06-10-1992 Minutes~OARD OF SUI:~i~V~O~.
June 10, 199~
M:. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mr. J. L. McHale, III
County Administrator
Ms. Barbara Bennett, Bxec.
A~st. tO CO. Admi~./Dir.,
Off'ce on ¥out~
Mr. John R. Boykint A~st.
MS. Jane D. Carter,
Dir., ~ousin~
Mrs. Doris R. I~eHart,
Asst. Co. Admin.,
Legis. Svcs. and
Intergovarn. Affairm
Mr. William D. Duple=,
~uilding official
Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr.,
Fire Department
~r. M~cha~l Colden, Acting
Dir.~ Perks and Recreatio~
Mr. Bradford $. Hammer,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
MS. Mary ~u Lyle~
Dir., Acco~tlng .
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Mr. Richa/~ M. McElf~h,
Dir., Env. Engineering
Police Department
Mr. James J. L. ~t~aier,
Ao~ing Deputy Co, Admin.,
Community Developmen~
Circuit Court cl~rk
Mr, Dan~sl called the regularly ~¢heduled meeting tO order at
~:00 ~.m. (EST).
93-479 6/10/92
on motion of }tr. Warren, seconded by Mr. McHale,
approved the minutes of May 27, 199~ as ~ubmltted.
Vats: Unanimous
the Beard
2. ~0~TY AI~INI~"r~ATOR'S CO]41~TS
Dr. Wesley ~CClure, President of Virginia State University,
expressed aDDreoiation to the Board for apD~0val Of a grant,
in ~lle amount of $~5~0, for F¥9~ which grant would be umed
tu support scholarships for students attending the University.
than si~ty students and the University has ha~ the largest
iacrease in number and percentage in enrollment for the
1991/9~ school year. He expressed appreciation to the Beard
for their a~istanoe to tho University.
M~. Mc~ale stated he had attended %/ne opening of ~he Dutch ~ap
bea~ ramp and recognized those individuals involved in ma~ing
the facility available. ~e noted tla~ boat ramp wa~ the only
ranp within the County in which their was nc cost te uss.
Mr. Barber sta~ed he had held his "First Monday" csnstltuents
meeting in which the topic di~cuzsed had been shrin~/swell
attended g~adumtion ceremonies for volunteer firefighters and
noted he would also be attending several high school
graduations.
for volunteer firefighter~.
Mr. Warren sta~ed he was planning to attend graduation
ceremonies at Clover Kill High School an~ indicated he wo~ld
be m~eting with the president~ of various civic
l~cate~ in Cl~er ail1 District.
Mr. Daniel stated he had ~arti~iDated in th= ~i~ing
r~ndi~g of Water and sewer bonds which would save the County
approximately $1.9 million over the duration of
fu~e~ ~t~ted he would be a speaker at the graduation
basis.
4. ~X~ TO I~T~0NEA~TI~. E~ERG~NCYADDIT/ON$ OR
0~ ~otion of Mr. ~cHale, seconde~ ~y Mr. Barber, the Board
a~ded stem 6.E., Direct ~e Planning Department to Prepare a
~onlng Ordinance ~en~ent Creating an Ettrick Village Overlay
S~t Date for a ~lic Kearlng to Consider th~ Co~v~ya~Ge o~
Parcel of ~n~ in th~ Ai~ort Industrial PaTh and
Au~orization for ~e County A~inistrator to Enter into
Sales contrm~= to follow Item 6.D.2.~.~ Set Date fo~ a ~blic
~o~ty of chesterfield, 1978, as ~ended, by ~ending ~apter
10 by ~endlng ~icle VII, section 10-40, Relating to siting
o~ solid Wast= Munagement Facilities and Adding ~icle VIII
Relating to Approval of Waste Matmrial Management an4
to follow Item 6.D.~.e., Acceptaace of a Parcel of Lan~ Along
Jefferson Davis Highway from Patwil Homez, Inc.~ added Item
92-480 6/10/92
6.Dol0., Request by Waverly Textile Prooo~aing, Inc. to
Quitclaim a Sixty Pont and Variable Width Water and Sewer
6.D.9., Request for Bingo/Raffle Permit; and added Item 13.F.,
Resolution R¢copniuing Huguenot Little League for Thirty Years
of sorvioe to the Youth of chesterfield county and for
Donations for Baseball Field Improvements to follow Item
13.~.~ Recolutisn Recognizing Officer J. A. ~arrow amd officer
H. ~. Dickerson for ~xceptlonal ~erit0rio~s Service in the
Line of Duty and, adopted the agonda~ aa amended,
Mr. Minas stated ~ue to the 1992 General Assembly legislation
that was adopted, the County had th~ option of adopting
various ordinances and requested the Board to authorize the
setting of public hearing dates for those they felt
appropriate. He reviewed the chanqe~ affecting the County
which ~ould require further ~oard action and the 0ha~gee
affectin~ the county for which no action was required.
After brief discussion, On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by
~r, Barber, the Board authorized the setting o~ ~ublic hearing
dates for the following ordinances:
1. Section 10.1-562 et. al., amended. Permits localitie~ tO
enforce local erosion an~ cedi~ent control
through civil ~¢nalties us an alternative to prosecuting
violations as criminal misdemeanor=. Thin hill enables
localities administering local programs to adopt an
o~di~ance e~tablishlng a uniform schedule of civil
p~naltieu (with a maximum penalty of $100 per
and $3,000 per series ef violations arising from the
mituation. SB 1~0.
2. Adds Subsections 11-79.1 and 11-79.~ tO amend the ethics
~action of the Pohlle Procurement Act to a~thori~ the
governing body of public eDtitie~ ts requlra employees
with official responsibility for procurement to annually
certify in writing tha~ they have complied with the
ethics sestlon of the Prne~r~ent Act. HB 183.
3. Section 15.1-37.3:6 amended. Authorizes a penalty on
past due accounts owe~ to local governments of 10% or
$10, whichever is greater rather than whichever
l~r. Applies only to accounts which are established
by ordinance (e.g., utilities bills). KB
~. Soetion 15~1-475 amended. ~rovid~s that all approved and
re¢orde~ final subdivision plata and s~te plans shall be
valid for at least five years. The locality ~ay grant
reaconable extension= to toe ~ubdivider or developer for
an additional period cf time. If a locality denies a
appeal to the circuit court. AS long as a final site
plan is valid, ns change to any law, ordinance, plan,
etc., ~hall adv~rnely affect the right of the cuhdlvi~er
er developer to complete an approved development. The
provisions of the section shall be applicable to all
final ~ubdlvi~ion plats and ~ite plans valid on or after
January 1, 1991. SB 270.
5. Section 1~,1-456.1 amended. Adds special exceptions to
the types of applications where complet~ disclosure of
the equitablo ownership of the affected real estate may
be required. Chesterfield currently requires disclosure
for all applications before the Planning commission and
6/10/92
Board of supervisors, Special exeeption~ ate ~ranted by
6. A~end~ Section 15.1-518 and 865 to give counties the
authority to prohibit shooting of orossbowa on property
of another without permission. ~S 370.
7. ~ds ~?-ST.1. Gives local fire marshals right of entr~,
if authorized ~y local governing ~ody, :o investi~atm
release ~f hazardous materials and regulated substances.
8. A~end Section ~6.1-75~ fo pemit localities to issue
by auxiliary police e£fioers and voluntee~ police
chaplains. SB
9. Authorizem the local government by ordinance to require
new construction to use water conservation devices.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Micas then reviewed chanpes affecting the County for which
no action was required.
There was brief discussion regarding the oh~nge~ affeo~ing the
changes for which no action wa~ required.
Mr. Daniel indicated the public hearings would be adYerti~ed
and held as ~taff datelines appropriate.
5.B. P~DPOSED ~O~TY D~V~LOPMENT B~OCK GRkNT
Mr. Stith stated the County has prepared a proposed Co,unity
Development B~ock Gran~ (CDBG) Progra~ in anticipation of an
allocation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development of $1,0S0,000 ~or community development projects
in the County and noted at lea~t 70 parc%mt of tho~e funds
must benefit low and moderate inoome residents.
~ir. L~wls Wendell, Gramts Adminlstrator~ stated staff had held
~everal publio ~eetings to gather citizen in, ut regarding
county's proposed Community Development Block Grant Program.
~e f~rther stated the proposed Program addressed many of the
concerns whit21 ~ad been expressed by citizens and County
department~. We reviewed the national objectives e£
Progra~ including benefitin~ low and mod~ate
CT welfare of the ~o~ity and whether ether fi~aneial
resources would b~ available to m~t those need~. He then
r~viewed the projects in which C~nity Development Block
~rant fund~ ~oul~ b~ ~$~d ~uch a~ shelters for the homeless,
fire stations, co--unity centers, playgrounds, privately
utilities, removal of buildings and p~lic ~e~ices,
~en asked, he stated Drapery which had be~ abandoned
ha~ ~et~riorated could be addressed by %ho Co~uni~y
Development Block Grant if located wi~n iow and moderate
income areas and defined the critarla used in dete~inln~ low
program which would assist citizens wi~ the down pa~ent on a
Mr, Wendell ~en reviewed the funding options for the Program
by cat~go~ and continued to outline ~e individual projects
for p~llc facilities and improvements. When asked, he stated
p~rcent and the proposed administration COSTS for the Program
were 9 percent.
Discussion, comments sad guestion~ ensued relative to the
criteria used in selecting applications and in determining
loans or grants for qualified individuals.
Mr. Barber stated he felt applications should be selected on a
priority level based un need tether than on a flrst-co~,
first-serve basis.
Mr. Wendell then reviewed the projects requested which had ~ot
been ~ncluded in the proposed Community Development Block
Grant Program.
Discussion, eo~ment~ and questions ensued relative to hew
certain projects had been requested; the upgrading of
Chesterfield Avenue and market analysis for downtown Ettriok
and the reason these two projects had not been included in the
Program; the criteria used for project~ include~ in staff's
recommendation for the proposed Program; and the criteria U~e~
in selecting the projects.
Mr. Warren regua~ted staff to predate a cost estimate for the
project~ which were not included in tbs proposed Program and
erased he felt ~rlority criteria should be established to use
wh~ selecting the projects. He inquired as to whether there
were any projects of himtcrio ~ignificance which could
benefit or had been included in the Program.
Mr. ~tith stated thi~ was tile first year for implementation cf
the Program and staff had attempted to utilize a limited
amount of funds for a variety of projects.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to staff
establishing ~pecific criteria when selecting projects: the
ex~censlcn of bus transportation on Midluthian Turnpike and
whether the County and the City of Richmond could work
~cgether on this issue and other issues oS mutual concern; the
Program involvin~ low interest loans and grants to
individuals; available upper,unities for prlvats/b~sin~s
partnerships and funds being used on a revolving basis; and
~he amount o£ interest ap~lled to :he lcan~.
Mr. Daniel stated the Board would be COnsidering setting the
date of July 22, 1992 for a public h~aring later this
afternoon and noted the Board could amend the Program at that
time as de~med approprlat~.
(It is noted a copy of the proposed Co--unity Development
Block Grant Program is filed with the papers of this Board)
6.A. C~AIH ~R $767.66~.76 FROH 'r~ VIRGI~XA DEPARTM~ OF
HIGHWAYS AND TRAN.~PORTATION P-~.GAI{DING DE~I~
~r. Micas stated when Powhlt~ Parkway was constracted, the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) acquired 180
acres from the ~K development site at the inter=ectlon of
Jahn~o Road an~ chippers%am Parkway; t~at the original design
for Powhite ~arkway would not hav~ p~r~itted fu~l development
of the HICK site, so in 19S6 VDOT agreed to modify the Powhlte
Parkway design by elevating th~ road ~o as to pe~it m future
of the ~K site: that the cast of designing and constructing
~e Powhite Parkway modification~ would be borne by ~e
dev~)opmr; that ~0T refu~ed to contract fur the modlfi=atlons
directly with ~K; that the CoUnty, i~ order t0 facilitate
econo~ic dewel0p~ent, agreed to directly contract with H/~K to
require H/~ to pay for the modification~ that another
contract wa~ th~n entered into between the County add
providing that VDOT would perform the design and
work on k~K~s behalf; and that under those agreements,
posted letter~ of credit in the amount of $1,900,000 to ~eoure
their repayment of the modification co.ts. ~e further stated
i~ 1988, ~DOT and tD4K entered into a right-of-way settlement
agreement in which VDOT agreed =o Day HMK $7,800,000 for the
PewBite right-of-way amd based on that, did not have to 9ay
any costs relating to its design modlfiuations exceeding
$4,00~,000; that t/%o~e ~ostn in e%~e$~ of $4,000,000 new total
$767,663.76 and HMK had notified the Cetnnty it would not renew
its letter~ of credit ~scaring those payments when they expire
On June 18, 1992. Me stated the controversy that exists was
between VDOT and ~M~ and arises from the settlement
f~r =he acquisition of the right-of-way in which the county
was not involved and, therefore, staff recommended denial of
the recluest. He noted under virginia law~ VDOT has expressed
their intention ~o file a lawsuit to resolve the issue and
since the letters of credit expire June 18, 199~, the County
weul~ then draw on the letters oi credit Drier to ~he June
18th date.
~owhita ~arkwey Zxtension and VDOT had mailed invoices to the
County who then forwarded them to EMK for payment through a
pa~n~ent of fund~ to =he County to ~erward to VDOT and payment
Com~immionur Ray Pethtel Of the Virginia Department of
resolYe the dispute ~nd at this point in time, was unsure of
to the June 18, ~992 date. Me expressed a~preuiation tu the
Board for the opportunity to address t~im issue.
There was brief discummion ~elative tu a meeting being
Board to deny a claim in amount of $767,663.76 from the
design modifications to Powhite ~arkway to serve the
When asked, Nr. Micas steted if the Board denied the claim, it
effort to resolve the
posted by HMK and the Co~ty drawing on B~'s letters of
c~edit prior to their expiration on June 18, 19~2.
Mr. Daniel called for the Vote on the motion mede by
McEale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Board to deny a olaim
for $767,663.7~ fro~ the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation regarding design mo~i£ications to Powhite
Parkway to serve %he development needs of
~r. Colbert made a motion, seconded by }{r. Warren, for the
Beard to appr~v~ the street light installation co~t of
$I,~9§.00 for the intersection of Bruce Road and ~orehead
Drive and the street light installation COSt of $530.00 for
the interse=tion of Chester Road and Haml~n Avenue, with ~aid
Account. And, further, far tko Board to de,er the streetlight
Magisterial District until July 22~ 1992:
* sparta Drive, vicinity of 21309
Intersection of Pox Briar Road and Fox Club Parkway
Intersection of Fox Club Parkway and Pox Crest Way
Mr. Warren indicated if tho Matoaca District streetlight
requests were deferred until the Board meeting in July, the
funds used would be from the F¥93 Budget.
