04-28-93 MinutesBO~D O~
Supervisors in ~2tendance~
Mr. Edward B. Barber~ Vice
Kr. Whaley M. Colbert
Mr, Harry G. Daniel
Mr. J. L. McHale, III
/~r, Lane B, Ramsay
County Administrator
staff in
~. Barbara Bennett, Dir.,
Offioe on Youth
Mr. ~ik~
School Admini~trntion
~S. Marilyn cole, Exe¢.
A~st. to County Admin.
Asst. CO. Admin.,
Legis. SVCS. and
Intergovern. Affairs
Fire Department
Deputy Co. A~min.,
Fir+ William ~. aowell,
D~r., Planning
F~. Robert L. ~asden,
Deputy Co, Admin.,
Dir., =nv. Englnearlng
County Attorney
Mrs. Pauline A.
Dir., Naws & Publi~
Col. J. E. P~tt~an~
Clerk to the Doard
Deputy Co. Admin.,
~- Davi~ ~. W~lchon~,
Dir.~ Utilities
Mr. Lewis W~dmll, Dir.,
CDBG Offic~
Mr. Warren called the ~e~ularly scheduled meeting to order at
1. APPROV~ MI~TES
1.A. APRIL 14. 1993
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Morale, the Board
approved the minutes of April 14, 1993, am ~ub~itted.
~ote: Unanimou=
4t28/93
1,B, ~PRTL 21~ 199S
On motion of ~T. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved the minutes of April 21, 1993~ as amanded.
Vote: Unanimon~
2. ~O~WT~I~DMI~ISTP~%TOR~S CO~.ENT8
~fr. Jon R. Donnelly, Executive Director of the Old D~inion
~rg~noy ~dicai ~e~ice (~MS) Alliance~ presented a
overview of the level of pre-hospital care ~n the Old Dominion
Alliance Region. He stated the County car~er and volunteer
providers are a vital part of the ~ ~ynt~m and
appreciation to the Board for their support of th~ County's
program.
~. Warren ~ressed appreciation to Mr. Donnelly for his
involvement wi~ the ~s program.
~. Ra~mey ~e~ in~oduce~ ~. B~bara Bennett, Director of
the Office on Youth, who present~ a brief ove~iew of
Model County Gover~ent Day P~ogr~. Introductions w~re ~ade
Of the students ~resmnt wh~ w~m D~tlclpatlng in th~ Progr~.
~s. Bennett e~ressed appreciation to Ms. Lee Chase,
In~t~ctional Specialist ~or social Stu~ie~ fur the
9yst~, the ~CA, ~. McEale, and ~. ~t~th for their
involvement in planning ~e
~. Warren presented Certlfica:em of Participation to ~.
Bennett for the ~tud~nt~ and expressed appreciation to all of
~. Warren, on b~alf of~e 5oard, congratulated Ma, Ramsay 0n
his recent appointment ~y the Governor to~ B0ar4 of vi~itor~
~or Vir~inla Stane University.
~. ~msey ~tat~d V~inla State U~iversity i~ a ~ai~able
im the County, region, an4 Stat~ and he is looking fo~ard to
~erving on the Board.
S. BOARD CO~ITTEE REPORTE
~lr. Daniel stated he participated in tbs County "Call-In Show"
with questions relating to County government and the budget and
had attended the capital Region Airport Commission meeting.
enplanements an~ the Air~or~ would csntloue to be a viable
economic resource for the metropolitan area.
F~r. McHale stated his next constituent= meetlnq will be h~ld
Thursday, May 27, 1993~ wi~h t~e topic of discussion being the
Cc~mmittee on the Future.
~. Colbert stated he attended a ~eeting wi~th~ Ric~on~ Area
Metr~Dolitan Transportation Planning Organization
~. Barber stated he had participated i~ Ear~ Da~ activities
at Brown's Island and the event had been well attended; that he
will be se~ing on a Steering Co~ittee for ~e sesame street
Pre-School Education Pr~ram; and that ~r. Russell ~arris,
County'~ o~ud~man, will be his ~est ~pe~er at hi~ next
constitu~nt~ meeting un May 3,
~r. Warren state~ h~ attends4 a meeting wi~ the Brande~ill
Women's Club and had aI~o met with regional tead~s fro~
~anov~r, ~rico, an~ Rio~ond to discuss crim~ issues.
93-266 4/28/93
RBQUBSTB TO POSTPONE ACTION~ EMER~ENC~_~DD~TIONB OR
CKAEG~SIN THE ORDE~ OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Kr. Mc/{ale, ~eoon~e~ by ~. ~arb~r~ ~e ~oard
movud Item 13.A., R~clution ~ecogni~ing ~. Jame~ ~. Clapp,
Polio~ D~par~m~, ~o i~diately follow ~is i=em~ moved It~
13.~., Resolution Reco~i~ing the Week of ~y ~-$, 19~ ~
~*~esterfleld County Publi~ DriVing Water Week" to follow It~
13.A.; added Item 7.C., Consideration of FY94 School Board
B~dget and Appropriation to foli~ It~ 7.B.9., Approval of
~tilities Contract for Pheasant R~n, Section B.; added It~
13.E.~ Resolution R~c~nizi~ the Mon~ of April, 1993, as
"Fair ~ouslng Month" to followlng It~ i$.D., Resolu~ion
Reoognizingt~e Wee~ of May 9-15, 1993 as "Sm~ll Business Week"
in ~e~t~field County; and submit%e4 %he ordinance for Item
6., To Consider Adoption of an Ordinanc~ Revising Bu~ine~ and
Professional Occupational Li=~ses ~or Veterinarians and,
adopted the agemda, as ~ende~.
Vote: Unanimous
Chief Rittman introduced Mr. Jamem ~, Clapp and state~
Department and the County would miss his ~iligent service.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W~P~A$, F~r, ~am~ ~. Clapp will retire from the
service to the citizens of Ch~t=rfi~l~ County; and
of Dispatcher and Patrol 0ffiaer; and
~e~ident~ of Che~te~field County; and
will miss ~r. Cla~'s
County Board of Superv~or~ p~licly recognlz~m Kr. J~es M.
Ci~pD ~d e~ends on ~half of ~t~ m~e~ a~d th= citizens of
Che~terfleld County their appr~clatloa for his se~ice tu the
County.
~D~ BE IT ~ER ~SOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be presente~ t0 Mr. ClaDD and ~at ~i~ resolution
Supervisors of Ch~sterfiel~ County.
Vote: Unanimous
~u~ed him for his dedicate~ ~ervice to the County, and wished
him well in his retirement.
