request.
Ms. Carolyn ~owers, representing the ~dloth~an D~tri~t
Certify A=tion Panel, expressed concerns reg~ding this
ilius~ation of havin~ effective adverti~ing~ ~at the
was seeking the r~oval of a negotiate~ proffere~ condition
previously limiting the property owne~ to one si~; that the
mignifioa~t landscaping; ~at ~ey were concerned as %o the
location of tho sig~ and ~ future widening of Hu~enot Read
w~i~ Would place the sign in closer prox~ity to the traffic;
that effo~g for the Huguenot Road area ~a~ been to control
92-236 3/25/92
~ignag~; that they felt requests for signs 'should b~ reviewed
and categorized by a citizen group which could prepare
detailed analyses of the impact such proposals would have on
surrounding areas.
Mr. Thecbold stated the proposed sign was net visible from the
existing sign on ~uguenot Road; that all of the adjacent
property owners had been notified of the proposed request; and
submitted to t_he Board a picture of t~e proposed sign.
Mr. ~arber sta:ed he had contacted residents in the cranbeck
Subdivision and they had indicuted the sign was not visible
from =heir neighborhoods that a site study had been conducted;
that he had attended a dinner with residents of Woodmont
Subdivision and no inquiries had been made regarding the sign
and, therefore, made a mot{on, seconded by Mr. Warren, to
approve Case 92SN01t3 and accept the folIowing proffered
0nly one sign shall bs permitte~ on the I-1 property.
Such sign shall be a building-mounted, internally-
illuminated sign which conforms in all respects to
A~tiola 8 (Sign~) of the Chesterfield County Zoning
ordinance, such sign shall net exceed 64 spuare feet in
area, nor De illuminated between t~e ho~T~ of I1:00 p.m.
and ~:00 a.m. The design and color of the sign panel
shall substantially conform to that of the free~tanding
sign on the parcel adjacent to the west.
Mr. Daniel e~loressed concerns relat~vs ho previously granted
zoning =asea and, specifically, those ad~ressing signs and
billboards, when requesting amendments.
Mr. Daniel called fo~ the vote on the motion made by Mr.
Barber, seconded by F~r. Warren, to approve Cas~ 92aN0113 and
accept the following proffered condition:
0nly one sign shall be permitted on the I-1 property.
such sign shall be a building-moun~ed, internally-
illuminated sign which conforms in all respects to
Article 8 (Signs} CS the chesterfield County Zoning
Ordinance. Such sign shall not exceed 64 square feet in
area, nor be illuminaSe~ between the hours of 11:0~ p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. The d~sign and color of the ~ign panel
shall substantially confo~u~ to that of the freestanding
~ign on the parcel adjacent to th~ we~t.
Vote: Unanimous
In ~idlothlsn Magi~tenlal Distrist~ G~ R~ SWADE~ requested
~ancl~ent to Conditional Use (Ca~e 79S066) relative to signs,
restrlctlon~ plu~ Conditional Use ~o pe~i~ outdoor
~eor~a%i~nal facilitie~ on an adjacent parcel. The density of
~uch amen~ent will be controlla~ by zonin~ conditions or
ordinance ~tanda~ds. The Comprehensive Plan de=i~ate~ the
property for residential uae of 1.0o unit~ ~er acre or less
a~d ~ixad use corridor. Thi~ re,est lles in a~ A~icultural
(A) Distriot un an approximately 77.9 acre parcel f=oRting
approximately 1,300 feet on the north line o~ Kidlot~ian
Turnpike, apDrox~ma=ely 400 feet west of Hu~enot Springs
Rosa. Tax Map 14 (1) Part Of Parcel 5 (Sheet ~/6).
~. Peele presented a ~ary of Case 92SN0133 an~ s~u%e~ the
Plannin~ co~ission and s~aff reco~ended approval ~b~ect to
conditions. He noted th~ r~quest complied wS~ ~m n~w zoning
ordinance standard~ and the Upper Swift C~eek ~nd Use and
Tranmportation Plan.
3/25/92
J ................. J · I
Mr. Hilton Phillips, co-owner of the Windy Hill Sports
Complaz, ~ated ~hm ~eoom~n~at~on w~s acceptable.
Mr. ~orge Beadles expressed concerns relative to the request
being double advertised.
}tr. Barber stated the request had been dnubl~ advertised
the applicant had been misinformed by mtaff and, therefore, he
felt the double advertising, was justified to correct the
error.
Mr. Warren stated he wa~ oppose~ to do~ble advertising in
general but felt there were exceptions to double advertising
On motion of ~r. Barber, secunde~ hy Mr. Warren, the Board
approved Case 92~N0~3~ ~ubject to the following conditions:
COND~TION~ - ~MEN~_T.Q._.CASE 798066.
1. Signs ~hall comply with the ~oning Ordinance,
21.1-265, 21.1-266, 21.1-268 and 21.1-269.
(NOTE: This c~ndltlon supe~ede~ Condition 3 of Casa
2. Heur~ of operation shall he restricted te between
a.m. and t2:80 midnight Monday through Sunday.
(NOTE: Thi~ condition ~uparsedes Condition 8 of
Lighting fo~ the ~itsh and putt range shall comply with
the Zoning ordinance, ~ectlon 2~.5-~40.
(NOTE: This condition modifies Condition 10 of Ca~e
798066 for the pitch and putt range ~nly. Con~itlon 10
of Case 798066 remains in effect for the remainder of the
~evelopment.)
(NOTES:
With the approval of this reques=, Condition
of Case 798066 shall be deleted.
Except as stated herein, all other conditions
sS Csse 796~ r~main in effeo=.)
~.Q~DI~IO~S - CONDITIONAL USE FOR 45.35 ACRES OF OUTDO@R
RECREATION
4. U~eS permitted mhall be restricted to a pitch and p~tt
self course a~d accessory uses~ only. (P)
shall be located at least 100 feet from Tax Map 14 (1)
Eareet 7, (P)
6. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided adjacent to
Tax ~ap 14 (~) Parcel 7. This buffer shall comply with
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections
~-1-~6 through =1.1-2~. (m)
7. All conditions of Cae~ 795066 and amendments to Casa
79S065~ ae g~anted through the approval of Case 92SN0133
shall be applioabl~ to the conditional Bsa for T/~e pitch
and putt golf course on the 45.35 acre parcel.
Vote: Unanimous
92-238 3/25/92
On motion e£ Mr. Barber, sooonded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
adjourned at 10:30 p.m. (EST) until ~arch 27, 1992 at 4:00
p.m. to the Administration Building, Room 502, for a joint
meeting wit~ the School Board.
Vote: Unanimous
L~ne B. Ramsey ~
County Administrator
92-239 3/25/92