There was brief discussion as to whether streetlight funds
ware carried over to the nex~ fiscal year budget.
After brief discussion, Hr. Colbert amended his motion,
seconded by Mr, Warren, £0r the Board to approve the street
light installation cost of $1,495.00 far the intersection cf
Bruce Road and Morehead Drive and the street light
installation cost of $530.0~ for the intersection of Chester
Road and ~anlin kvenus, with said funds :o be expended from
tBe Bermuda District Street Light Account. And, further, for
the Boar~ to defer the streetlight installation costs for the
fellowinq locations in the Matcaca Magisterial District until
June ~4, 1992:
* Sparta Drive, vicinity of 2139]
* Intersection of Fox Briar Road and Fox Club Parkway
* Interseotien of Fox club Parkway and Fox Crest Way
Vute: Unanimous
6.~.1. SCHOOL/COUNTY (N)N~OI~TDATT~N OO~TT~ AND ~ON OF
Liaison Co~itte~ meeting on Jnn~ ~4, 199~, the Co~ittee
aqreed to appoint a coEittee to facilitate con~olldat~on of
co~ittee would report to the Board~ p~ior to the ~e~ b~dget
process and would include a senior staff ~erson from Schools
and the County and one citizen appointed by each ~ard. He
noted the School Boar~ had a~yointm~ Dr. John Davis as ~elr
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, ~e Board
nominated Mr. Thomas A. Millmr to se~e on the School/County
Consolidation Co~it%ee as ~e Board of Supe~isors citizen
And, further, the Board adopted the fol~owing re~clutlon:
consolidation of various so, ices ~or a numar of year~ an~
risk management, purchasing and central accounting have been
consolidated, resulting in better se~icus at lower cost to
the resi~ent~ ~nd taxpayers of =he County; and
92-4~5 6/10/92
W/{EREAS, the SChool Board and Board of fupervisors
Liaison committea ham ag~&ad: that conmolidation in the areas
of fleet management, mail and courier services, and warehouse
sei-~lces should proceed immediately; that consolidation will
not result in layoffs of affected sm~loyee~ that criteria be
established for measuring the success of consolidation over a
~ve yeaT p~ried; and that the Boards have the highest
confidence in the ~bility of th~
consolidation work for the benefit of those who receive
me%-~iceE and for taxpayers; and
WN~R~AS, the Liaison Committee has agreed to e~tabli~h a
blue ribbon panel to develop ~peeific recom~endation~ for
consolidation in each of the areas identified in discussions
to date.
NOW; THEREFORE BE IT P~ESOLVED, that the Board Of
Supervisors sapporte the action of the Board of Supervisors/
School Board Liuison Committee and hereby expresses its
o0~itment to the expaditious implementation cf consolidation.
Vote: Unanimous
M~. Wa~en nominated Mr. William Scott, representing the
County at-large, to se~v~ cs the ~oard of Appeals for the
Virginia Uniform Statew~de Building Cede.
It was noted one te~ which will expire June 30, 1992,
representing the County at-large, would be carried over to t~e
Mr, COlbert nominated Ms. Yvette Ridley, r~pre$$nting the
county at-larg~, to serve on ~hs Capital Area Agency on Aging
Beard of Directors.
9ir. Barber nom~nat~ ~. eu~y Qunn, representing the county
CIT~Z~S TRANg~O~TA~0NAD~I~ORY CO~O~TTEE
Mr. Daniel n~inat~d Nr. Herbert Ri~wine, representing the
Advi=o~ Co~ttee.
It wa~ neted two te~s for alte~at=~ and one te~ e~irlng
June 30, 1992 representing ~a Co~ty at-large would be
carried over to th~ J~ ~4, 1992 Board Meeting.
Clove= Hill Di~%~iCt, tO tho Indumtriul Develo~ent Authority.
~idlothian District, to the In~ustrlal D~velopm~nt Authority.
Mr. Colb,rt n~mlnate~ Dr. Geo~e R. PaVia, representing ~e
cowry at-larqe, t0 se~m on the ~ohn ~ler Co~unlty College
Bua~.
Csunty et-large, to ~erve on the Social So,ices Board.
Mr. Warren nominated Mr. ~ichael Worthlngtonr r~preeenting the
County at-large, to serve on thc Social Services Bosrd.
Y0u'£n SE~IC~S CD~SSION
Mr. ~oHale nominated Miss Katie Jonson a~ the ~tudent
representing Thomas Dale High school and ~. Manuel Hidalgo,
cu~issioa.
Clovmr Hill District
Mr. Warren ~tated h~ wo~ld defer nominations of =he adult
repre~entmtlve and the ~tudent~ r~pr~se~ti~g Clover ~ill ~igh
Nr. Daniel numinat~d Kiss ~etty ~mrrett as the student
representing Lloyd C. Bird ~igh School to se~e on the Youth
It was note~ one te~ for a ~tudent e~irln~ June 30, 199~
representing ~eadowbrook Hig~ Se~001 would be curried over to
the June 24, 199~ Board meeting.
Mr. Cslbert stated he would ~e~er nominat~ons of ~ adult
representative and the ~tudent~ representing Manchester ~igh
co~ission.
Midlothian District
Mr. Barber nominated Mrs. Mufti Frank~ as the adult
representing Midlo~ian High School to se~e on the Y0u~
6 .K. DI~CT 'r~ ~-ANN/NG DEPARTMenT TO PR~PAR~ A ZO~XNG
ORD~AN~ ~ ~R~KATING AN ETTRICK ~ILLAGE O~ERIA¥
ZONE
z0~inq ordinance a~e~dment creating un Ettrick Village 0veri~y
indicated the request would involve additionml staff or the
delay of curren~ projects underway or ~chedulcd for F¥93.
When asked, he stated many citizens have expreng~d an interest
is a village svsrlay similar to thc Village of Chester and~ in
remponme, staff had prepared a proposal for Consideration of
i~pl~menta=ion at this time.
Mr. Ramsey clarified the request would be added as un
additional responsibility for the Planning Department
staff was recommending hiring additional temporury stuff to
prepare the plan, He noted funds would be transferred to the
Planning Department budget and staff was anticipating
transferring funds later in the year and ~he funds would be
from within the overall budget.
92-487 6/10/9~
Mr. McHale stated he felt this request could be included in
~ha proposed Community Development Block Grant Program and
oould be deferred until the Program wao considered by the
Board.
On motion of Mr. Mc~ale~ ~cond~d by ~r- B~rber, the Board
de£~rred dir~ting the Plannln~ Department to prepare a zonin~
ordinance amendment creating an ~tt~i~k Villag~ Overlay Zon~
until such time as the Community Development Block Grant
Program is considered by the BQard.
Vote: Unanimous
6.D. ~SENT IT~
6.9.1. ADOPTION OF A RF~OI/~TON ~CO~FfZING WS. J~AN P.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
a~oDte~ ~he followin~ re~olution:
~AS, Ms. Copeland wa~ Chai~an of ~ ~nfluent~al
~A$, M~, Copelmnd, a lifelong resident of
vol~teer activities to the ~ducatiun of yuung ~mo~le in our
~E~, ~S. Copeland se~ed competently and capably
to Ms, ~ean P. Copeland for her calm, intelligent and steady
the far-reaching decisions whi~ were made during ~at time.
SE~ P, COPE~D
~P~SENTZNG ~TOACA DIS~ICT
0~ ~otie~ of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. ~arber, t, he Board sat
the date Of J~e z4, ~992 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to
$1,549,000 in revenue and expenditures for hydrant rental
fire prutec=ioe an~ ~ayment in lieu of taxes in t~e General
~und and Utilities ~lnd.
92-488 6/10/92
on motion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Barber~ the Board set
the date of July 22, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. for a p~blic hearing to
consider the county's community Development BloCK Stent
Program.
Vote: Unaninou~
consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 21.1, Article III~
Division 2, of the Code of the Cowry of Chesterfield, 1978,
6.D.2.f. TO CONSIDER AN (~tDINANC~ TO AI~D Cl{A~'~u~ 10 OF '~l~
TIPPING FEES AT COUNTY
On motien of Mr. McHate~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the BO~ Set
the ~ate of July 22, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. £or a pu~lle hearing to
consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 10 of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 192S, as amen~ed~ ~y adding a new
Section 10-~9.1 relatinq to ~pecial tipping fees at County
landfitl~.
On motlen of MT. McHate, seconded by Mr. Barber, th~ Board
the date of July ~2, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. fur a public hearin~ to
consider sn ordinance to amend the Code of the County of
chesterfield, 1~7~, as amended, by amending Chapter 10 hy
amendinq A~ti~le VII, Section 10-40, relating to siting Of
soli~ waste mana~emen~ Saei~i~ies and addin~ Art~cl~ VIII
r=latlng to approval of wast~ material management and
disposal.
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, th~ Board
the ~ate of June 24, 1992 at ?:00 p.m. for a public hearing to
consider the conveyance of a 2.6 ± aer~ pa~eel of land in the
Airart Industrial Park to Pharmaceutical Packaging Services
and Supply, Inc. and to authorize the County Administrator to
enter into a sales contract.
Vute: Un=nimous
6/19/92
6.D.]. R~OU~$T FOR A I~HIT FOR A FIREWORF~ DISPLAY AT
g0UTffgIDR RPEEDWAY
On motion of Mr. McHale, ~econ~ed by Mr. ~erber, the Board
approved a request for a perm%it by Mr, Joseph Baldacei, Jr. to
stage a fireworks display at Sc~th~ide speedway, cn July 3,
1992, which re,est i~ subject to approval by the Fire
Department and the County Attorney's office.
Vote: Unanimous
6.D.4. STATE I~OADACClZ~TAN~
This day the Connty Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
direstlons from t~his Reard, made report in writing uDon his
~amlna~on of Roblou~ Cro~ing brlv~, ~oby~ Way~ ~dy Allison
~ne ~nd Lynngate ~ne in Queenspark, Section F, Midlo~]an
District,
Upon consideration whereof, a~d o~ ~otio~ of Mr. ~cHals,
seconded by ~. Barber, it i~ re~olved that Robiou~ Crozzing
Drive, Robys Way, ~dy Allison ~n~ and Lynng~=e L~n~ in
Queen,park, Section F, Midlotsian District, ~ eno t~ey ~reby
are established as public roads.
And b~ it further resolved, that ~e vir~inla Dmpartment o~
Transportation, be and it hereby is re~ested to take into the
Secondary SysUem, Robiou~ Crossing Drlv~ b~glnnlng at
northeasterly 0.06 mile to ~e ~n=~rsect~on w~th Roby~ Way;
Robys Way, beginning at the intersection with Robiou= Crcsslng
Dr~v~ and going southeasterly 0.10 mile to ~e interse=tion
wi~ Lady Allison Lane, then continuing southeasterly 0.27
~ile to the intersection with Lynn~at~ Lane~ th~n tu~nin~ and
~ne, begi~inq at th~ intersection with Robys Way and going
northeasterly 0.10 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.09
~ile to end in a c~l-de-sac; and L~ngate Lane, be~i~ing at
to e~d at ~ int~r~ection with Park Ridge Road, State Route
4082.
~is re,est is inclusive of the adjacent ~loDe, ~ight
distance, clear zon~ ~d d~ig~ated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
~ese roadm se~e 44 lots.
unrestricted right-of-way of 50' w~th n~ary ea~ent~ for
~ts, fills and drainage for all of ~ese roads.
~is section of Queenspark is recorded as follow=:
Section F. ~lat Book 69, Pages 45, ~6, & 47, 3anua~ 4, ~990.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Envlron~ental Engine=r, in accordance with
directions from this ~oard, made re~ort in writing upon his
~xamination of Deer Run Drive, Deer Run Lane, Deer Run Court,
Deer Run Circle, Deer Run Way, Deer Thicket Court, Dear
Thicket Lane~ Bu~k Rub Drive, B~ck Rub Place and Buck Rub Lane
in Deer Run, Section ~, ~atca=a District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of McHale, seconded
by ~ir. ~arher, it is resolved that Deer Run Drive, Deer Run
Lane, Deer Run Court, b~er Run Circle, Deer Run Way, Deer
Thicket court, ~eer Thicket Lane, Buck Rub Drive, Buck Rub
~2-490 6/iO/~Z
Place and Buck Rub ~an~ in Deer Run, Section 3, Matoaca
District~ bo and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Departn~ent of
Transportation, be and it hsreby is requested to take into the
secondary Systemj Deer Run Drive, beginning at existing Deer
Run Drive, State Route 4700, an~ going southerly 0.10 mile tu
the in=er~eotien wit/% Deer Run Lane, th~n turning and going
southwesterly 0.~7 mile to tie into existing Deer Ru~ Drive~
State Route 4700; Deer RUn Lane, beginning ut the intersection
with Deer Run Drive and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to
intersection with Deer Run Court, then contin~iDg
northwesterly 0.07 mile to the inter~ction with Deer Run
Circle, then continuing northwesterly 0.0~ mile tQ e~d
cul-de-sac. Again, Dear Run Lane, beginning at
intersection with Deer Run Drive and go~ng easterly 0.05 mile
to the intersection with Door Run Way, then continuing
easterly 0.11 mile to end ~n a cul-de-sac; Deer sun Court,
beginning at the intersection with Deer Run Lane and going
northerly 0.11 mile to ~nd i~ a e~l-de-~ac: Deer Run Circle,
beginning at the interssstion with Deer Run Drive and going
northerly 0.0§ mile to smd in a cul-de-sac; Deer Run Way,
beginning at the intersection with Deer Run Lane and going
northeasterly 0.06 mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; Deer Thicket
Court, beginning et existing Deer Thicket Court, State Ro~te
number to be assigned, Antler Ridge, section 1, and going
northeastsrly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Deer Thicket
Lane, beginning at existing Dear Thiokol Lane, State Route
number to be assigned, Antler Ridge, Section l, and going
northeasterly Q.07 mile to en~ in a cul-de-sac; Bu~k
Drive, beginning at existing Buck Rub Drive, State Route 471~,
and going southwesterly 0.02 mile to the ~nter~ee%ion with
Buck Rub Place, then continuing southwesterly 0.~1 milo ~O the
interse==ion with ~uck Run Lane~ then continuing southwesterly
0.04 mile to the intersection with Deer Run Drive, State Route
47Q0, than cont~nulng ~onthwesterly ~.13 m~le to end at
existing Buck Rub Drive, State Route 4919; Buck ~ub
beginning at t~e intersection with Buck Rub Drive and going
northerly 0.0~ mil~, the~ ~urning and going northeasterly 0.05
to end in a cul-de-sac; and Buck R~b L~nu, beginning at the
intersection with Buck Rub Drlva and going northerly 0.04
m~le, then turning and going northeasterly 0.0~ mile to end in
This rec~uest is inclusive of the adjacent slope, ~ight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department Of
Transportation drainage easements.