93-267 4/2~/93
"CHESTE~FIE~D COUNTY PU~LXC DR~ING WATER ¶~EE£t!
on motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHERF~E, May 2-8, 1993 has been officially
National Drinking Water Week by the National Drinking Water
Alliance; and
~ER~S~ ou~ heal~ comfort~ and ~tandard of li~ing
a great deal on the County's ability to provide drinking
and
is treated to the highest standards and delivered to ~ach
oustomer's hone for only pennies a day.
appreciation of the exoell~t water provide4 to~e =itizens of
~esterfield County.
accompanied by ~. H~rbert Evans, Superintendent o~ ~e Water
their efforts in providing County citizens with quality water
and no,ed =he County ha~ the lowes~ Drioed and cleaneG~ wa~r
of any o~er jurisdiction in the area.
5. WORK SEBSIONS
~.~. AIRPORT M~BTRR PLaN
Hr. Hamer stated approximately every ten year~, County staff
and consultants perform a detailed analysis and strategic
planning effort in conjunction with reformatting and developing
the Airport ~aster Plan. ge intreduu~d Mr. Charles D. Lamb and
Mr. Steven O'Leary who were present to provide an overview of
Hr. Charles Lamb, vice President of Del~a Airport Consultants,
presented an overview of the current Airport improvement
projects and projects anticipated to receive ~ederal ~unding.
H~ reviewed a list ~f on-going projects ut the Airport
including t-he AI~O7 Projac~ consisting of grooving cf the
runway to improve skid resistanc~ and reducing the risk of
hydroplaning, wld~ning of the runway safety areas, purshasin~
land and easements in th~r~nway approach, and site preparation
for t-heDger construction; %he AIPO9 Project -- currently
underway and consisting of obstruction removal on Airport
property and obstruction lighting and installation of security
fencing around the AirpaX; an~ t~e AIP10 Project which will
design the necessary offslte obstruction removal required to
install the instrument landing system. He further stated the
last current project underway wlth federal and State f~nding in
presentation of the projeet~ unde~ay at the Airport.
Mr. Steven O'Leal*y, Aviation Planner for Delta Airport
Consultants, and Project ~4anaq~r for the Co~nty~ Airport
Master Pla~ Update, stated the Airport Msster Plan Project is
part of the Ped~ral Aviation Administration (~A) Airport
I~provement Plan Program, with 90 percent of the project funded
by federal funds and 10 percent funded by State and local
funds. He reviewed the Airport Master Plan including the
elements 0f the Master Plan consisting o~ inventory and data
collection; aviation demand forecasts; demand capacity analysis
the Airport layout plan; the terminal area plan; an obstruction
and approach plan; the runway prot6ction z0no plan and profile;
and the L&~d Use Plan. He then reviewed the County's Airport
Forecast Sugary innludinqalrcraft operations, based aircraft,
peak-hour operat~on~, and i~strumont approaches; the Facility
Re~ulrements Summary including air,ids runways, proposed cross-
wind runway, taxiways, lighting and navigational ai~s, and
landslde r~way~; and miscellaneou~ development~ including
relocating the fuel farm and the electrical vault, the s~s for
a maintenance storage building, ~eeu~ity perimeter fencing, end
additional automobile parkln~. Mm then pre~ent~d a brief slide
presentation of the proposed eross-windrunway and the Airport
Ma~ter Plan in general. He noted the Airport Master Plan is
scheduled to be completed in A~gu~t, 1993.
Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relatlve to which
property areas are County owmed; whether certain parcels of
land would present conflicts with Airport uses; the proximity
O~ SChool sites to the Airart; the timeframe in which the
function of the Airport A~visoz-yBosrd in conjunction with the
development and revi=ion~ of the ~lan; whether the Airport Was
e~pori~noing Safety problems a~ it relates to aircraft; the
breakdown of federal, State, and local funding for ~he cross-
wind runway project and the County's portion of the project;
whether the new runway will be able to han~!e larger aircraft;
and tile working relationxhip between the Connty's Airport and
the Richmond International Airport.
enterprise zone legislation to allow the establishment of zix
additional enterprise zones wit~hin the State of Virginia. Hs
~nd stuff has requested authorization to prepar~ a~ application
reviewed the definition of an enterprise zon~ and its purpose
which would result in neighborhood, commercial, and economic
revitalization of sun,h areas by means Of ~egulatory flexibility
3~ffer~on Davis Corridor for application as an ~nter~rlse zone.
Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the
census information required to meet the eligibility criteria of
this program; other cptiens availabl~ to the County if the
for a~ enterprise zone.
provid~ to businesses ioGated in an enterprise zo~e~ ether
It was the general conoen~u~ O~ the ~oard ~e go fcrwar~ with
felt this project was an example of excellent regional
the Project.
Mr. Bill Pools, Chief of Development Review for the
Department, stated the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on an ordinance amendment relative to the restriction
of doge and, specifically, sit/let e Cot~nty-wlds leash law or
leash law just in the more developed areas of the County. He
reviewed the input received at the Commission's public hearing
and the recommendation by the Planning Co~mission to adopt an
ordinance requiring a lea~h law to be applicable County-wide;
on,sir o~er's property; to re~ir~ non-hunting do~S
a leas~ when o~= ~hoir owner's prop~r~y; an~ =o e~empc hunters~
dogs from ~e "leash law" requir~ents for lawful hunting,
~raining, or fi~l~ ~rial~. H= further ~tat~d the Co~i~sion
also adopted a resolution to ~upport increasing the maximum
pmn=l~y for viola%ion of ~he County'm ~nnlng a= large
ordinance t0 ~e cogent State law maxi~ 0f $~50; r~qu~ting
~e General Asse~ly to increase ~e m~im~ f~ne which a
locality may impose for running at l~ge violations; providing
9rester penalties for repeat off~nd~s of ~e running at large
applioation of the ordinance if hunting 4og~ trespassed
property other than the property the h~ter ha~ p~rmission to
b~ hunting on; whether rural ~r~a~ ~hould b~ ~xem~te4 from the
ordinance; the ~rimary objeotive of ~e o~dinanoe be~nq to
9retest i~oceat citizens from vicious dogs; the ordinanc~
clearly defining whether a dog owner is violating the
0=~inanoe; ~e ordinance 9rovi~ing a~a~ate p~otec=ion for
h~ters and hunt c/~s; the ord~nanc~ being enforced on a
complaint-basis only; ~e impaot the proposed ordinanoe wo~ld
have in circumstances where a citizen is bitten by a dog; other
jurls~ic~ions who currmn~ly have s~lar ~r~inunces;
cost to th% County in implementing the ordinance.
5.D. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO HOTELS./MOTEL~
Mr. Bill Pools, Chief of Development Review for the Planning
Department, stated the Planning Commission held several work
sessions and public hearing~ cn an ordinance amendment relative
to hotels/motels and met with hotel/~otel0wnars and interested
citizens to discuss issues and concerns. He further stated the
Com~i~mi0n and both the oca~unity and industry concur with tho
proposed ordinance amendment which p~ohibits the sho~inq of X-
~dentifi~ation mt time of registration; would require
hotels/motels ~omaintaln guest registration for one year; and
wo~ld make it unlawful to knowingly rent rooms for
prostitution, solicitation for prostitution, or any o~.her
criminal act.
Therm was brief discussion relative to the circumstances
leadin~ up to ~he consideration of ~his ordinance.
P~0~S~IONAL__QC~UP~TIONAL LICENSE8 FOR VETENINARIAN~
}ir. Hammer stated consideration of adoption of an o~dinance
revi~ing business and professional occupational licenses for
veterinarians was deferre~ from the Board meeting on April 14,
199~ in order to obtain further input from the bu$ine$~
scarcity and veterinarians. He further stated staff met with
repre~entativo~ 0f the veterinarians and the veterinarians were
in agreement with the proposed changes to the ordinance. He
e~pressed appreciation to D~. Gary Zavik and Dr. Charles Hickey
for thsir efforts in resolving this issue. '
on mctlon cf Mr. Daniel, seconded by F~. Narren, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
~ORDINANCE TO AMiD THE CODE OF EE C0~TY
OF ~EST~IELD, 1978, AS ~E~ED~ BY ~ING
C~TER 12 RE~TING TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE
T~TION OF~T~IN~I~S
BE IT ORDAINED by the Boa~d of Supervisors of Chu~tcrfield
(1) That ~apter 12 of ~e ~e of ~e County of
~esterfield, 1978, as amended, i~ a~ended a~d reenacted to
read as follow~:
Ev~y person engag~ in one (1) or more of the following
businesses shall pay u license tax equ~l ~o t~ dollars
($10.00) or =~irty-six hundr~ of one pe~c~: (.0036} of
~ross receipts, whichever is greater for the
advertising age,ts a~d agencies, protective agents
or aqencle~ agent~ finding tenant~ for and renting
t~an~povtation, travel and tour agents or brokers,
analytical laborato~, a comput~ adjuster~ an
electroiy~i~t, artist's r~pr~ntatlve~, hooking
agent o~ concert manage~, pr~pa~ing ~dies for
burial, a boiler ShQp an~ machine shoD, ~i~en
hatchery, ol~n~ng the o~tside of buildimg~
furnishing businuus zemear=h service, a catsrer,
cleaning chi~eys, a correspondemt establi~t
bureau, 4e~ctlve se~ice, furnishing ~etm=tlve
funerals~ cleaning f~r~aces, ~ardlng or keeping
horsas or mules, famishing hou~ cleaning
furnishing janitorial service, operating a k~nnel,
operating a small ani~l hospital for grooming,
hoarding, laboratory ~ervice$ (excluding
radi~raphy], a~ni~tration of d~gs (=Xcludin~
vaccinations and e~tha~asia) ~n~ creation
only), ~upplylng clean l~n~n, towels, work clothes,
coat~, aprons, locksmith, manicurist, a
practitioner, f~r~ishing messenger service, except
telephone or telegraph m~enger semite, cleaning,
~aintaining and repairing ~0to~ Vehiclem, repair
pa~ing, crating, shipping, cutting, hauling, or
for the storage of or parking Of v~icles or other
personal property~ a photographer, a photostater, a
for public hir~ wi~h a ~auffe~, physician's
r~pls~y, pickle framing or gilding, plating metals
or healt~ club, renting any kind of tangible
article XIV, of this Code, operating a
trea~ing emtablis~ent, fu~ishing
93-271 4/28/93
service, stevedoring, £ursishing domestic or
clerical help, labor or employment.
Sec, 12-49. Enumerated: amount of license tax.
Every person engaged in one (1) or more of :he following
businesses or professions and having an office or place of
dollars ($20.00) or fifty-eight hundredth~ of one percent
(.0058) of the gross receipts, whlohever is greater e~ the one
(1) or more businesses or professions conducted by him as
follows. The business er profession of:
(l) An accountant, certified public accountant, an
appraiser or evaluator of real estate for ethers for
compensation, an architect, an assayer, an attorney-
at-law, an auditor, an auditing co~pany or firm, an
auctioneer, a pnblic bookkeeper, a buyer of
installment reoalvable~, a ceramic engineer, a
chattel Or real e~tate mortgage financier~ a
· chemical engineer, a chemist, a chiropodist, a
chiropractor, a civil engineer, a claims adj~ter~ a
ooa~ mining engineer, a collection agent or agency,
a coF~mon crier, a computer programmer, a assaulting
engineer, a consumer financier, a contracting
englneer~ e credit card service, a dentist, a doctor
of ~edicine, a letterer, a financier of accounts
receivable, a furnlsher of plan~ or specifications
for the erection or improvement of buildings or a
p~r~o~ ~ploy~d in a consulting capaolty in
connection wi=h an architect~ a credit bureau, a
£urnisher of data processing services, an electrical
engineer, escrow agent~ a financial planner,
financial services, a geologist, a heating and
ventilating engineer, a highway enginesr~ a
homeoDathiet, an industrial engineer, an industrial
loan company, an installment financier, an i~ventoI~
financier, an interior decorator, an investment
broker, a labor e0~ltant, a la~dscap~ a~chitsct, a
loan or mortgage broker, a loan or mortgage company,
a lumber measurer, a ~echanlcal engineer, a
mercantile agenuy ur agent, a metallurgist, a mi~ing
~ngineer, a naturopath, an optometrist, an
osteopath, a pa:est attorney or patent agent~ a
physician, a physiotherapist, a professional
~nglneer, a public relations counselor, a furnlehsr
of publ~clty service, a radio engineer, e railway
engineer, real estate brokers (~ncludlng the gross
receipts from all real estate agents who are
licensed with the State Co~merce Department through
such broker, regardless of how such agents ars
compensated) and ~anagers, a court reporter or
~tenographer, a refrigerating engineer, a ~anltary
engineer, a seourlty and oommodlty broker, a steam
power engineer, a stockbroker, a structural
engineer, a su~geen~ a surveyed, a tattoo a~tist~ a
tax consultant, a .taxidermist, a preparer of tax
returns, a veterinarian (subject to the provisions
of 1~-39 of this Code), a working capital financier,
an appraiser or evaluator of personal property or
damage to the same, commercial or ~raDhi¢ artist and
any per,on ~ende~ng a ~ervioe fo~ cempensat~on in
the form of a credit agency, an investment company,
a broker or dealer in securities and co~mo~it~s or
a security or commodity exchange, and any ~erson
engage~ in consulting service~.