And be it further resokved, ths~ the ~ssr~ of $~pe~visor~
guarantees to the Virginia Department oS Transportation as
unrestrluted right-el-way of so' with necessary easements for
cut~, fill~ and drainage for all of there road= e~oopt Deer
Run Drive whleh haza 60 - 80' variable width right-of- way.
This section of Deer Run is recorded as follows:
Section 3. Plat Book 62, Page9 17, 18, and 19, June 10,
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
directicn~ fre~ this Board, ~ade repe~t in w~iting upon his
examination of citation Drive, Belmont stakes Drive, Kentucky
Derby DriVe, Belmont Stakes Place, Gallant Fox Drive, Deer Run
Drive, Gallant FOX CO~rL, Qallant FOX Plase~ and Buck Rub
Circle in Triple Crown, ~ectio~ ~, ~ateaea District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. McHale,
seconded by Mr. barber, it is resolved that citation Drive,
Belmont Stake5 Drive, Kentucky Derby Driv~ Belmont Stakes
Plae~, Gallant Fox Drive, Deer Run Drive, Gallant Fox Court,
Gallant Fox Place, and Buck Rub Circle i~ Triple Crown,
Section 2, l~atoaca District~ be and t~ey hereby are
established as public roads.
Aad be it further re~clved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Citation Drive, beginning at existing
Citation Drive, State Route 49~5, and going easterly 0.04 mile
to the intersection with Belmont Stakes Drive, then esntinuing
easterly 0.14 mile to end at the intersection with Kentucky
Derby Drive: Belmont S=akes Drive, beginning at. the
interne=rich with Citation Drive an~ going northerly 0.0~ mile
te ~_he inter~eetio~ With Belmont Stakes Place, then continuing
northerly 0.~ mil~ to th~ inter~ct]on ~ith ~allant Fox
D~iYe, then continuing northerly 0.07 mile to the intersection
with Deer Run Drive; Kentucky D~rby brive, b~ginning at
intersection with citation Drive and going northerly 0.02 mile
to end at prepose~ Kentucky Derby Drive, An=Ier Ridge, section
6. Again, Kentucky Derby Drive~ ~eginning at the i~terseotion
with Citation Drive and going southerly 0.03 mile to end in a
dead end; B¢Imont Stakes Place, beginning at the intersection
with Belmont Stakes Drive and going ea=terly ~.07 mile to end
~n a cul-de-sac; ~allemt Fox Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Belmont Stakes Drive and going easterly 0.07
mile to the intersection with Gallant Fo~ Court~ then
continuing easUerly 0.01 mile to end at Drepssed Gallant Fox
Drive, Antler Ridge, Section 5; De~r Run Drive, b~girLning at
the intersection with Belmont Stakes Drive and going westerly
0.~0 mile to the intersection with Buck Rub Drive, State ~out~
4713. Again, Deer Run Drive, beginning at the intersection
with Belmont Stakes Drive and going easterly 0.01 mile to end
at proposed Deer Run Drive, Deer Run, Section 6; Gallant Fox
Court, beginning at the intersection with dallant Pox Drive
and going southeasterly 0.08 ~ile to the intersection with
Gallant Fox Place, then continuing southeasterly o.os mile to
end in a oul-de-sae~ Gallant ~ox Place~ beginning at
intersection wi~h Gallant Fox Ccur~ and going easterly 0.~3
mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; and Buck Rub Circle, beginning at
the intersection with ~uck Rub Drive, State Route 4713, and
going easterly 0.04 mile to end in & cul-de-sac.
This request is incluslve of the adjacent slope, sight
~ietanse, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
The~e roads serve 99
And be it further resolvedt that the Boar~
guarantees to the Virginia Department cf Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of SO' with necessary easements for
~uts, fills and drainage for ali of these roads except for
Deer Run Drive which has a ~0' right-of-way.
Thi~ s~ctlon of Triple Crown is reoorde~ as' follows:
Section 2. Plat ~ok ~, Pages 27, 2~, and 29, December 9,
on motion of McHule, seconded by Y ir. Barber, the Board amended
the County's Risk ~anagement Plan to affor~ coverage for
Chesterfield-Colonial ~eiqhts Crime Solvers and its member~
when acting in their official capacity by assisting the
chesterfield Police Department in investigating crime in the
C~unty, (It is noted if the General Assembly ~ran~s statutory
6/x0/92
immnnity to Crime Solvers at the 1992 General Assembly, Crime
Solvers would be removed from the County's Risk Management
Vote: Unanimous
I~.r~TATElP~tTNARY RIX YEAR IMPR0~IENT P~
0H ~OtiO~ of Mr. MeHale, ~econded by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved a statement regarding t~e Virginia D~par~en~
Tran~port~tion'~ (~0T) Tentative FY-93 Allocatlon~ and
Interstate/Prima~ Six Y~r Improvement Progr~. (I~ is noted
u copy of th~ mtat~ent i~ filed with the papers of thim
Vote: Unanimous
6.D.?. AWAI~D OF WASTEWA'r~ CONT~AC~ FOR x~J~ CONST~UC~ION OF
PU~PSTATION
On motion of Mr. McKale, saconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
awarded Wastewater Contract No. 88-0132, to ~. Hammer Gay and
Company, inc., for the oonstruotion of hh~ James Rivsr Trunk
Sewer Pro, eot - Michaux Creek Pump Station, in the amount of
$1,§10,O0O-00, add authorized th~ County Administrator to
execute the necessary documents. (It is noted said fund~ for
this facility are appropriated in ~hs current capital
Improvement Program.)
vote: Unanimoum
A~PTANCES OF PARCEI~ OF ~
ALONG ~u~)RD ~DAD FROM ~N AIR I~%PTIS? ~RUR~
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by M~. Ba~be~, th~ Board
accepted, on b~half Of the County, the conYeyanca of a parcel
of land containln~ 0.075 acre along B~fcrd Road from Ben
Baptist Church and authorized the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of t~e plat
is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
On motion cf ~r. MsHale~ seconded by Hr. Barbe~, th~ B~ard
accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyanc~ 0f a parcel
of land containing 1.647 ao~e~ along 01d Hundred Road from
Brandermill Country Club Limited partner=hip and authorized
the County Adm~nlstrator to execute the necessary deed. (It
is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the paper~ of this
Board.}
Vote: Unanimous
ASSOCIATES
On marion of Mr. McHele, seconded by Hr, Barber, the ~oard
aeoepted, un behalf of the County, the sonveyance of a parcel
of land containing 8.55 acre aloDg Woodpecker Road and Hickory
Rea~ £rom F~oaea Associates and authorized the County
6/10/92
copy of the plat ie filed with the papere of thie Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
FROM
CORI~JP. AT~ON
On notion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. ~arber, the Board
accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a paroeI
of land =ontainlng 7.48§ acre~ from Mulberry Corporation for
Bra~de~s C~eek Drive and additional right-of-way along Route
10 and Carver Heights Drive an4 authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It i~ noted
DAVIS HIGHWAY FRO~ PAT~IL HOHE$. I/NC_
On motion of }ir. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
accepted, on behalf of the county, the conveyance of a Darnel
of land containing 0.013 acre along Jefferson Davis ~i~hway
fro~ Patwil Homes, Inc. and authorized the County
Administrator to e~ecute the necessary de~d. (It i~ noted a
cop~ of the plat is filed with the paper~ of th~s Board.)
~ota: Unani~o~
6.D.9. I~OUEST FOR B!NGO/I~A~FLE ~
On motion of F~r. ~cHale, seconded by ~r. Barber. the ~oard
approved a raffle permit for Chesterfield Special Ol~pic~ for
~alendar y~ar 199~,
Vote: Unanimou~
6.D.10. ~T BY ~FAV~lqX~y ~"~TIT,~C, INC. TO ~TCLAI~ A SI)~TY
FOOT AND VARIABLE WTIY15~ WA'2'~ ~ ~EWER F~SEM]~T
ACROSS A ~O~TIO~ OF CROSS STREET
On motion of Mr. ~c~ale~ ~eoonded by ~r- Barber, th~ ~oard
au~-hcrizad the Chairmen of the Board and the County
Administrator to execute a quitclaim d~e~ to vacate a ~i×ty
foot and variable width water and sewer easement across
Inter,em Corporation. (It is noted a copy of the v~cln~ty
~ote: Unanlmou~
1978.
SET ~ATE FOR A mu~[,IC ]~J~IN~ TO ~ON~IDEI~ AN
USES WHICH HAY BE .z~.,T~w~v BY CONDITIONAL USE
Mr. Daniel stated ~ ordinance relating generally =o pet~,
re.est by Jim Andelin and, therefore, ~e felt ~e ordinanue
should be baaed at 7:00 p.m. rather than 3:00 p.R, and
scheduled on the agenda concurrently with the zoning re~e~t.
92-494 6/10/92
He noted a rsquest by ~aul and Virginia Specter was also
~elated and at the appropriate time, he would con~id~r
clarified although the public hearing would be advertlned for
7:00 p.m., it would be ~cheduled on the agenda prior to Case
different requests and should be considered as separate
Mr, Daniel stated the proposed Zoning Ordinance a~ndment
modified the definition o~ stock ~arm and since both requests
requssts should Ds considersd at the sams rims.
on metlon of Mr. Daniel, eeuonded by Mr. Warren, the Board net
ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Uhesterfield,
197~, aE amended, by amending and reenacting Sections
~.1-~6, ~.1-97, ~1.~-106, ll.~-iOB, ~1,1-113, 21,1-134 and
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and reenact~n~
Sections 21.~-47, Z1.1-54, 21.1-61, 21.1-65, 21.1-75, 21.1-82,
21-1-29, 21.1-97, 21.1-10§, 21~1-I13, 21,1-120, 21.1-127,
21.1-1~4, 21.1-141, 21.1-148, 21.1-155, 21.1-1~2, 21.I-169,
USeS which may he allowed by conditional use. (It wa~ noted
7.A. ~OINTM~NTS
On motion of Mr. MoRale, seconded by ~5r. Warren, the Board
Suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/
appointment at ~hi~ time of Mr. Gerald F. B~lman, repres~2ing
Be~uda District, and Ms. Julia Lydiard, representing Matoaca
District to se~e on the C~le Television ~ranchise Renewal
Co~ittee.
0n ~otio~ of ~. ~oKale, seooRded by Mr. Colbert, the ~u~
nom~nated/agpointed Mr. Gerald F. Holman, representing
Dist~iCt, a~d MS. J~lia Lydiard, representing Matonca
Co~ittee, whose te~ are effective i~ediately and will
at ~e ~laasur= of the
Vote: Unanlmou~
U~E OF PUBIJC ~CHOOI~ FOR
Mr, Micas stated upon adoption
the Board of Supervisors became
facilities within the County
Supervisors and School Board
which re~uired both Board~ to
non-school uses. He further
adopted an anended policy for
~ 1992/93 SCHOOL kq~H
of the County Charter in 1988,
the titled owner sf all Eohool
and in 1990, thc Board of
approved a School use policy
annually approve the types of
statsd the Sshool ~oard had
the 1992/93 ~chool yea~ which
continues the existing policy to encourage effective p~blio
use of school faciliti~ and to prevemt unreasonable
6/10/92
competition with the private sector. Re indicated use rates
5ave Been increased for ps,lads afte~ 10:00 D.m, on weekday~
and weekends and use of the schools by dance studios for
recitals Would bt permitted ut certain times. He noted if the
Board desired to approve the policy, staff was recommending
thr%s minor changes and for those recommended change~ to be
returned to the School Board for their consideration.
Discussion, nomments and ~ue~tions en~ued relative to the fee
schedule for the use of Matoeca ~igh School; whether the ~MCA
Day-care program would be affected by the change~ ~n the
policy; end the use of the $chesls after 10:00 p.m. on
week,aye and weekends.
Mr. DaBiel instructed staff to define the days of the week and
hour~ for the ~e Cf ~chooI~,
~i~¢~ssion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the
writte~ policy and its intention and whether proceeds
collected for erects, such as th~ dance recitals, oo~ld be
returned to the school since they are non-profit.
On motion of F~r. Warren, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
deferred consideration of a proposed policy regulating
non-school ume of public schools for the 1992/93 school year
%u~%il June 24, 1992.
Vote: Unanimous
7-c- MT~3u~r~X~TIRJT~LATIONCOSTA~t~n731~
Mr. W~rren in.ired as to ~ ~ta~u~ oS ~treetli~ht
installation re~e~t~ for Clarendon and South Ridge
S~ivi~ions an~ re~ested staff to prepare an update on
p~nding ~tr~etlight installation re~est~ for Clover Hill
On ~otlon of ~. Warrmn, seconded by Mr. ~cHale~ thm ~oard
defe~ed consideration of the following streetlight
installation cost approvals, in the Clov~r ~11 Magisterial
District, until J~e 24, 1992:
Intersectlcn of Red Chestnut Court and Red Chestnut
Drive
* Mid-point of R~d ~e~tnut ~iv~
7.U. TO CONSIDE~ ~XNG '~'~ ZONING O~DI~ANCE REIATIV~ TO
~T~TNINATIN~ INCONSISTeNCiES B~TW~N C~%X-i'~ zl ~ 21.1
AND f~%P~T~Y~I~ ~O~IN~ l~m [~J~A'~[K 21.1
%-/LT~G~ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ANb
Mr. Daniel stated the Board had held a p~blie hearing on May
13~ 199~ in which p~bliO ¢O~ment had been received regarding
the zoning srdinance amendment. Re noted the public he~ring
had been ¢105~d and ~onsidexatien ts adopt the Plannin~
Commission's reco~I~e~datio~ had b~en deferred to this date and
ti~e,
~r- Pools stated staff had met with members oB the Chester
Advisory Committee aBd the Committee agreed to the proposed
changes with two modifications. He further eta=ed the
Committee reco~k~ended ~Odif~ing notification to adjacent
property owners to make it easier for the applicant to obtain
information and instead of having conditional use permits in
Chester for ell uses with drive-in windows, the= a condi~i0nal
92-496 6/10/9~
use be required only for restaurants with drive-in windows.
He noted staff recommended the Board adopt the ordinance
May 13, 1992, as amended by the Chester Advisory Committee.