O O n
(2) Thnt thia ordinance shall become effective on January
1994.
vote: Unanimous
7. NE~ BUSINESS
On ~otion of M~. McHale, ~monded ~ ~. Barbe~, the Board
intersection of Treely Road and windward Drive, in Be~uda
Magisterial District, and the s~eetlight installation
approval for th~ inter~ction of Lucks Lane and Spirem Drive,
~ost to install these lights.)
Vote; Unanimous
7.B.1. I%~DPTION O~ RESOL~TI~NRR~0~NI~IN~ ~E WEEK OF Flay 9-
adoptsd the following re~olution:
W~ERF~%~, the dedicated, loyal, and brave memberE of law
~ut~t~nding ~n~ profe~ionml individu=l~ as law enforcement
officers in Chesterfield County who serve to ~rotect ~e
health, ~afety, an~ welfare of its citizenry.
NOW, T~R~FOR~ BB IT R~0LV=D, that ~ chesterfield
and ~alls thi~ recognition to the attention of all its
~itizens.
vote: Unanimous
~DO~TION O~ RESOLUT~_~O~T~YING ~ND U~DATING THE
EI/ER~ENCY O~EP. ATXON8 PL~%N
On motion of ~ McHale~ seconded by ~. Col~rt, the Board
a~opted ~e following r~solution:
~S, %here exist dangers of many types including man-
~ade disasteTs, natural disaster~, and possible ho~til~ action~
of mn u~no~ enemy; and
~S, the safety a~d protection of the citizens and
property are of foremost con~ern to the Board of 8upe~i~or~ of
~sterfleld County; and
Co~onwealth of Virginia ~d federal government r~qulr% the
adoption of appropriate pla~ed proteotive measles.
93-273 4/28t93
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Chesterfield this 28th day of April, 1993,
that it hereby edopts the Chesterfield County Er~ergency
operations Plan wit~ annexee as written as the necessary basic
plan for County emergency ~ervic~n.
On motion of ~lr. McKule, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
appropriated $31,300 in federal Alcohol Drug Mental Health
S~rvicee (ADMS) Block Grant Funds for Chesterfield Co,unity
Services Board; increased Mental Health/Mental
Retardation/Substance Abuse FYP$ apprcpriations by$31,~00; and
authorized one full-time ca~e manager and one full-time ~enier
clinician position.
Vote: Unanlmou~
7.B.4. PERMIBBION TO APPLY FOR A~ INTERKODAL SURFACE
on motion of Mr. ~¢Hale, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to approve a request to
~ak~ appllcat~on to the Virginia Department of Tran~portatlon
for lntermodat Surface Trans~ortatlon Efficiency Act of 1991
(IST~A) Fund, in the amount of $20,000, which funds will be
used to develoD a one mile ~i~ing/hieyoling trail within ti%e
Count~ owned abandoned Seaboard Coa~tllne Railway in Che~ter
and, f~rther, appropriate said funds if approved; and
authorized the County ~dmini~trator to exe0ut~ the required
resolution requestin~ the Cnmmenwealth Transportation Board to
approve the project.
Vote: Unanimous
ACCORD DETE~I~ATION FO~ 15821 WDODB EDGE
RO~D
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
approved t~e initiation of a Speolal ~xueptienAp~licatiun and
Substantial Accord Determination for ~B]i Woods ;dge
Map 149-12 (1), Parcel 4, fur cunstructien of a rescue ~uad
building and directed the Board of Zoning Appeals to schedule
t~e issue ~or their eoneideratioe at their July 7, 1993
regularly scheduled meeting. (It is noted a copy of
filed with ~he ~sSers of thi= Board.)
Vo~e: Unanimous
On motion of Mr, McHalo, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the ~oard
approved a r~un~t for a musical/entertainment festival permit
to the E~ter Bec1 Society for a ~erle~ of outdoor music
ceneert~ begirn%ing May 13, 1993 and ending July 29, 1993,
subject to such conditions as the County Attorney deeI~
vote: unanimous
4/zB/93
T.B.?. ~uTnORIZ~TION FOR CO~I~TY /%DKINISTR~TOR TO EXECUTE
D~T~TMENT OF T~SPO~TAT~ON
On motion of ~. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, ~e Board
au~0rized the County A~inistrato= to execute a sto~ater
detention agre~ent wi~ th~ VirgiDia Department
Tran~portat~on~ which aqreem~t will cover all f~t~re Co~ty
detention facilltlms mo individual agre~ents will not be
needed fo~ each f~cility. (It is noted a copy of the
C~r~ensive Sto~water Detention A~eement i~ ~iled with the
papers of this Board.)
8. ~TATE ~Oi%D ~CCEPTi~NCB
This day the County Environmental Engineer~ in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination oS Northland Drive~ glerd~ur0t Avenue, Castle Glen
Drive, Northcrsek Drive, Stonecreet Road an~ Stoneor~st Court
in Eaglew00~, seoti0n i and a Resub cf Lot 1~ Block B,
Beeohwood Farm, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion o£ Mr. KcHale,
~sconded by}~3t. Colbert, it is resolved that Nor%bland Drive,
Glenhurst Avenue, Castle Glen Drive, Northcreek Drive,
and a Resub of ~t 1, ~look B, Beechwoo~ Fa~, Clover ~11
District, be and it hereby are established as public roads.
And be ~t further resolved, that the Virginia Depa~ent of
intermeotion of Route 672 to the intersection of Northcre~
Drive. Gle~urst Avenue ~endm .07 milm fro~ the c~l-~e-sac
to the dead end. Castle Glen Drive extends .0~ mile fr~ the
Drive extendm .08 m~l~ freeze i~tersectio~ of ~riarcrezt Road
to the d~d end. Driarcremt Road extends .2~ nile from the
cul-de-sac =o th~ dea~ e~. Briarcrest Court extends .03 ~ile
from ~e inter~ectlon of Brimrcrest R~ad ~o =h~ cul-de-sac.
This re.est is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Uirqi~ia Department of
Transportation drai~ag~ ~a~=m~nt~.