Mr. McHale made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the
relative to eliminating inoonslsten¢ies between Chapters
and 21.1 and clarifying wording in C~upter 21.1 and revising
~e village ~evelo~ment ~tandar~s and outdoor advertlsln~ mign
standards.
There was brief discussion regarding a letter sent to the
Board me. ers from Hands Across the Lake.
Mr, Daniel called fo~ t~e vote on t~e motion made by M~.
M~Hale, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the ~oard =0 a~op= Che
following ordinance:
~ ORDINANCE
AJ~ENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTIN~ SECTIONS 21.1-224,
21.~-227, 21.1-237.2, 21.1-140, 21.1-Z55.2, 21.1-255.4,
21.1-2~6, 21.1-2~7, 21.1-2~7.1, 21.1-270.1, 21.1-27~ and
21.1-281 REVISING THE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STAi~DARDS AND
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS
~ IT ORDAIneD ~y the Bsar~ of Snpei"vieor~ of
Chesterfield County:
THAT Sections 21.1-2~4, ~1.1-2~0, 21,1-~55,~,
21.1-255.5~ 21.1-255.6~ 21.1-255.7~ 21.1-955.8,
21.1-29~, 21.1-270.1, 21.1-275 and 21.1-251 of chapter 21.1 of
the Code of the Coont~ of Chesterfield. 1978, as amended, are
amended and reenacted as follows:
ARTICLE 4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COUNTYWIDE.
DIVISION 3. LANDSCAPING.
aec. 91.1-~. Plant ~aterials ~9ecifications.
(g) Perimeter Landscaping. Landscaping ~hall be
required a~ =he outer ~o~ndaries of projects or in the
required yards of a lot or parcel or development and ~ha11 be
provided except where driveways or other openings ~ay be
required. There ~hall be different landscaping roq~irement~
in yarde and parking areas as identified herein and in the
parti~lar districts, which shall be provided as follow~:.
(7) P~rim=t~r L~ndscaping E.
a. At least one (1) large deciduous tree for each
fifty (50) lineal feet and at leas~ one (1} evergreen
tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet; and
b. At least one (1) small deciduous tree for every
thirty (30) lineal feet; and
c, At least one (1) medium shrub for every five
(5) lineal feet, or continuous hedge fol'ms for the enti~e
lot width, no ~horter than three (3) f~et at planting or
wall for the entire lot width, no shorter than three (3)
feet and no taller than four (4) feet, ; and
d. Low ground cover reasonably disDsrsed
throughout.
(8) Perimeter Landscaping F.
a. At lea~t one (1) large de¢iduou~ tree for each
fifty (50) lineal feet and at least one (I) evergreen
tree ~er each thirty (30); and
b. At least one (1) suall deciduous tree for every
thirty (30) lineal feet; and
c. Continuoes hedge fo~ms for the ent~e lot
width, nc shorter than three (3) feet at planting or a
co~ti~uous wood screening fence for the entire lot width,
no shorter than five (5] feet and no taller than six
feet, or a continuous masonry screening wall constructed
of the same ~aterials used in the buildings, however, in
no case shall the screening wall be constructed of
unadorned cinder block ~er the entire lot width, no
mhorter than five (~) feet and no taller than six
d. Low shrubs and
dispersed throughout.
¢9% P~rim~ter LandecaDinc G.
a. At least one (1) large deciduous tree for
each fifty (50) lineal feet: and
b. Continuoue hedge forms, ne ~horter than
thr~e (~) feet at planting, for the entire parking
lot width~ and
e. Low shrubs and ground cover reasonably
dispersed ~hrough out.
DIVISION 4. BUFFERS AND SCREENING.
See. 21.1-227. General Provi~ion~ for Buffer~ and $creeni~q.
(j) Except for buff~r~ required by the Board of
Supervisors as a condition of zoning or by the Board cf Zoning
Appeal~ the r~quirement~ for b~ffers and soreeninq may be
waived and/er me~flad during site plan review and approval
~nder any of the following
(1) When the adjacent lot is in an R District and
is vacant, it u~e ~hall be considered as residential
much lot for no~reside~tial
(2) When the parcel i~ located within the Chester
Village Area, adjacent property i~ not ~esignated by the
Plan fe~ single family land us~ end the requirements of
Section 21.1-25~.~ have been met.
92-498 6/iO/DZ
ARTICLE 5. DEVELOPMENT ~QUI~NT$.
R~SIDENTIAL, ~QWNNOUSE RESIDENTIAL;
AGRICULTURAL
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY. DEVELOP~4ENT
REQUIREMENTS -- COUNTYWIDE.
$~e. Z1.1-237.2. Arehltectural Standards -- Agrig9.1tural~
Remide~tial. Townhouse Residen~i.al. and
Multi-Family Residential in Village
Districts.
All structures except residencem and their ~Oee~$O~y
structures shall comply with the architectural standards set
forth in Section 21.1-255.7.
ARTICL~ 6. DRVELO~NT REOUIRE~r~NTS. OFFICE.
COMI~ERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY. D~VELO~4ENT
REQUIREMENTS -- COUNTYWIDE.
Sec. 21.1-240. Exterior Lighting,
All exterior lights ~hall be arranged and installed se
that the direct or reflected illumination doe~ not e~cee~
~oet candle~ above background measured at the lot line cf any
adjoining agricultural, residential, residential townhouse, or
residential multi-family district. Except in Village
Districts where light ~tandard$ may be required to be
cum~ati~Ie with unique arnhltactural styles, lighting
standards shall be of a directional type capable of shielding
the light source from direct view from any adjoining
agricultural, reside]ntial, residential townhouse,
residential multi-family dlstr~ct or public right of way.
Note: See Section ~1-1-2~$.4(~) fo~ additional lighting
r~q~iraments in Village Di~tri~t~.
D~VISION 4. DEVELOPMENT I~EOUIREMENTS--
VILLAGE DISTRICT
Se~. ~1.1-2~$.2. Areas o£ADDlieabilitZ and Examptlcn~.
The village District shall include all lande &~ ep~eified
herein:
(c) Chester Village Cor~, co,pti=ed cZ all that area
bounded by the eamtern, proper~y line ef TaM Map 115-2 (1)
Parcel 10; by the northeastern pre~erty llne of Tax Map
(1) Parcel 4; by Buckingham Street (Route 1506); by Shop
~treet (Route 1~07); by Harrowgata Road (Route 144); by school
Street (Route 1508); by Percival Street (Route 1510); by
Dedomeade Street (Route 1S0~); by the Atlantic coast Line
right of way; by the northwestern property line of Tax Nap
115-7 (2) Cheater, Block ~2, Lot 410; by win~rea S~ree% (Route
1515)~ by Chester Road (Rout~ 144]; by the northern preper~y
lin~ of Tax Kap 11~-7 (~) Parcel 50; Dy the eastern and
northern property linea of Tax Nap 115-7 (1) Parcel 49~ and by
the A~lantic Coast Line right of wa~ (all suld Tax Map Parcels
being those shown on the Tax A~$essor's Map July 1, 1989); and
being ~he same area shown on the map entitled Che~ter village
92-499 6/10/92
Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Depar~ent
and dated July 1, 1989, incorporated by reference.
sec. 2~.l-z~s.4. Exceptional Development Standards.
(ap Parking. Parking requirements in the Village
District for i~door co~ereial recreational facilities~
self-service gasoline stations, office buildings cf up to
26,500 eg~are feet, restaurants i~cl~ding fast food
drive-in restaurants, retail steres, personal services, repair
sho~sr banks, greenhousesr nursery ssntersr and la%rn and
garden centers shall be based on the requirement~ for shopping
centers or similar ~eta~l groups of bu~ldinqs as set forth by
public right of wa~ may be counted toward the number of
parking spaces so required , when more t~han one-half (1/2) of
eacl% such space adjoins the site; such off-site parking spaces
shall not be subject to Section 21.1-220 of this chapter.
Further, the required number of parking spaces may be reduced
by 10% ~ the development eonta~n~ a ~idewalk or other
pedestrian walkway system that connect~ to existing walk-ways
or ~na: may be connected to future walk,aye. All other
requirements of Article ~, Division ~ shall apply as
described.
Is) External Lighting. ~xcept for l~-~ps attached to
building, the maximum height for lamp posts shall be twenty
(20) feet. All requirements of Section 21.1-240 shall apply.
La~ps attac~had to a building ~hall be no highe~ than the
toe,line ur para,et wall.
(dp Street Lighting. within the Chester village Areas,
street lighting shall be required of all new or expanded
prsjects except £er single ~amily dwellings. Stree~ light
fixtures~ poles and l~a~p ty~es shall be consistent along any
given street. Selected street lights shall be of a design in
keeping with the small scale, pedestrian oriented character of
the village and ~hall be o0~patible with e~ie=ing and
anticipated development. Final selection shall be made during
site plan approvals. Fixture ~ount~ng height~ ~hall be twelve
(1~) feet above th~ adjacent elevation along Route 10, Chester
Road and ~arrowgate Road and ten (10) feet above the adp¢
street elevation along all uther streets. Street lights shall
be i~stalled eighty (80] feet on center unless physical
constraints preclude this spacing, in which case, alternative
spacing may be permitted through ~ite plan approvals.
(e) Street tree planting, within the chester Village
Areas, it is the in=ant of Perimeter Landscaping ~, as
de=aila~ in section ~1.1-224 (g) (9), to re,ire the
installation of street trees ts increase the aesthetic appeal
of the Village, encourage high quality develep~ent~ provide
shade for ped~strian~ a~d impruv~ the quality oX the
environment. To this end, the following standard~ shall be
met when utilizing Perimeter L~ndscaping G:
(1) ~rees shall be installed behind the sidewalk.
If it i~ determined through the ~ite plan process to be
impractical to install trees behind the Sidewalk, they
~ay be installed between the street a~d the sidewalk. If
overhead utility lines are located behind the sidewalk,
the t~u~s shall be installed behind the utility line, if
practical. If it is determined through the site plan
process to be impractical to install la,ge deciduou~
trees due to conflicts with utility lines er other
existing improvements, small deciduous trees may be
skf~stituted at a ratio ~f one (1) tree for each thirty
(30) lineal feet of frontage.
(2) Tress installed shall be suitable for uae as
street trees and shall be selected for their ability to
survive under adv0rse growing conditions as well as their
aesthetic value.
(3) While the intent of ~i~ section
require a aiogle species to be planted throughout the
ontiro village, the Director of PlanNing may ret/sire a
particular ~peciee in a partionlar loeatio~ based on
(f) The minimum acreage requirements $~% Xor~h in
Sections 21.1-99 (i) and ~1.1-107 (a) for R~eidential-
Town/~ouge and ~u~ti-Family EosidentiaI Zoning Dis=rises shall
not apply within the Chester Village Areas.
Sec. 21.1-255.5. Setback Requlrement~ for 0 and C
(a) Midlothian Villaqe Core. The maximum and mini~m
setbacks for all buildings, drives~ and surface and deck
parking areas shall be as
(b) Midis=blah Village Prinqe. The
all buildings, drives, and surface and
~hall b~ a~ follow~:
minimum ~ethauk for
deck parking areas
(¢) Reserve.
(d) Ch~ter Village Corridor East. The minimum s~tback
for ~11 b~il~ings, drives, and surface and deck parking areas
shall be as follows:
(1) Setbacks alonq major arterlalm.
for hnildlnge, shall be twenty-five (~5) feet with
provi~ion of laDd$oaping in a~¢ordanee with
Perimeter Landscaping G.
b. The mini~ setbac~ along major arterials,
for drives and parking areas, shall be twenty-five
(25) feet with the provision of landscaping in
accordance with Perimeter Lan~uaping G.
(2) Front setbackm.
a~ The ~imimum front setback along rights of
way other than major ar~eriala, for buildings, shall
be twenty-five (25) fe~t with provi~ion of
landscaping in accordance with Perimet6r Landscaping
h. The minimum front s~tback along rights of
way ot~sr than major arterials, for drives and
parking area~, ~hall be twenty-flv~ (25) feet with
the provision of landscaping i~ aCCordance with
rights Of way other than major arterials, for
buildings, shall b~ twenty-five (25) feet with th=
provision of landscaping in acc0r~a~oe with
.......... ti L I ~ , I ............... L .............
to fifteen (15) feet with the provision cf
landscaping an accordance with Perimeter Lsndzca~icg
G, when the lot is hack to back with another corner
lot.
b. The minimu~ corner e/de setback along
rights of way other than major arterials, ~or drives
and parking area~, shall be twenty-five (25) feet
with t2~e provision of landscaping in accordance with
Perimeter Landscaping G, and may be further reduced
to fifteen (15) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with 9er/meter Landscaping
G, when the let is back to back with another corner
lot.
(4) Side setbacks.
a. Except as cored below, the m/nlmu~ s/de
zetback~ for buildingsr shall be seven and one-half
(?.5) feet with provision of landscaping in
accordance with Peri~ete~ Landscaping B. When
abutting an O, C, or I District, the minimum se%back
~hell be ~ere (0) feet. When ~butting ether
9roRert¥ designated by the Chester Village Plan for
nOn-single family residential land us~s, the minimum
setback shall be ~even end ese-half (? 1/~) feet
unless waived by the Director of Planning at the
request of the adj=uent property owner, in which
(0) feet provided there are no openings in the wall
b~ilt along the property line. Vacant property
located within the area designated by the Chester
Village Plan as ~'mix~d use: neighborhood off/ce and
single family residential" shall be considered a
non-single family residential land use regardless cf
~he zoning of the parcel.
b. Except as noted below, the minimum side
seven and one-half (7.5) feet with the prevision of
F. When abutting an O, C, or I District, the
minimum ~etbatk shall be zero (0) feet. When
abutting other property designated by the General
Plan for non-single family residential land usam,
the minimum setback shall be zero (0) feet, however,
if the a~jaoen~ ~ro~sr%y is osoupie~ ~y a residence,
a eelid screen or fence at least four (~) feet high
shall b~ installed unless waived b~ the Director of
Planning at the reg,,st Of the adjacent property
owner. Vacant property located wlth~n the area
desigeate~ by the Che~ter ¥ill~g~ Plan ae "mixed
use: nelgkborheod cfflce an~ mingle fsm/ly
residential" shall ~e considered a non-single family
residential land uae regardless ef ins zoning of t~e
parcel.