An~ be it f~ther resolved, that the Board of SuDervimor~
~arante~m to the Virginia Department of Transportmtion an
umrestri=ted right-of-way of 50' with nec~m~ary ~asam~n~s for
cute, fills and drainag~ for all of ~eme roadn.
Section i and a Rmsub of Lot 1, Block B, Meechwood ~arm. Plat
hook 68, Pa~em ~4 & ~5, O~to~r 17, 1989.
Vote: Unanlmoum
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wit~
direction~ f~om this Board, ~ade report in writing upon his
examination of Royal Birkdale Drive, T~orn=on Heath Drive,
Nereeyside Lane and Twickenham ~lace in Birkdale, Section 8,
Matoaca Distriut.
93-275 4/28/9~
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. McHule,
seconded by r~r. Colbert, it is resolved that Royal Birkdale
Drive, Thornton Heath Drive, Kerseyside Lane and Twiokenham
Place in Birkdale, section 8~ Matoaca District, be and it
hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Royal ~irkdale Drive extends .26 mile from
the end of Royal Birkdale Drive, Section 7, to the cul-de-sac.
Thornton Heath Drive extends .I2 mile from the intersection of
Royal Birkdele Drive to the cul-de-sac. Merseyeide Lane
extends .21 mile from the intersection of Royal Birkdale Drive
to the cul-de-sac. Twickenham Place extends .06 mile from the
intersection of Royal Birkdale Dri¥o to the cul-de-sac.
This request ie inclusive of the adjacent ~lepe, ~ight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Tran~portatien drainage easement~.
These ro~ds serve 60 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Beard of Superviser~
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-cf-way of 40' wi~ necessary easements for
Birkdale Drive which has a 50' right-of-way.
This section of Birkdale is recorded as follows:
Section 8. Plat Book 69, Page 6?, November 28, 1~$9.
Vote: ~nanlmou~
9. ~PROV~L OP UTXLXTXE8 ~ONT~A~T ~OR ~H~%SkNT RUN
On motion of F~. MeHale, seconded by Mt. Colbert, the Board
approved a utilities contrac~ for Pheasant Rue, Ssotlon B,
Preject Number 9110122, as follows, which project includes
1,46S L.P. e- cf offsite wastewater lines and authorized the
county Administrator to execute any necessary documents:
Developer: T/Mp and A~eciate~ LC
Contractor: Bookman Construction C~mpany
Co~tract Amount: Estimated Total - $14~,212.00
Total tstimated County Cost:
Wa~tewater [0£f~ite) - $
(Refund thru conneetlone)
Estimated Developer Cost: - $122,70~.1§
Code: (Offsets) - 5N-572V0-E4D
APPROPRIATION
Mr. Stegmafer presented a summary of the School operating
budget including revisions t~ the FY94 advertised k~get for
the School operating fund. He ~tated the Budget and Audit
Committee has recommended the proposed School budget, adopted
on April 27, 1993 by the $chool seard, be approved and the
appropriations be mad~ to the categories c~tlined with $4.~
being withheld from the appropriations to be released at three
specified times during the fiscal year when the County
Administrator certifies that the revenues are available to fund
th~ ad4itional appropriations.
93-276 4/28/93
Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relatiYe to the
School operating fund; the Sehoolts benefits program for
employBes; staffing reserve funds; th~ School Syste~ spplylng
%he $1 million end fund balance to next year end whether the $1
million is included in the proposed budget; whether the
scheol'e lie~ef revisions reflect the original input presented
to the School Board from the Budget Advisory Committee; the
total nmmber of additional school bese~ which would be
purchased; whether the existing school buses would be sold and
if so~ where the funds would bo allocated; whether the new
school buses would have brake-line heaters; the use of video
ca,eras o~ school buses; and the decision to reduce the
malarles of ~chool employees.
Mr. Warren expressed appreoiaticn to the School Board for
arriving at a balanced bmdget within the criteria e~tablishpd
by the Board of Supervisors.
There was brla~ discussion relative to whether any
administrative reductions by the schoels had been taken; the
Outcome-Based Education (0a~) ~rogram being included in t~c
budget; and the u,~mher of additional new administrative
enployeas and teachers included ~n the School budget.
]ct. Daniel requested when ~he ~udget process i~ initiated, that
revenue projection~ be formally communicated to the school
System, as well as other departments, ~o that the SChool's and
County'~ propo~ad budgets are prepared within those parameters
in order to avoid future budget cenfliot~. He expressed
concerns relative to funding o~ the Outcome-Based ~ducatlon
social St~die~ Progra~ as it relates to changes that have not
been piloted and well ~ocumente~ among other school systsm~.
There was brief discussion relatlvs to the operational changes
for Schools being included in the budget and savings accrued on
the School's side ef =he budget being used to fend some of
their unfunded items.
~r. McHale stated the presentation glvenbythe School Boamd to
the Budget and Audit Committee met the recommendations of the
Board of supervisor~ and he felt it was a sincere
accomplishment by both the Board of Supervisors and school
Board in fuediBg approximately 98 percent of the .proposed
School budget.
~r. Warren instructed staff to provide the Board with the
dollar figure for the increase i~ local funding from this year
to ncxt year and the total number of additional administrative
~taff and teacher~ that have b~n added in the School budget.
On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
appropriated funds us follows:
Instruction
A~ministration/Attendanoe & Health
Pupil Transpe~fation
Debt Service
Food Service
Net FYi994 Approved Request
~lus F¥1993 carry forward is Instruction
category
Plus Appropriations from April 14, 1993:
Non-recurring costs-buses {T~anspo~tatien
category)
CIP Reserve in G~neral Fund
Comprehensive Services Act
Total School Board Apprc~riatlon
8,~11,400
23,829,2Q~
27,9~1,1Q0
8.8D~.400
$237,39~,8~0
1,000,000
$242,862,5~0
93-277
(It is noted $4.5 million in appropriations wam withheld
the $0hool Board's request of $247,362,500.]
Vote: Unanimouc
On motion of ~r. HcHale, seconde~ by Hr. Colbert, the Board
accepted the following reports:
Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with aotatuo on tho General
Fund Balance; Reserve for Futtute Capital Projects; District
Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has
formally notified the County of the acceptance oft he following
roads into the State secondary System:
Route 1656 (Jolly Lane) - From 0.04 mile Southweot
Route 3240 (Jolly Place) - From Route 1556 to
to 0.15 mile Northwest Route 4337 0.15 Mi
Route 4621 (Powell Grove Drive) - From Route 4620
to $.18 mile North Routs 4620 S.1~ Mi
Route 4622 (Rowel1 Grove Terrace) - From Route
Route 1775 (Early Settlers Road) - From 0.02 mile
Vote: Unanimeum
9. ~X~CUTI~ ;B;GION ~T TO BE~TZON 2.1-344fa1 (?). t~ODE
On motion of ~r. Dan~el~ seconded by ~. Colbert~ the Board
recessed to the Administration Building, Room 505C, for dinner
code of virginia, 1950~ es amended~ for consultation with legal
counsel regarding County v. Woodlake, et. al., and pursuant to
Sestion 2.1-3%4(a)(3), for discussion of the acquisition or use
of real property for p~blie purpose relating to park sites and
athletic fields.
93-278 4/28/93
Reccnvening:
On motion of Mr. McHule, seconded by Zr. Daniel, the Board
a~opto~ th~ following r~solu~ien:
into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the
Beard and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
%~RF~%$, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective
July 1t 1989 provides for certification that such Executive
Session was conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, THEREFOR~ BE IT RES0LV~D, the Hoard o~ Supervisers
dees hereby certify that to the best of each member'~
knowl=dg~, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted
Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this
certification applies, and
ii) onl~ such public business matters as were identified in the
dimcum~ed or considered by the Board. No member di~ent~ from
thi~ ocrtificaticn.
The Scard being Dolled, the vets was es fellows:
M~. ~c~ale : Aye.
Mr. Daniel : Aye.
~[C. Colbart~ Aye.
Mr, Barber ; Aye.
Mr. Warren : Aye.
ll. INVOCATION
~r. Warren introduced Reverend Bilbert Dorn~ Pastor of Grs~e
Lnther~ Church, who gave the invocation.
Ms. Pitts led the Pledge of Allegiance to the F~ag of the
united $~a~es of America.
R~C~NI~TN~ M~ 6, 199~ A~ ~DAY OX P~d~YER'~ iN
~HE~TERPIELB
Mr. stith introduced ~r. Glenn Hughes, representing First
United M~thodist Church in ~opewell, who was presen~ to r~ceiv~
the resolution.
on ~otion of the Board, the fetlewing resolution wa~ adopte~:
WHEREAS, the National Day of Prayer is a tra~itlon first
proclaimed by the Continental Con~ress in 1775; and
WHeReAS, in LPS8, legislation was unanimously ratified by
both Houses of Congress and ~igned by ~i~e~t ~onald ~eagan
stating that the National Day of Prayer was to be observed on
the first Thursday of every Nay; a~d
WHEREAS, Thursday, May 6, 1993 marks the 42nd ceneeoutive
observance of the annual National Day of Prayer; and
93-279 4/28/93
WHEREAS, it is fitting and prope~ to give t~a~s to the
Lord by oDs~rving this day in Virginia when all may acknowledge
our blessings and express gratitude for them, whale recognizing
the need for strengthening religious and moral values in ou~
State and Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
ConntyBoard of Supervi~or~ does hereby precla~m May 6, 1993 as
a "Day Qf ~rsyer" in Chesterfield County.
AND, ~E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ~oard oS Supervisors
urges all citizens to observe this day in ways apprcpriute to
its importance and significance.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Warren pre~ented the exeoute~ resolution to Mr. ~ughes and
stated *~Day of ~rayer*~ was a significant event and skould be
observed appropriately.
13.D. R~COGN~XNG THE N"B~K O~ M~Y 9-15~993~.S "EMIL5
~. Sti~ introduced ~. Stephen A. Morrow~ Chai~an Of
Metropolitan Richmond Cha~er of Cu~rc~ B~ine~ Development
Co~ittee, and Mr. Paul Miller, Chai~an of the ~e~te~field
On motion oS ~e ~oard. th~ ~ullowing resolution was adopted:
~ER~, small busines~ employ sixty Deroenu o~ all
worker~ in the United States, provide the ~jority of new jobs,
~S, ninety-sight p~cent of the businesses
Chesterfield County employ fewer than one-hunted people each;
~A~, the small ~siness se~tor in ~esterfleld cowry
includez a wide range of zmall buzine~z typ~s -- manufacturers,
finanoial/inmurance/real estate -- and makes siggificmnt
contributions to the economic well-~ing and emplo~ent ba~e of
our County; and
~S, ~e ownershi~ of small buminmmses includes
a~d to ~e rich diversity and vitality of our County; and
economic progress and the stalwa~s of the energizing forces
the free ~rk~t and a~ we e~ark upon a new ~ra of economic
o~er~ by a~owledging~eir tr~endous importance as =he main
springs of continued economic and individual pro.ess of our
Court=y; and
~ER~S. ther~ are a n~be~ of public and private ent~timm
%hat recognize the importance of small businesses and provide
a variety of services and support to
Cowry Board of Supe~i~ors hereby d~clares the week of May 9-
Chesterfield.
93-280 4/28/93
Mr. Warren presented tbs executed resolution teMr. Morrow and
Mr. Miller, recognized the importance of small businesses in
the County, and ex/oressed appreciation to the Chamber and the
Business Council.
13.E. RESOL~ION RECOGNIZING THE HONTH OF.A~_~IL. 1993
Mr. Masden introdu=~d Mn. $~a~e Franks, Pre;ident-Zleot of
t~u Richmond~soclutlon cf Realtors, Inc., who was present
re~eive tbs r~olution.
~ER~S, the citiz~s of ~erica ~njoy the freedom of
choice more than any o~ nation on the fae~ of the ear~; and
~ER~S~ with thi~ f~eed~ we hawc within our right~
grante~ to us by ~e Con=t~=ution of ~e Uni=ed stat~s~
~iq~t to fai~ a~d equal access to ~e housing Of O~r Choice;
discrimination on ~e basis of rac~, color, religion, sex, and
national origin~
~s, this 9rotec=~on wa~ expanded by the Fair Housing
Act ~en~ents of 1988 to include~e handicapped and families
wi~ chil~en in Vi~qinia to further incl.ude ~e elderly
~s, The Rip,end Association of ~LTORS~
~et a~ide time to celebrate~e theme "Fair Housing O gens
of all our natiun~s oitlzens, a right ~LTORS suppo~ and
promote.
NOW~ TH~EFORE BE IT RESOLED, that the
Ap~il~ 1993, as "Fair Housin~ Month," and co,ends all tho~e
a~sooiated wi~h ~romoti~g u~al housing oD~ortunity
~=sterfleld County and the Co~onwealth of Virginia an~
it's significance ~o ~e a=tention of all our citizen~.