Rear ~etback~.
a. Except as noted below, the mlnlmu~ rear
setback, for buildings, shall be twenty-five (~5)
feet with provision 0£ land~caplmg in accordance
with Per~meter Landscaping B. When abutting an 0,
C, er I District, the minimum setback shall he zero
(o) feet. When abutting ether prop=r%~ designated
by th~ Chester Village Plan for non-single family
residential la~d uses, tho minimum s~tback shall be
twenty-five (25) feet unless waived by the Direotor
of Planning at the request of the adjacent property
owner, in which case the minimum setback shall be
reduced to zees (0) feet provided there are so
openings in the wall built along =he property line.
6/10/92
Vacant property located within the area designated
by the C~ester Village ~lan az "mixed use:
shall be considered a non-single family resldontial
b. EReept as noted below, the minim~ rear
setback, £0r drives and parking areas, shall be
twenty-five (25) feet with the provi~ion of
lmndscaplng ~n accordance with Perimeter Landscapin~
B. ~owever, the minimum setback may be reduced to
seven and one-half (7.5) feet with the provision Of
landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping
F. When abutting an O, C, or I District, the
minimum ~etba~k shall ~e zero (0) £ee~, When
aborting other property designated by the Che~ter
viIlage Plan for non-single ~a~ily resided%iai land
~ses~ the minimum setback shull be zero (0) feet,
however, if the adjaoen~ proper~y is occu~ied by a
residence, a solid screen or fence st least four (4)
£u~t high shall ~s installed unless walve~ by the
Director of Planning at the request of the adjacent
prsperty owner. Vacant property located within the
area designed by the Chester village Plan as "mixed
use: neighborhood office and ~ingle
residential" shall be considered a non-single family
residential land use regardless of the zoning of the
parcel.
(6) Setbacks for qasoline pumD~. T~e setbacks for
gasoline p~p~ a~d drives serving gasoline pu~p islands
~hal~ be the ~ame a~ th0~e for drives and 9arklng areas
as required in paragraphs (1) through (5) above.
(e) Che~ter Village Core. The minimum ~etbsck for all
buildings, drives, and sursace and duck parkin~ areas sh~ll be
~s follows:
(1) Setbacks alo~...~njor arterials.
a. Tho ninimum setback along major
for buildings, shall be ten (10) feet. Landscaplnq
shall be provided within the ~etback iR
with ~erlmetsr Land,taping G.
b. The minimum setback along major arterials,
for drives and parking areas, shall be the front
line sf thc building with the least setback on the
lot, but no~ lees than ten (10) feet. Landscaping
shall be provided within the setback in accordance
with Perimeter Land~caplng d.
c. If there i~ ne building on the let, the
minimum setback for drive~ and Darklng areas shall
be ten (~0) feet. Landscaping snell be provided
within the setback in uccordance with Perimeter
Landscaplng G.
~. In urder to provide a drive circulating in
front of m building which houses a drive~thr~
window, the minimum setback for snch a dr~ve (but
not for parking areas) shall be three (3) feet with
provision of landscaping in accordance with ~1.1-224
(g) (9) 0 When the building is setback fifteen
feet. If the buildin~ setback is increased beyond
fifteen (15) feet~ ~%he in=reused setback shall he
utilized for landscaping or pedestrian circulation
unless the drive ~etback shall be inorease~ by
like amount.
(2) F~ont and corner side sethackm. The front and
corner mldo metback~ alQng roads other than majer
a~rials shall be the same as those required along major
(3) Side setbacks. Except as noted below, the
minimum side setback for buildings, 4rives, and barking
areas shall be twenty-five (25) feet with the provision
of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping
A; this setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with
provision of landncaping in accordance with Perimeter
Landscaping B. When abutting an O, C, or I District,
the mininum ~®tback shall be zero (0) feet. When
abutting other property designated by the chester Village
Plan for non-single fm~ily residential land risen, the
minimum s=tback for buildings shall be seven and one-half
(7 1/~) feet unless waived by the Director of Planning at
thc request cf the adjacent property owner, in which case
the minimu~ setback shall be ~ed~ced to ~ero (0) feet
provided there are nc openings in the wall built along
the p~operty line. When abutting othe~ property
designated by the Chester village Plan for non-single
family residential land uses, the minimum setback for
drives and parking areas shall be zero {0) feet, however,
if t_he adjacent property is occupied by a re=idence, a
~elid ~ereen er fence at least four (4) feet higB shall
be inmtalled unlegg waived by ~/~a Director of Planning at
the re~uest of the adjacent property o~ner. Vacant
property 10eared within the area ~esignated by the
CheBter Village Plan an "mixed uno: neighborhood office
and single family r~sidential" shall be considered a
non-single fanily residential land use regardless of the
zoning of the parcel.
(4) Rear setbacks. ~xcept as noted below, the
minimum rear setbacks for buildinga, drivea, and parking
areas shall be twcntyfive (25) fee~ with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A;
thi~ setback may be reduced ts ten (10) feet with
p~isio~ of lands=aping in accordance with Per~neter
Landscaping B. W~en abutPin~ an O~ C, or I District,
the minimum setback shall be zero (0) feet. When
abutting other property dseignated by ~he Chanter Village
Plan for non-single family residential land u~e~, the
~inimum setback for buildings shall be twenty-five (25)
feet unle~ waived by the Director of Planning at the
request of the adjacent property ew~er~ in which case the
provided there are no openings in the wall built along
the property line. When abutting other ~ro~erty
designated by the Chenter Village Plan for non-single
fa~ily residential land uses, the minimum setback for
driven and parking areas shall be zero (9) fest, however,
i~ the adjacent property is occupied by a residence, a
solid screen or fence at least four (4) fset high shall
be installed unlsss wai¥~d by the Director of Planning at
property located within the area designated by the
Chester vi]iago Pla~ as "mixed use: n~igb_borhood office
and ~imgle £amily residential" shall be considered a
non-single f~ily reaidential land use regardless of the
(5) Setbacks for ~asoline Dames. The setbacks for
gasoline pump~ and drives serving gasoline pump i~lands
an re~i~ed in paragraphs (1) through (4) above.
(f) Chester Villao~ F~img~ ~a~t, Chester Vitlaqe Fringe
West. The minimu~ setback ~or all buildings, drives, and
surface and deck parking areas shall be a~ follows:
(1) Setbacks along major art~rialn. The minimum
~etback along major arterials, for buildings, driwes and
92-~04 6/10/92
parking ar~as, shall b~ tw~nty-fiv~ i~) fee~. L~ndscap-
lng shall be provided within the ~etback in accordance
with P~ri~te= Land~aplng G.
(2} Front and corner side setbacks. The front and
corner side setbacks along roads other than major
arterials shall be the same as those required along major
arterials.
minimum side setback for buildings, drives, and parking
areas shall be thirty (30) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with ~erimeter ~andscaping A.
~owever, the minimum side setback ~y be reduced to ten
(10) feet with ~rovision of landscaping in acoordance
with Perimeter I~asdscaplng B, except when adjacent to any
R, R-TH, R-MF, and A District. W~eu ab~tting an O~ C~ or
I Di~tr~ct, the minimum ~etback ~hall be zero (0) feet.
When abutting other property designated by the Chester
Village Plan for non-single family residential land uses,
the ~inimu~ ~etback for buildings shall be seven and
one-half (7 1/2) feet unless waived by the Director of
Planning at the request of the adjacent property owner,
in whioh case the minimum sstback shall he reduced to
zero (0) feet provide~ t~ere are ~o Openings in the wall
built along the property line. When abutting ot~er
property designated by the Chester ~illage ~lan for
non-single family residential land uses, the minimum
setbaok for drives and parking areas shall be zero
feet, however, if the adjacent prsper~y is occupied by a
residence, a solid s=reen or fenc~ at least four (4) feet
high shall be tns~alled unless waived by the Director of
Planning at the request of the adjacent property owner.
Vacant property located within the area designated by the
Chester Village Plan as ~mixe~ use: neighborhood office
and single family residential" shall be considered a
n0n-~ingle family reslden~ial land use regardless o~ the
zoning of the parcel.
(A} Rea~ s~tbaek~. Except as noted below, the
minimum rear setback for buildings, drives, and ~arklng
a~eas shall be forty (40) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A.
However, the minimum rear setback may be reduced to
twenty (20) feet with provision sf landscaping in
accordance with Perimete~ Land~caping B, except when
adjacent to any R, R-TH, R-MF, and A District. When
abutting an O, C, o~ X District, the minimum setback
shall he zere (0) feet. When abutting other property
designated by the Chester Village Plan for non-single
Samily residential land uees~ the minimum setbaok for
building~ shall be twenty-five (25) feet unless waived by
the Director of Plannin~ at the request of the adjacent
property owner, in which case the minimum ~ethaek shall
be reduced to zero (0) feet previded there are no
openings in the wall built along th~ property line, when
abutting att%er property designated by the Chester village
~lan for non-single family residential land uses, the
minim~ setback for drives and parking a~eas shall be
zero (0) feet, however, if the adjacent property is
occupied by a resldence~ a solid so,sen or fence at least
feur (4) feet high shall be installed unless waived by
the Director 6f Planning at the request of the adjacent
property owners. Vacant property located within the area
designated by the Chester Village Plan as ~mix~d
neighborhood off~oe an~ mingle family residential" shall
be considered a non-=ingle family residential land use
regardless of tDe zoning of =he parcel.
(5) Setbacks for ~asoline hUmUS. The setbacks for
gasoline pumps and drives serving gasoline pump islands
92-505 6/10/92
shall be the same as those for drives and parking areas
as required ~n paragraph~ (1) through (4) above.
sec. 21.1-255.6. Setback Requirements for I Districts.
(a) All Village Areas Except Chester. The minimum
set~acks for all buildings, driven and ~n~faee and deck
parking areas shall be as follows:
(1) setbacks alon~ maPor arterials. The minimum
setback along major arterials, for buildings, drives, and
parking areas, shall be seventy-five (75) feet in I-1 and
!-2 Districts and ninety (90) feet in I-~ Districts.
Landscaping shall be provided wlth~n the setback in
accordance with Perimeter Lands=aping B. However, in I-1
Distriots ~hie set~baok may be reduced to fifty (50) feet
with provision of landscaping in accordance with
Perimeter Landscaping
(2) Front and corner side setbacks. The minimum
setback along rights of way other than major arterials,
for buildings, drives, and pa~king areas, shall ba forty
(40) feet in %-I Districts, sixty {50) feet in
Districts, and ninety (90) feeh in I-3 Districts.
Landscaping shall be provided within t_he setback in
Diatrists thissetbauk may be reduced to twenty-five (25)
feet with tile prevision of landscaping in accordance with
perlmete~ Landscaping C.
Chester Village_ District Area~.
All requirements shall be the sane as noted in
~ection ~1.1-~5.~ (a) e×cept that landscaping in front
and corner side yards shall be Perimeter Landscaping G.
Sea. 21.1-255.7. Architectural Treatment.
NO buildin~ exterior (whether front, side, or rear) shall
consist of architectural materials inferior in quality,
appearance~ o~ detail to any ether exterior of the same
building. Nothing in this section shall ~reclude the use
different materials on different building exteriors (which
wo~d ~e acceptable if representative of good architectural
design) but rather, shall preclude the use of inferior
materials on sides which face adjoining property and
might adversely impact existing or future development causing
a su~stantlal ~eDraoiation cf property values, NO portion of
a b~ilding constructed of unadorned cinder ~lock or corrugated
and/ct sheet metal mhall be visible from any adjoinin~ A,
R-TH, R-MF, or 0 District or any public right of way.
Mechanical equipment~ w~ether ground-level or rooftop~ shall
be shielded and ~oreened from public view and designed ~o be
~erceived as an integral part of the buildln~. FUrther,
buildings shall be designed to impart harmonious proportions
and to avoid monotonous facades or large bulky masses.
Buildings ~ha11 possess architectural variety, but shall be
compatible with existing structures, especially nearby
structures cf high historic interest. New or r~mcdeled
buildings shall enhance an overall cohesive village character
as reflected ~n e×i~ti~g structures. This character shall be
achieved through the use of design elements -- including, but
not ~im~ted to, materials, balconies, and/or terraces,
articulation of doors and window~ seulptural a~ textural
roller cf facades, architectural ornamentation, varied roof
line~ or other appurtemancee such as lighting fixtures and/er
planting -- a~ are described in the applicable adopted plans
and guidelines.
Sec. 21.1-255.8. Reserve.
No gasoline sales, automobile self-service stations,
automobile service stations, motor vehicle repair or
restsursnts with drive-in win~owe shall be permitta~ by right
in any ~oning district withim Chester Village Areas. Thane
uses will be allowed with a Conditional Uso permit only in
those zoning districts where they are t~r~ically permitted by
right Or with oertai~ re~trictiQne.
A/~TICLE 8. SIGNS.
Sec. 21.1-266. Generally.
(2) Except as permitted in sec. 21.1-270.1,
freestanding sign~ shall be encased within a structure
that is architecturally related to and compatible with
the main building(s) aa~ overall architectural design of
the development.
(j) Outdoor advertising signs shall be prohihite~ within
th~ following areas:
(8} Ail parcels of land located at the interchange
of State Route 1~ (Che~ter Road) and ~tate ~outc
and, specifically, wlth~n 1,500 feet of th~ ce~terline of
any ra~p co~pri~ing this interchange, whether constructed
or planned.
21.1-267. Signs -- Countywide for R. R-TH. R-~F
Districts.
(n) Co~%tuity e~t~anee signs shall he permitted within
the land area included in any adopted village ur c~mmunity
~lam and within the Ettrick and Matoaca co~unitie~ as defined
in Section 21.1-252. One (1} suuh sign shall be
along each major arterial roadway at each entrance into the
village, signs shall not exceed a h~ight of twelve (1~)
and an area cf eeventy (70) equate feet unless a Cond~tlonal
Sec. 91.1-967.1. Signs -- Village Di~tricte for R. R-TH.
R-}iF, and k Districts.
Signs shall be permitted within the village District in
all R, R-T~, R-MF, a~d A Di~trictz i~ aco0~da~ce with Sections
apply:
however, the Eollowing additional provisions s~all
All ViIlaqe Di~trlct Area~.
(1) In no =a~e shall the height of any eign, which
~/lo/~
............. !![ ,I, l.. _L ..... [ ......... J L ..........
is not attached to a building, exceed the lesser of
either seven (7) feet or the maximum height prescribed
for such sign in Section 21.1-267.
Sec. 21.1~270.1. signs--Village Districts for O~ C~ and I
Districts.
Signs shall he permitted within the Village District in
all O, C, and I Districts in accordance with sections 21.1-268
and ~1.1-269, however the following additional provisions
shall apply:
(al Midlothian Village Core, Midlothian Villsge Fringe.