~ousing opportunities.
~S. DE~0~ ~ES. REG~DING RESID~3AL BUILDI~
ISSUES
Mr. Ro~t Ka~nes ~tated D~ruh K~nes w~s his wife an~ was
unable to b~ present at the me~ing and read into t~e ~acord a
lette~ o~ behalf of ~. Karnes, $~pre~ing concerns relative
to residen=ial building issues in~e co~ty and, specifically,
as it relates to h~r home.
Mr. Karn~ ~ub~itted to the Board a list Compiled by him of
County notifications to builders during ~he building De,it
application proce~e and e~luremmed concerns relative to the
protection of homeowners ~xq)erien¢ing shrink/swell sail
closing date twa weeks for application to the Shrink/Swell Sell
~rogram and to consider grandfathering the homeowners into the
Program. He further expreaaed canoernm relative to the county
di~contlnuing the home-site service suitability survey to new
$50.~0~ and his application ho the Shrink/Swell Sell Program.
He then requested the Board to assist those h~msowners.
M~. W~ren inquired a~ to methsde the County ha~ u~ed in
Shrir=k/Swell Soil Program. Mr. Stith stated the Co~ty has
notixi~ oi~iz~n~ about =~a availability of the Program
including a ~ass notice enclosed mailing in the County's
utility bills; printing a facsimile copy o~ ~.he oitiz~n
to ~e completed am un applioatlen to ~he Program; a mass
mailing of 10-12,000 notices; the distributio~ of approximately
12,000 no=ices ia various areas of the County includlng
Woodlake, Brandermill, Queensmill, and Walt0~ Park;
Channel; a~d numerous newspaper articles rela~isg to the
CONDITIONAL US~ CONDTTIONALUSB ~LkNNED DEVBLOPMENT~z.
PRE~IOUSLY IM~O~ED ~ONDITTONS OR PROFF~ED CONDITTCN~
Mr. Bill ~oole, Chief of Development Review for the Planning
Department, stated this date and ti~e has been advertised ~or
a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to
conditional uses, conditional use planned dovelopmenta, special
e×~eption~, variances an~ ~mendment$ ~o previously impe~ed
oondltlon~ or proffered oondltlon~. ~e further ~tated the
Plaenin~ Commission recommends adoption of the ordinance.
Nr. George Bea~le$ expresse~ concerns relative to the ordinance
no= b~ing suf~icisnt; and the County paying for some of the
timeframe to complete the zoning conversion project; repealing
b~ing one year.
~r. Jim Daniels, representing the C~esherfield Business
Jsfferson Davis Association; and Citizens for Responsible
Government; stated the groups support the proposed ordinance
amendments.
There being no one else to add. ess this ordinance, =he public
adopted the following nrdinanne:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
C~EST~RFIELD, 1978, AS A~ENDED, BY A~ENDING AND RE-ADOPTING
93-2B2 4/28/93
I. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Cheeterf~eld
County:
(1) That the attaehe~ ordinance adopted April 12, 1959,
and amended on April 22, 1992 and June 24, 199Z, amending
Chapter 21 of the Code of the County of Chester£ield, 1978, as
a~nded, is amended and reenu=ted us follows:
o o o
C. Except as noted in paragraph D, property for which a
Tazoni~g apDlloatlon is filed with the County after April
19aP, shall he governed by th, provisions of Chapter 21.1;
provided however, that the applications for pernits for mobile
home~ ~xiEting continuously in the same location in B or
zoning districts since on or before January 1, 1992, shall
governed by Chapter
D. Ail property zoned 0, B, or M on April 12, 1989, or
after such date if a rezoning applicatie~ Was filed with the
County prior to April ~, 1959, may be developed in accordance
with Chapter ~t. Conditional Uaes~ Conditional Use Plunned
Developments, Special ~xceptlons, Variances and Amendments to
previously i~p0~ed ooNditi0ns er proffered conditions may he
qranted if applied for within One (1) ysar of the adoption of
this Ordinance for properties zoned O, B, or M and such
properties ~ay he ~evelope~ in accordance with C~apt~ 21.
(2) That this Ordinance shall he effective on the date of
it~ adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimou~
1S.B.
OF CHESTERFIELD. 1975. ~S ~DED. ~Y i%S~ENDI~G ~
OF D0~S IN TH~ ~OU~Ty
~lr. ~ill Pools, chief of Development Review Sor the Plannin9
Department, stated this date and time has been advertised ~or
a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the
restriction of dogs in the County. He f~Lrther stated the
PlaNning CO~iSsio~ recommsnds adoption of the ordinance.
Hr0 Denny Quaiff, Executive Director for the Virginia Deer
~unters Association, stated he met with ~taff regarding the
ordinance offarlng alternatives for hunters in vast rural areas
of the County; that the A~o¢iatien s~pports the proposed
ordinance; and requested the Board to adopt the Ordinance.
Mr. Tom Tennille, representing the Virginia Deer Hunters
Association, rscopnlzed approximately twenty-five hunters who
were present in support of the proposed ordinance and expres~ed
appreciation to staff in working with the hunters to develop
the ordinance. ~e then requested the Board to adopt the
ordinance as presented.
H$. Batricia Juhnson stated she resides in ~he Katcaca Dietrlct
and ~he felt the ordinance should be adopted County-wide in
or,er to protect the sa£ety o£ County eitlzsns an~ their
property.
M~. cind~ Luck stated she resides in th~ Dale Di~tr~ct and
suhmitte~ a petition to the Board from citizens in favor of a
laugh law. She further stated her daughter had been attacked
by a ~ogand expressed conssrns relative to the penalties which
can be enforced in such incident~; that she f~l~ the ordinance
should have stiffer penaltle~ to protect citizens from v~clous
93-283
dogs; and that there is an average of two dog bites a da~ in
the County and the Animal Con%rtl Department receives
approximately 11,000 phone calls on doge ru/~ing at large each
year. She further stated she felt responsible dog owners do
not and would not allow their pets to run free and requested
the Board to adopt the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Jay Sharing stated he resides in the Midlot-hian Districtt
owns a dog, and is opposed to the proposed ordinance. He
further stated his dog is obedient and ex-pressed concerns
relative to restraining his dog while off hie property
stated he felt it was the pet owner's duty to assume
rasponsihillty of ~ha actions u£ their animal and ~he laws of
the County should reward responsible pet owner~ and penallze
clrcum~tances which initlatedthe proposed ordinance and stated
he felt the issue should not be whether a dog should be on a
leash but rather dog owner~ being more rusponsible.