(b) Cheater Village Fringe Ea~z._~hps%s~.Village Fringe
West. Chester vi~!~. Corridor East.
(1) Shingle signs shall be permitted.
(2) In no case shall the height of any sign,
which ~s not attac~ed to a building, exceed t~e lesser cf
either eight (~) feet or the ~a~imum height pr~gcrlb~d
for such slqn in Section 21.1-268 or 21.1-269.
(3) In no ca~e shall the area of any ~ign,
which is not attached to a building, exceed the lesser of
either twelve (12) square feet or the maximum area
~rescrlbed for such sign in Section 21.1-265 Or 21.1-269.
(4) ~e set. back for signs permitted in
Sections ~1.1-~68 and ~1.1-269 shall be ~edno~d to five
(§) feet.
(5) Instead o~ the ~reeatanding business
sign(s) as permitted in Bection ~1.1-~69, business
sign(a) may bs mounted psr~en~icularly to a buildin~
provided that all other requirements of said section and
of this section are mst, and that such DnrDendicularly
mounted sign projects no more than thirty (30) inches
greater than six (6) inches, and does not exceed the
height of the soffit.
(6) In shopping centers, cff~oe parks,
industrial parks, commercial parks, or similar g~oups cf
buildings, instead of an equivalent amount of square
footage cf individual bualneaa sign(s) attached to the
main building or major appendage aa permitted by Section
2~.l-~9.(b], one (l) businsss sign may be
perpendicularly mounted to a building, provided that all
other requirements of said section an~ of this section
are mot, and that such perpendicularly ~ounted sig~
projects nc more than thirty (~o) inches ~rom the
building~ has a face to face thickness no greater than
~ix (6) inches, and does not exceed the height of the
soffit.
In ~hopping centers, office parks,
industrial parks, commercial parks, er similar groups of
b~ildings, the permitted area of freestanding signs shall
be increase~ to t~airty-two (32) s~uare feet.
(S) ~igna shall be permitted on awnings or
canopies provided the awning or canopy is not internally
illuminated.
(s) Interchangeable cody signs shall Ds
permitted subject to the background area around the
mounted signs shall be increased by fifty percen~ (50%)
exposed to any single street is not insreased beyond what
Ch~teM Village Co~e~
(1] PylOn sign~ shull be permitted subject tn the
following restrictions:
a. Only one (1} support shall be psi-mitred
per sign.
b. The height shall net exceed the le~s~r of
either twelve (12) ~eet or the maxim%~ ~eighC
~e~c~ibed fo~ such sipn in Section ~i.i-~S8 or
c. The area shall not egceed the lesser of
area ~rsscribe~ for such sign in Sectlon 21.1-268 or
(2] Shingle signs shall be pernittsd.
($) ID nO ca~e ~hall the height of any si~n, other
t~an a pylon sign, whic~ is not attached tn a building,
exceed the lesser of either eight (~) feet or the ~axim~m
height prescribed fo~ such sign in section 21.1-268
~1.1-~69.
than a pylon sign, which is not attached to a building,
exceed the lesser of either twelve (12) square ~eet o~
the maximum area pMescribed fo~ s~e~ sign in Section
21.1-268 or 21.1-269.
(5) The setback for signs permitted in Sections
21.1-268 and 21.1-269 shall be reduced to five (5) feet.
(6] Instead of th~ freestanding buslne~n ~ig~(S) a~
permitted in section 21.1-269, business sign(s) may be
mounted perpendicularly to a building, provided that all
other requirements of said section and of this section
are met, and that such perpendicularly mounted sign
projects no more than thirty (30) inches from the
building, has a face to f~c~ thickness no greater than
six (5) inohes~ an~ does not exceed the height of the
soffit.
(7] In shopping centers, office parks, industrial
Dark,, cs~ercial parka, or similar grouD~ of buildings,
instead of an equivalent amount of square footage
individual business ~ign(~) attached to th~ main building
or major appendage as permitted by section =1.1-269.(h),
one (1) buslne~s sign may be perpendicularly mounted tn a
building, ~rovided that all other rec/uiremants of said
section and of thi~ section ar~ met, and that such
9erpend±oularly mounted sign ~rojects no more than thirty
(30) inches from the buildingr ha~ a face tO face
thickness ne greater than six (6) inches, and doe~ not
e~ceed the height of the soffit.
(8) In shopping centers, office parks, industrial
parks, commercial parks, or similar groups of buildings,
increased to thirty-t~o (32) square feet.
6/1Q/92
(9) Signs shall be permitted on awnings sr canopies
provided th~ awning or canopy is not internally
illuminated.
(lC) Interchangeable copy mi~n~ shall be permitted
~ubje~t to the background area around the letters being
opaque.
(11) The maximum aggregate a~ea of building mounted
signs shall be increased by fifty percent (50%) for
buildings on corner lots provided that the sign area
ex~osed to any single street is not increased beyond wSat
is normally permitted.
ARTICLE IX.
SC~E](ATIC PLANS, SITE PLANS AND
IMPROVEMENT SKETCHES
(A~R~DED 10-10-90)
Sec. 21.1-275 Adlministra~ive ~site Plan) Rsview.
(b] Sits plans submitted for administrative review
within Village Dist~ietz, as ~efined by thi~ e~apte~, ~hatl
include documentation that t_he applicant has provided written
~etifieatio~ by registered, certified or first cla=~ mail to
the owner of any adjacent property to include property across
any street~ road~ or railroad right Of way, bo~y o£ w~t~r, Or
political boundary of the submission of the site plan. In the
event the property is ~ituat~ ~ or within lO0 f~% of the
intersection of any two [2) or more raad~ er highway~ or
within 100 feet of the intersection of the right of way of any
twe (2) railroads, ~he notice required above must also be
given to the owners of propsr~y situated at all co:nets of any
snch intersection, such info~matien shall be obtained from
the R~al E~tate Assessor's records on the ~ate on which the
application is submitted to the Planning Dupartment.
(O) The Director of Planning shall approve or
disapprove site plans in aucor~ance with the reviewing
authorities' reco~endations. ~e shall notify the applicant
of his decisions to approv~ ur disapprove the ~ts plan within
thirty (3G) days Of r/%e date of Submission of the plan, if
practicable.
(d) In the evsnt the applicant ~isagrees with the final
d~eision Of the Director of Planning, he may file a written
appeal with the Planning Commission within fifteen (15) days
of that decision. In addition, adjacent property owners, a~
other aggrieved persons who desire to appeal issues pursuant
to Division 5 of Article 4, Article 7 or Section 21.1-~79.3
(b) o£ this Chapter, may appeal the final decision of the
Director Of Planning by filing a written appeal with the
Plennlng Co~i~mion within fifteen (1~) days of that decision.
Other than i~sue= eppealmble by any aggrieved person p~r$~an~
to Division 5 of Article 47 Article ? or section 21.1-279.3
(b) of this Chapter, appe.l~ by a~jaeenD property owners shall
be limited to conditions which directly affect the property
owners and include: acce~; utility lo~atisn~; buf~ers~
conditions of zoning; a=ebite=tural treatment in the C-i, O-1
and Village Di~tr~ct~; and land ~$e transitions. The
commission ~all fix a reasonable time for hea~ing of ~e
appeal and decide the same within sixty (60) day~. The
Commission may affirm, modify cT Teverse the decision. During
thi~ period the Director of Planning shall not approve the
site plan or the building pel~nit. (Amended 10-10-90)
ARTICLE X. DEFINITION~.
Sec. 51.1-281 Definitions.
For the p~rpo~ of this chaDter, the following words and
phrases ~hall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them
by thi~ Section.
Sign, Community. Entrance. A permanent, freemtanding sign
located at or near the entrances to villag~m am defi~ed
~n Article 6, Divimion 4 Of this Ordinance. These signs
shall be re~trlcted to the i~entifi~ation of the village;
notification of special events; notification of civic~
social, and service organizations; and other items
public interest.
Si~n. ~hin~te A freestanding sign with a m~ngl~,
unenclosed upright. The sign face i~ mounted Under
(qenerally) horizontal arm mounted to tt~e Upright.
Vote: Una~im0~s
8. ~EARI~GS OF CITIZ~9~S OM ~SC~EDULED ~A'rr~ OR ~
There were no hearings of citizens scheduled at this time.
Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a report on tbs developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the County
A~ministrater.
General Fund Balance; Rese~e for ~uture Capital Project~;
District Road and Street Ligh~ ~un~; Lea=e ~rchases~ and
School Board Agenda.
K~. R~ey ~=at~ t~e Virginia Depm~ent of Transportation
has foully notified the Co~nty of the acceptance of the
following roads into the ~tate S~conda~ ~yst~m:
T~ ~INTE AT ~ALTON ~ - (fffectlve 4-21-92)
Rou=e 3756 (A=~rook ~nd~ng Road) - From ~. 09 mile
Worthea~t Route ~7~8 to Lake~tone Drive (Route 39~4) 0.10 Mi
~oute 3924 (Lakestone Drive) - Prom 0.1I mile ~ou=h-
wes= Route Z7~6 to 0.30 mil~ Sea,east Route 3756 0.41 Mi
Ro~%~ 3925 (Misty Luke Way) - Prom Route 3924 to
0.09 mile Southwas~ aoute ~924 o.o9 Mi
Route ~926 (Misty ~ke Cou~} - ~rom Route 3~ to
0.11 mile Southeast Route 39~ 0.11 Mi
CED~ CROSSING - S~CTION ~ & 3 - (Effe~tlve 5-13-9~]
3501 (La~ren Lane) - From 0.04 mil~ ~ant Route
ROULe 3750 (Walton ~luff Psrkway) - From 0.10 mile
South Routm SS~i to 0,08 mil~ Northeast Route
Route ~050 (Cedar Crossing Drive) - From Route 3501
to Route 5851
92-511
0.17 Mi
0.1~ Mt
~. O7 Mi
6/~0/9~
Route 5051 (Cedar Crossing Terrace) - Prom 0.k2 mile
No~thNa~t Route 5050 to 0,10 mile Southeast Route 5050 0.22 Mi
Route 5052 (Cedar Crossing Place) - Prom Route 5051
te 0.04 mile Southwest Route 5051 0,04 Mi
Route 5053 (Cedar Cro5sing Trail) - From Route 3501
to 0.15 mile South Route 3501 0.15 Mi
Route 5054 (Coder Crossing Circle) - ~rom Route 5053
to 0.03 mile No~thwezt Rout~ 5053 0.03 Mi
Route 5055 (Cedar Crossing Court) - From Route 5053
to 0.o4 mile West Route 5053 0.04 Mi
PAGEHURST
Route 49?0 (~agehurst Drive) - From Route 902 to 0.19
mile Northwest Route 902 0.19 M~
SALISBURY - HATFIELD. SECTION II
Route 3796 (~elm~l~¥ Road) - From 0.04 mil~ W~t Route
3798 to 0.09 mile West Route 3798 0.05 Mi
mile ~erthw¢~t Route 3796 0.12 Hi
CL~/%ENDON - SECTION I - (Effective 5-1~-92}
Route 21!4 to 0.04 mile ~as~ Route 2114 0.07 ~i
C~tENbO~ - S~CT~ON U
Route 4410 (B~OO~fOr~St Read) - F~O~ 0.03 mils Wsst
Route 4410 (Brookforest Road) - From 0.04 mile East
Route 44~1 (Brookforest Terrace) - Prom Route 4410 to
Route 4365 (King Cotton I~ne) - From 0.11 mi~ South
wes~ Route 436~ to 0.04 mile southeast Route 4365 0.11 ~i
SUGAR CREEK. PHASE TI
Route 3969 (sugar Creek Way) - From ROUTS 3970 to
Route 1557 (IV~ood Road) - From Route 1502 to 0.25
mile ~orth aou~e 1502
Route 4~?o (Krag Road) - Fro~ RO~ 1657 ~o 0,23 mile
NoX~t~east Route 1657
Route 4S71 (Krag Circle) - From Route 4570 to 0.04
mile Seut~ Ro~te 4570
Route 4572 (Kraq Court) - From Route 4570 to 0.05
mile Northwest Route 4570
Route 4573 (Sack Road) - From Rout~ 1667 to O.06 mils
Wem= Route 1657
Rou=e 4574 (IVyWood Court) - From Route 1557 to 0.06
mile Northwest Route
ROXSHIR~ - SECTTOW~ 7 k ll
Route 3139 (Thornle~gh Road) - From Route 728 to 0.39
0.25 Mi
0.23 Mi
0.04 ~i
0.0~ ~i
0.06 Mi
92-§12 6/10/92
mile Southwest Route 728 0.39 Mi
0.23 mile South Rout~ 2139 0.23 Mi
ROU~O 4181 (char~s%one Drive) - Mrom Route 3139 tO
0.06 mile West Route 3139 0.06 ~i
10. DINNER
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. MoHale, the Board
recessed ah 5:10 p.m. to the Administration Building, Room
5~2~ for dinner.
Vote: Unanimous
}ir. Daniel introduced Reveren~ Calvin Eaves, Sr., Pastor of
Clover Hill Baptist Church, w~0 gave the invocation.
~9. ~L~[~ ~p a~-T=_~GIANCgTO'£~FLAG OF T~E~NITED STA~S OF
Chief Eane~ led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
united States Of America.
13. ]~ESOIt~TI(r~$A~I)$p~CIALRZ~IflTI~$
Mr. Ste~i~r ~tated Mr. Bigqm was unable to bm present
It was ~e general Gonmensum Df the ~ard to defer
resolution recognizing Mr. Joseph L. Biggs for his
able to be
13.B. R~)GHIZING~. ALDENAAI~OE. WRVA. ~R HIS O~~
Chief ~ane~ Etated ~r. Al~en ~ro~ ha~ ~rovid~d ~he ~ubltc
with ever fo~y year~ of broadcast ente~ai~ent and has
ammiste4 in ~eveloping a fire and rescum r~c~itmemt vld~o for
the County,
On motion of ~e Board, ~e followlng re~olution wa~ a~opted:
~, ~r. ~lden Aaroe has provld~ broadcast
entertai~ent, homely a~vice and news reposing for over
forty-six y~ar~ on ~A r~dio to ~e ~iti~ens of eastern
Vlrginiu: =hR
~ERE~, ~. ~roe~ a natJve of Washington, D.C. and a
graduate of ~e University of Vi~inla, has been broadcasting
sln~e 193~ inter,prod only by se~ice az a pilot in t~e U.
~g~, ~. Aaron, ~VA*s to~ rated mo~ing Dersonallty~
has hosted an early morning program ~i~Ce 19~6 and is one'of
WHEREAS, Mr, Aarue co-founded th~ WKVA salvation Army
Shoe F~nd raising over $2,675,0~0 for shoes for needy
~hildren; and
community service including =he civitan outstanding citizen
Award, the 1977 Electronic Kedia Award by the Virginia Agri-
Buslnass Council, the Paul Harris Fellow Award by the Richmond
Rota~ Club, the ~mployee-of-t_he-Year and ~dens' Broadcasting
proclaimed by virginia G~e~nor Baliles, Ri~ond Mayo~ West
and Richmond Mayor Williams for his outstanding oo~unity
wishes to reco~izu ~r. Aaroe's outstanding achievuments and
County Board oX Supe~i=or~ publicly recognizes ~r. Alden
~rom's contribution to the County's Fire and Rescue Volunteer
R~c~itm~t an~ R~ten~ion Program and expresses its gratitude
and sincere appreciation to him for his outstanding dedication
to activi~ie~ in his co~uni~ that rasult in the bette~ent
of his f~llow man.
resolution be appropriately prepared and pra~ented to Mr.
and Rescue Volun2uer Reu~itment and Retmnt~on ~ogr~. chief
rec~itmmnt video tape and a Fir~ Department support badge.
13.C. P~COGNIZING WRIC-TV~ CI~%NNlZL 8. FOR TH~I~
volunteer re;~ ~dc. ~e f~rther s%a%e~ ~h~ ~ubli¢ ~ic~
Re~it~e~t Program an~ introduced Mr. Randy Beavers,
representing ~IC-~ Channel 8~
on motion of the Board, ~e followin~ re~olution wa~ adopted:
~E~, volunteers are essential to providing emergency
assisted eaGh year by their se~ioas; and
~E~$, ~he continuing rec~itment of
vitally necessa~ to provide sufficient m~ers in meeting
~E~S, udverti~ing through various media is essential
~E~S, ~IC-~, Channel 8, Richmond, vi~inia, has
92-514 6/10/92
Chemterfiuld County Voluntser Rescuu g~uads, a cost the S~uads
could not financially afford: and
W}{F~F~%S, the Chesterfield County ~m%rg%ncy Medical
p~licly r~cognized.
NOW, THEREF0~ BE IT ~SOLVED, ~at ~e
Chesterfield County and ~ ~ergency N~dicml Se~ice~
Advisory Co~oil, p~licly r6oognize~ ~e contribution
~IC-~, ~a~el S, to the Vol~teer Ren~e $~ad
Program and ~r~ss~s their appreciation for this
Mr. Daniel presented the executed resolution to ~. B~avers
and ex~ressed appreciation for ~he assistance ~IC-~, Channel
8~ has provided ~e County's vol~teer r~cue
13.D. R~O~NIZING OFFI~R. R. ~ ~R EXTRAORDI~IA~Y
BI~:Av~Y XI~I'I'UK I~l,~
Chief Pi~an ~t~t~d th~ Board wo~ld b~ r~oognizing Officer
R. Ar~art~ Off,cur J. A. Farrow and Officer H. H. Dicker~on
for %hair ~xtraordina~ brave~ and meritorious se~ice in the
On mo~ion of the Board, ~he following resolution was adopted;
~E~ Officer R. R. A~eha~t~ Chesterfield
~olice D~par~nt, ~i~tinguished himself by exceptional
perfo~nce of his duty when ~e averted a possible tragedy by
re~cu~ng a citizen from ~moke i~alat~on durin~ a house Sire;
~E~, after ~dv~sing head~art~r~ for the Fire
Officer Arehart entered the house and attempted to arous~ a
citizen who was lyin~ on the floor;
~, at thi= time, o~ficer ~ehart had ~o qo outsi~
to get some air and then went back inside the houme a
ti~e, ~e~cuing the citizen; and
~ officer Arehart ~ntered the houme for a
d~covered a burner on the mtove left on high heat wi~
burnt ~ot being th~ ~ource of smoke and ~us turned ~e stove
~EREAS, ther~ is no ~o~t that if 0ffioer A~eha~t had
not acted a= ~ic~y as h~ did, th~ citizen would have ~i~ of
smoke i~alation and ~e house would have been da~ged by
fir~ and
~, disregarding ~is own ~af~=y an~ 5akin~
action, Officer Areh~ uphela the strongest traditions of
enforcement an~ of the ~este=field Couuty ~olice
NOW, ~FO~ BE IT RESOL~D, that the
County Board of Supe~isurs reco~izes officer R. R.
for hi~ e~raord~na~ brave~ in ~ lin~ of duty and
thi= reco~ition to the attention of all it~
Mr. Daniel Dresented the executed re~olution to Oral=er
extraordina~ brave~ in the llne of duty.
92-515 6/10/92
Chief Pittman introduced officer J. A. Farrow and officer H.
H. Di¢~ersen.
On motion of the Board, the following re~olutlon wa~ adoptedi
WHERE~ Officer J. A. F&r~ew and Officer H. ~.
Dickerson, Chesterfield County Police Department,
distinguished themselves by ri~king their lives when they
prevented an attemDted ~u~cid~ and
WHEREAS, while trying to prevent a suicide, officer
Far~ow and officer Dickerson struggled over the control of a
shotgun in the po$~ion of the individual attempting
s~ieide; and
WHEREAS, while Officer F~rrow grabbed the muzzle of the
shot~%m, ~truggled wit~ the individual and was a~sim~ed by
Officer Dickerson during the ensuing struggle, the muz=le of
the shotgun ~ointed at the officerm ~evs~al tim~; and
bolt action and reached down and opened the bolt, ejecting the
possession of the g~n and with the he19 of others, removed the
individual from the vehicle~ takinq him into custody; and
gallant efforts, the individual was disarmed and thc suiuide
WHEREAS, disregsrdinq their o~i~ safety and taking swift
action, Offio=r Farrow and officer Diokersen upheld the
Chesterfield County Police Department.
at~enti~n oZ ell its citizens.
Vote: unanimous
appreciation fo~ their exeeption~l meritorious service in the
line of duty.
13.F. RESOLUTION RECOGNXZ~G I~U~NOT LITTLE L~.~u~
'I'Hi~TY YEARS OF $~CE TO ~'~ YOn'tH OF
On motion of the Beard, ~u following resolution was adopted:
healthful and e~joy~bl= recreational opportunities
Organization fo~ed for the bette~ent of youth
~e~terfield Co~ty; and
~, ~u~enot Little ~ague ~as oontinued its
VOl~ntucr effete for ~i~y years; and
6/10/92
W~F~REAS, there is a need and demand for further
improvements to baseball facilities; and
WIiKIt~AS, Huguenot Little Leagne has raised rondo
totalling $3,095 for improvements to backs=cps at Monacan ~igh
School and the purchase of bleachers for several ~ites; and
W~Ei{EA$, Chesterfield County fosters and commends the
continuing ~upport of its citizen volunteer sports
organizations; and
W~EREAP, Hn~enot Little L~a~ue hue regularly provided
volunteer labor and donations to improve public recreational
facilities.
NOW, THEREFOR~ R~ IT RESOLED, that the Che~terfiel4
COunty Board o£ Supervisors hereby acknowledges the important
contribution~ ~de by the members of Kuguenot Little League
and expressez =o them its sincere appreciation for their
volunteer efforts and their donation of £U~d~ for bas.ball
field improvements.
Vote: Unanimous
~r. Daniel stated ~r. Barber would b~ pre~enting the
resolution at ~ugusnot Little League's thirtieth anniversary
ceremony. Mr. Daniel then recognized Delegate John Watkln~
who introduced Troop 800 frsm sethel Baptist church located in
Midlothian. Delegate Watk~n~ stated the boy ~cout~ were
attending the ~eetin9 as part of their achievement for
recognition of their citizenship merit badge and recognized
]4. i~n~IDHEARINC-S
FOR
Mr. Ha~er stated thi~ dat~ ~d ti~ had been adve~ised for a
p~l~c hearing to consider ~mendment~ to 8action 8-20 of the
code of the County of ~est~rfi~ld, 1978, a~ amended, relatin~
to the ~alirication uf property for taxation under ~a County
special land use a~s~e~t~ fo~ agricultural, hu~icultural,
forest and o~en space re~l ~tate program. ~e fu~he~ ~tated
u work ~ea~ion h~d been hel~ on May 27, ~992. in whi~ options
~o consider changing ~e present Land U~e Assessment Pro,am
had been presented. ~e note~ $1no~ the consensus u~ ~m ~a~
desired not to change the p~esent progr~, it was ~e
intent to cancel the p~lic hearing.
Board to cancel, pursuant to their intention a~ aotio~
their meeting on May 27, 1992, ~e public hearing on
amendments %o ~ectlon ~-20 of ~e C~Q O~ the county
of prope~y for taxation under ~e County sp~ci~l land use
xpace real ~tat~ program.
Mr. McHale clarified it had not been ~e consen~u~ o~
Board~ but ra~er the majority of ~e Board, not to hold the
public h~aring regarding the Lan~ u~e A~=e~n~ Program.
Mr. Daniel oall~ for the vo~e on th= motion made by
Colbert, seconded by Mr. ~arren, for the Board to cancel,
pursuant tQ ~ir intention and action ut ~e~r meeting on May
Z7, 1992, the p~lic hearing on a~e~dment~ to Section ~-20 of
th~ Tod~ of the County of Chesterfield, I978~ a~ a~e~ded,
92-517 6/10/92
rela=ing to t, he q~ali£ication of property fur taxation under
%he County special land use assessments for agricultural
horticultural, forest and open space real estate program.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Warren and Mr. Colbert.
Nays: Mr. Barber and Mr. McHale.
14.B. TO ID01/SIDER A W~rEK ~UAL/TX PROTEcriON ~I~%R ~ ~
Mr. sti~ ~tated ~is date and tlm~ had been 5dve~ised for a
p~lic hearing ~o con~id=r ~ water ~allty ~rotection plan
~ar~ at it~ meeting on Feb~ary 12, 1~92, remanded ~e
pr~po~ed Water ~ali~y Pro=eotion Plan to ~he Planning
Co~ission for a p~llc hearing and reco~endatlon and
revisions were mad~ based on oitizen oo~ent~ Pla~ing
Co~on input and additional ~ta~f re~$aroh. ~e note~ ~
Planning Co~is~ion and s~aff reco~nded adoption of ~e
Comprehensive ~lan amendment for water ~ality protection.
to the Plannln~ Co~immlon.
p~vio~sly remanding ~i= i~ue to the ~lanning colic=ion a=
h~ felt ~ignificant ~ang~ had been made to the Plan. He
Mr. John Cogbil~ e~re$~ed appreciation to the Planning
Ms. Ba~i Barnstt, representing the Hom~ ~il~ers Association
of Richmond, stated =hey also ~uDported the Plan.
~uppo~ing ~e r~oo~enda~ions o~ ~e Planing co~i~sion and
staff re~amding ~e protection of water ~ality.
staff and ~therm involved ~n addressing ~e amen~nt for the
adop=e~ a oompr~ensive plan amen~ent for wate~ ~ality
protection, a copy of whioh i~ filed with ~e 9apers of this
vote; Unanimous
.14.C. TO CON~IDER AN ORDI1/~NC~ TO ~ T~ CODE OF TH~ COONTY
OF CHESTERFIEI~. 1978. A.~AH~DEU. B~U~HDING SECTION
6.4REF~TINGTOB~L~TN~IN~RCTIO~F~
Mr. Micas ~tated ~i~ ~at$ a~ tim~ had been a~ve~ised ~or a
~e County of dhe~terfi$1~, ~75, as amen~e~, by amending
section 6.4 relating to bu~]ding inspection fees. ~e fur~er
basis and the p~llc hearing was to reconfi~ ~e effectlvs
date of building inspection fees.
Ms. Bambl Barnett, repre~entin9 the Home Builders Association
of Richmond~ state~ they were in support of the effective d~te
being July l, 199~.
There WaS bri~£ discussion relative to the effective date of
~nere being no one else to addre~ thi~ ordinate=, the public
hearing was
on mo=ion of Mr. Warrsn~ ~o~d by ]~r. Colber=~ the ~ard
readopted, om a ps--anent ba=i~, th~ follow~ng or~inanoe:
BE IT ORDAINED by ~ Boar~ of ~u~e~o~ of
~e~erfleld County
(1) The C~e of ~e County of Chesterfield, ~938,
~ended, is amended by amending sactlon S-4 a~
Sec. 6-4. Pe~it fees.
(a) Generally. Unless othe~ise excepted, no pe~it
begin work for new coDnt~¢tton, ~lteratlon, removal,
d~olltlon or other build~ng operation for construction
re, ired by the several provi~ion~ of the Virginia Unifo~
sta=ew~e Bu{ld~nq Code shall b~ i&sued ~til the fees
pr~crlbed in ~is section shall have been paid. No
to a pe~it necessitating an additional fee because of an
iD~rea~e in ~he ~sti~ted cost of the werk involved ~hall
approved until =Se additionul fee has been paid. Ail
~e~its ~hall be issued by ~ building official on fo~
~pp~oved and f~rni~hed by his office. The fee~ for pe~it~
~hall be based upon ~he ~rojmct cost ~or labor an=
Co~t~ ~ub~itted shall be no lower ~an tho~e listed in the
Marshall and swift Index ur o~r evaluation of building
a~ approved by th= buildin~ official. Minimum accepted
will be adjusted annually on J=ly 1 to refle=t changes in
of construction. The building official may a==e=~ additional
fees when a review u~ ~e De,it apDlioation or plan~ shows
~at ~uffici~nt f~e~ have not been paid. Fe~ will be oha~ed
in accedence with ~e ~oll~ing schedule:
(1) ~SIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
a. Finished s~are foe=ape:
Mini~ fee $1~5.OO
~ach one ~oumand d~llars or fMaotion thereof of the
e~timate~ con.true=ion cost $4.g5
b. Unfinished inturior $~are footage:
Minimum fee $~0,00
estimated con,true=ion cost
~. U~finishcd e~erior s~are footage:
Minimum f~e $25.00
Each one ~ousand dollars or fractlo~ thereof of the
estimated con.true=ion cos~ $4.25
~. Interior remodeling and alteration~,
b~ilding~ and nhedn costing over
Mini~u~ f~e
Each one ~ou~and d~llars or fraction thereof o~
e. Carports, canopies, pole buildings, and
pavilionm:
92-519 6/10/92
f. Mobile homes;
On private property
g. Residential temporary certificates of occupancy &
eXtensions $25.00
h. Residential request for refund (administrative
charge) $25.00
(2) CO~9~ERCIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
(3)
a. Commercial new construction:
Minimum fee $200.80
Each $1,000 or fraction thereof of the
estim~te~ ccnstr~cti0n co~t
EStimated co~t of $2,000 Or les~
$50.00
Each additional $1,~00 or fraction thereof of tho
estimated construction oos~
c. Tenant upflt~:
Estimated cost of $2,000 or less $50.00
~ach additional $~,000 or fraction thereof of the
estimated con~truct~on
d. Mobile office trailsr~:
Fixed rats $25.00
e. Commercial temporary certificates of occupancy &
exten~ion~
f. Commercial refund (a4ministrativs
charges) 20% of fee
AUXILI~_R¥ PERMITS
Electrical: when the cost of labor and materials
in~ol~sd ~n in~tallstion, alteration,
and/or repmlr is:
$308 or less $35.DS
$501-1,000
~ach additional $I,000 er fraction thereof of
estimated cost $5.00
Meehanleal: when the co~t sf labor and
invQl~d in installmtion, alteration, replacement
and/or repair
$300 er less $35.00
$301--500
estimated cost $5.00
invQlved in installation, alteration, re91acsment
and/or re, air is~
$~00 or less $35.00
$301-500 40.00
$501-1,000
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof of
estimated cost $5.00
repair is:
$3D0 or less $35.00
$501-1,000 45.00
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof e~timated
cost $5.00
e. Active solar system: when the cost of labor and
materiel~ involva~ in installation, alteration,
replacement and/or repair is:
$300 or less $35.00
$301-500 40.00
$501-1~000 45.00
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereo£ estimated
$5.00
f. Fire/Sprinkler: when the cost of labor and
materials involved in installation, alteration,
replacement and/or repair is:
$300 or less $35.00
$~01-500 40.00
$501-I~0~0 45.00
Each additional $1,000 fraction thereof of estimated
coat $5.00
~. Septic tank permit $50.00
h. Well pem~ui~: when the cost of labor and material~
inwolved in installation, alternation, replacement
and/or repair is:
$300 or l~ $35.00
$301-500
$~01-l,O00 45.00
Each additional $1,~0 or fraction thereof of
estimated cost $5.00
OTHER PEI~I~ITS
a. Annual cer~i£ieate of compliance for
elevators,
e~culutors (per floor), dumbwaiters and manliftS=
Payable on or before December 31 for the following
b. Demolition, moving or rel0c~tio~ Of ~
re-roofing, trim or sldln~, masonry and
replacement/relining
c. ~wimming P0ol: Minimum fee
Each additional $500 or £raotion
d. A~us~uent devices:
Admlni~trative pel~mi~ only (no inspections
Kiddie rides
Major rides
Spectacular rides
REINSPECTIONS
structure,
fireplace
$25.00
$50.00
therec~ cf
$l.50
$10.00
$25.00
$45.00
Rein~pection fee: Fee charged for each xnspection
ma~e in excess of two~ if such ~n~peotien is made
necessary due to work no~ being ¢omplete~ for
~nsDection when the request for inspection is made,
or if ~orrectien$ are not made before calling for
reinspeotlon $25.00
TRADESMAN~S CARDS & EXAMS
a. Tradosman cards: journeyman or ma~ter
b. Examinations:
JourneYman's $35.00
92-521 6/lO/92
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
1.
Code investigation fee: residential building/
auxiliary 20% c~ permit fee or $25.00
whichever ia greater
COde investigation fee: commercial building/
auxiliary 20% of Dermi~ fee or
whichever is greater
permit amendments~ extenmion~, reinstatements,
takeovers, and translate (adminlotratlve fee)
~ermlt refunds: If an applicatlon for a permit
is cancelled by written request to the building
official within ~ months of the application
date, or within 12 months of the issue date, a
administrative fees will be deducted from the
refund:
Residsntia! building and other related
Commsrclal buildlng and other
permits 20% of fee
(b) FEE EXEMPTIONS
1. No fee snell he ~e~i~ed for building p~rmit~
for construction where the cost of such
construction is leas than five hundred dsllar~
($500) and such sonstruction would not involve
securing any other permit a~ re~uired by
§ 109.0 of the Virginia uniform ~tatewide
Building Code.
2. NO fee shall De ~eqdi~ed fo~ pe~mits fo~
construction of buildings ~esigne~ and use~
r~ligious assm~lies as a plats of worship.
~o fee shall be re~ired for building pe~its
for cons~c~ion by co~y d~Dartm~n~ ~unded
by the g~neral fund.
(C) Di~p0~ition of fee~. Ail pe~it fee= re,ired by
O~ ~i~ d~p~ty at the time ~e application for pe~it i= filed
with ~he building otficial, and upon reoeip~ 0f s~o~ fees,
t~eazu~er ~alt deposit same to the credit of ~e county
g~neral fund.
(2) Thi~ ordinanc~ s~all De effeo%fv~ 0n J~ly 1, 1992.
14.D. TO ~OI~2ID~R AN O~DiI~ TO A~ EE6TION 15.1--22 OF
CODE OF T~ CO~T~OF~41~T~]~). 1975. A%$A~D~D. BY
P~-%D~i'~N~..~IEIONB 1B.1-22. 15.1--22.4 AND 15.1--22.5
P~LATIN~TO~-~ ~ OF F~XLE ~U~TI~G
Mr. Micas stated thig date and time bad been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Section
15.1-22 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, as
amended, by remdoptlng Sections 15.1-22, 15.1-22.4 and
15.1-~.§ relating to the u~e of firearms whale hunting. He
further stated at its meeting on April 22, 1992, the Beard had
adopted the ordinance on an emergency basis. ~e noted Game
and Inland Fisheries have net yet sstabllshed dates for the
r~e number of public hea=ings t/%e County is required to hold
and stated he felt legislation should be enacted to ~inimi=e
the requirements in holding similar public hearings.
There being no one else to address this ordinance, the public
on motion of Mr. Colber=, seconded by Mr. ~c~aler the Board
readopted, on a permanent basis, the following ordinance:
A~ ORDINANCE TO ~D SECTION 1~.1-~.5
OF ~E CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS ~DED~
RE~TING T0 THE USE OF FI~ ~I~ ~NTING
BE IT ORDAINED by the ~eard of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County that the Code of the Ccuntv of
Chester~ield, 197~, as amended, ie amended and r~aot~ as
follow~:
sec. 15.1-22.5. Muzzle-loadinu r~fles.
(a) It shall be %%nlawful for any person to hunt
with a rifle of any caliber excep~ £or a muzzla~loading rifle
during the special muzzle-loading
(b) For purposes of this section a muzzle-loading rifle
i~ deSina~ aa a single shot flintlock or ~ide look percussion
weapon with no telescopic sight, forty-five (45) caliber er
larger, firin~ a sln~le ~rojentile loaded from the muzzle of
the weapon mad propelled by at least fifty (50) grains cf
black Dowder.
(c) Any per,on violating the prev~slcns of this section
shall he g~ilty of a cla~s ~ misdemeanor.
Vote; Unanimous
DELETION OF THE SPI~UC~ AV~NU~ E~'r~xdSION AND "EAST--WE~
Mr. stith stated this date and ti~e had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider amen~snta to the Thoroughfare ~lan
collector". Ha ~urth~r stated the Plannlng Cez~i~icn
Collector he deleted from the Plan.
Mr. G6org~ Beadles ~cmments~ on the proposed revisions to the
Thoroughfare ~lan.
There being ne one else to address this issue, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. McCracken reviewed the a~endmont~ for the deletion of the
Spruce Avenue Extension and "~ast-West" dolleotor and the
impact it would ha~e on th% area.
There waz brief dizcuzzion ~elative to the impact the request
would have on tho reads in the area.
Mr. Daniel disclosed to tho Board that he is ~91oyed by
Philip Morrim, U.S.A. a~d associated with Park ~00 and
......... L.~..L ...... J L L
indicated the road network £or this request would not affect
%he Park 500 site.
Mr. MeHale ~tated he felt with the extension of 0Id B~r~uda
Road, the concerns ex~ressed reqarding Spruce Avenue would he
relieved by another alternative.
on motion of Nr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Harber, the ~card
deleted t/%e Spruce Aven~e Extension and the "East-We~t
collector" from the Thoroughfare Plan.
~'~lizN CA~E~ON FARM SUBDiviSION
Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for a
pnbli~ h~aring to consider an ordinance to vacate Lot~ 4~ and
64 within Cameron Farm Subdivision.
There was ~o one present to address this e~dinanee.
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE whereby the COLBY OF C~EST~RFI~I2D, VIRGINIA,
('tGIL~NTORt') vaeat~ to PAUL G. k~3~N an~ ROBIN ~. KU~IN,
(husband and wife), lot~ 45 and 64, ~n Cameron Farm
S~bdivision, Bermuda District, Chesterfield, virginia, as
Shown o~ a pla% %hereof duly recorded in the Clerk's of£ico of
the Circuit Court of Chenterfield County in Plat Rook ?,
W~REA~, Mr. and Mrs. Paul G. Kuehn petitioned the Beard
of SuRervisors of C~eeterfiel~ County, Virginia to vacate lots
45 and 6~, in caneron Farm subdivision, Bermuda ~egisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly
Shown on a pla~ dated April~ 1936~ recorded in the clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of said county in mist ~ook 7,
Pages 14 and 15. T~e lot~ petitioned to be vacated a~e
fully described as follows:
L~ 45 and let $%, t~e loua~ion oS which i~ more fully shown
on a plat by ~. W. ~ugh Engr., dated April, 1~36, a copy of
WHE~AS, notlue has been given pursuan= to Section
15.1-431 Of t~e COde Of Vi~qinia, 1950, ms amended, by
advertising? and,
~EREAS, nc pUbliC necessity e~ists for ~Be continuance
Of the lots sought to be vacated.
NOW T~Pd~FCRE, B~ IT ORDAIN~O DY T~ DOARD OF ~UP~RVISORS
OF C~ESTERFIELD COUNTY~ VIRGINIA:
That ~ur~uant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
Virqln~a~ 1950, at amended, the aforesaid lot be and are
hereby vacated! ~u~ject to the recordation of River crest
Subdivision a resubdivislon of a portion of Cameron
This Ordinance ~hall b~ i~ ~11 force and e£feet,
to the reenrdati0n of River Crest Subdivision a resubdivi~ion
of a portion of Cameron Far~, i~ aocordanee with ~eetion
i5.1-482[~} of thc Code of virginia, 1950, ss a~ded, and
certified copy of thi~ Ordi~amce, together with th= plat
attached hereto, shall be recorded no sooner than thirty day~
hereafter in th~ clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
c~esterfi~ld County, V~rginis pursunnt to section 15.1-485 of
the Code of VirGinia, 1~0~ at ~mended.
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance ~hall vo0t f~e
simple ti%lo to ~he lots hereby vacated in the owners of the
abutting lots within Cameron Farm Subdivision, free and sleet
Of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, thin ordinance shall be indexed in the names
of the County of Chesterfield a~ gra~tor and PAUL G. A~2E~N and
ROBIN G. KUE~N, (husband and wife), er thei~ ~ecessor~ in
Vote: Unanimous
14.~. TO CON~IDE~ AN ORDINANC~ TO VA~T~ ~ ~ ~DOT
· ~-ED P~TGHT-OF-WAy E~O~N AS JI~ STrEeT WlTni~ EAST
Mr. Stith stated this date an~ time had been advertise~ for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a forty foot
unimproved right-of-way known as Jim ~treet within ~ast
Chester subdivision.
Mr. Harold Crowder stated he Was an adjacent prope~y owner
neighbors, and they were all in ~uppo~ of the proposed
ordinance.
on motion of ~r. McHale, zecon~ed by Mr. Barber, th~ Board
adopted the following ordinance:
~ ORDIN~CE whereby ~e COUNTY OF ~ESTERFIELD,
("G~R") vacates to RO~RT B. P~TIN~ JR. and JE~ H.
PARTIN, (husband and wife), and ~OLD L. CRO~ER and
CROWDER (~usband a~d WiSe), a 40' right of way ~o~ am Jim
Street, in E~st Chester S~divtsion, Be~uda District,
Chesterfield, Virginia, as sho~ on a plat ~ereof duly
recorded in the Clerk's Office of th~ Circuit cou~
ch~m%er~eld County in Plat Book 2, Pa~e
~RE~, Mr. and ~. Robert B. Pekin, Jr. and Mr. and
Mrs. ~arold L. Crowder petitioned the Boar~ of Su~e~or~ of
Chesterfield cowry, Virginia to vacate a 40' right of way
known as Jim Street, in East ~ester subdivision,
Magi~terlal District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more
p~icularly ~ho~ on a plat dated April, 1910, ra~orded
~R Clerk's Office of the Circuit Cou~t ~f ~aid County in ~lat
Dock 2, Page )06. The right u~ way petltione~ to b~ vacated
is mere ~lly described as follows:
A 40' right of way ~own a~ Ji~ Street, the location of which
i~ ~ore f~lly ~hQ~ on a plat by W. W. LaPrade & Bro., dated
April, 1910, a copy of which is racorded in Plat Book ~, Page
~Z~A$, notice ha~ b~on given pursuant to Section
15-1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, am amended, by
WHE~S, no public necessity exists for ~e continuance
of the right of way ~ought to be vacated.
NOW T~FOR~, BZ IT ORDAINED BY ~E ~D OF SU~RVISORS
OF C~ESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to section 15.1-481(b) of tbs Cede of
Virqinla, 19~0, as am~nde~, ~he a~oresaid =i~t of way be and
is hereby vacated.
This Ordinance ~hall be i~ full force and effect, in
accordance with Sectiom 15.1-482(b) of the code of v~qinia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of thi~ Ordinance,
~ogether with the plat attached hereto, ohall ~e recorded no
sooner than thlr~y day~ hereafter in the Cl~rk~ Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfiald County, V~rginla pursuant to
Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Vita, 1950, as amendmd.
The sffsot of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of th~
po~ion o~ the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee
simple title to the right of way hereby vacated in the ownerm
clear of uny rights of p~lic us~.
Acc0rdingly~ thim Ordinance ~hall be indexed in the name~
cf the County of Chesterfield a~ grantor and ROBERT B. PA~TI~
JR. and JEA~ H. PARTIN, (h~sband and wlfe), and HAROLD L.
CROWDER and ~5%R¥ D. CROWDER (husband and wife), or their
successors in title, as grantee.
Vote: Unanimous
On ~etien of 1~. Me~al~, ~acended by M~. Barber, the Board
a~journed ah 7:50 D.m. until June 24, 1992 at 3:00 D.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Co%hnty Admini~trato~
~r~y G.~ Daniel
Chairman
92-526 6/10/92