Mr. George Beadles ~tat~ he felt the ordinance would not
resolve dogs runnlnq at large and will offend many County
citizens; that pet owners ehoul~ be held accountable for the
actions of their dogs; that if a leash law was enforced for
dogs, it should also be enforced for cutes and that the
liability of pet owners should be addressed rather than the
manner in which p~t owners restrain their pets.
Mr. Sam Mayo stated he resides in the Matoaca District and
exprauscd Concerns r~lutive to the ordinance prohibiting
conpluint wa~ placed on a dog running at lurge.
There being no one else to address this ordinance, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Barber ~tated he initiated the idea of a leash law due the
attack of a dog to ~everal children at a bu~ ~top. ~e further
stated his initial proposal was to restrict the leash law to
non-burn areas of the County and to address the concerns of
hunters and farm owner~. He read into the record portions of
a letter from He. Claudia Swanson and a letter from Mr. Samuel
Rosenthal expressing ~upport for a leash law. ~e expressed
appreciation to ~he Plannin~ Commission for their time and
effort in developing the ordinance.
Mr, Colbert =tared he support= the propo=ed ordinance
presented.
M~. MeHale stated he felt adoption cf the ordinance would
t~e law as i~ relates to do~s being under the control of their
recumncndud by the ~lannln9 Commission.
Mr. Daniel stated he was pleased wi=h the public response to
the ordinence and the reco~endat~on for the ordinate to be
COCky-wide. He further stated he felt the ordinance Would
provide legal recourse for clear language when passing
judgement on dog bite cases and~ therefore~ he was in favor of
the ordinance.
Ther~ was brief discussion relative to other jurisdictions who
o~rrently have leash laws and the cost associated with
implementation of the ordinance.
~dr. Warren stated he felt the proposed ordinance would provide
a better opportunity for the judicial systmmwhen deciding dog
93-284 4/28/93
Thee was brief dimcussion relative tot he number of dog bites
in the County and traffic accidents caused by dogs running at
large.
On motion of Mr. Barber~ seconded by Mr~ Colbert, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
A~ 0RDINAi~CE TO ii,END THE COD~ OF TH~ COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~ND~D, BY ~ENDING
~D RE~ACTIN~ SECTION 8-6 R~TING TO
THE ~STRICTION OF DOGS IN C~TAIN PORTIONS OF THE CO~Y
BE IT O~AINED by the Board of Sups~isors of Chesterfleld
County:
(1) That section 5-6 of the Code of th~ County
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is aae~ded and reenacted to
Sec. 5-6. Rnnnin~t large - ~ohibited.
(a) It mhall be unlawful to p~it a~y dog to run at
large wi~in the county at any tlm~ during ~e year. Any
per,on who pe~its his dog to r~ at large ~hatl be deemed to
have violated the provisions of ~i~ ze=~i~n. Th~ ~og warden
and deputy dog warden~ aMe authorized to =uusa all dogs found
running at large in violation OS ~is ~eotion to be caught and
~e~ed ~p in th= county dog pound.
(b) ~xcept as provided in subsection (~), a dug shall
~eemed to be r~in~ at lmrge under subsection (a) if the doq
physical restraint.
(o) A dog which i~ engaged, with its owner or custodian,
in lawful hunting, training for hunting, o= field trialm in
conjunction with m hunting, training or field trial season
au~horiz=~ by the Virginia Depa=~ent of Game and Inland
F&mheriss ~n~ which is wearing a collar with a tag mhowin~ the
nam~ addremm an~ telephone n~er of the o~er of ~e dog~
shall not be deemed to
(2) That this ordinance mhall become effective
i~$~iately upon adoption.
vote: Unanimous
15.C. TO OON~ID~ ~NORDIN~NCE TO;~4END THE ~ODE O~
OP OHE~T~P~, 1978, AB ~ED. ~ADDIN~
SECTION 15,1-~ ~.~TIN~ TO THE OPE~T~ON OF
~. Bill Poole~ Chief of Development Revie~ for th~ Planning
Department, stated thi~ date and time has been adv~ti~d for
a publi= bearing to conside~ an ord~nanc~ relating to the
operation of hotel~ and motels an~ providing fu~ a penalty. ~e
further stated staff met with hotel/motel o~ers and interested
and industry were in aqreem~t with the ordinance
~. Vernon LaPrade, owner of the Holiday-Inn Koger C~ter
~QUth, and ~r. Steve Norman~t, reprm~en=ing Sheraton Park
developing ~e or~inano~ an~ s~ated %hey a~e in favor of the
hotels and motels to apply for a conditional u~e.
93-285 4/~8/93
............ LII~ ............... J I il' I [ .... L ..........
Mr. Daniel stated this issue was initiated from
expressed from citizens in Dale District and theBoard remanded
the isoue to the Planning Co~mis~ion for their review and
r~¢omm~ndation. He further stated the ordinance addresses
social issues and liability from the business community and he
supports the propaemd ordlnanoa.
There being no one else ts address this ordinance, the public
bearing was closed.
Board to adopt an ordinance ts amend the code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as ameaded, by adding a new Section
relating to the operation of hotels and metel~ and providing
for a penalty.
Ther~ was brief discuooion relatiYe ts section 1~.1-33.b
relating to prohibited conduct.
Mr. Warren then called for the vote, on the motion made by Mr.
Daniel, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Board to adopt the
following ordinunce:
AN CRDINANC~ TO A~ND T~ COD~ OF T~E COUNTY
OF ~H~ST~P~I~LD~ 1978~ AS A~ENDED~ BY ADDING A NEW
S~CTTON 1~.1-~3 RELATIN~ TO
OPERATION OF HOTELS AND MOTELS AND
BE IT ORDAIN~l>bythe Board uf supervisors of choster£icld
county:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, us
amended, is anonded by adding a new sea,ion as £ollow~:
Sec. ~S.1~33. Omoratlon of ho~et or motel - nrohiblted
a. For the purpose of thi~ ~ectlon, the term~ "hotel"
and "motel" are defined as provided in section 21.1-
~81 of this Code.
~o x-rated or pornographic movies, shows or
progra~o, ac judged by prevailing community
standard~, shall be offered in a room or suite of a
hotel or motel.
a hotol or motel without registering such ~erscn by
name and obtaihing identifieatlon which confirms the
naris by which the ~erson is registered. In ~he case
of group rental~ of ~ore than two roo~s, a rooming
list provided by the group organizer which
identifieo th~ oeonpants of each room shall be
~u£ficlent identification under ~his subsection.
d. Each hotel and motel shall maintain guest
registration records for a period of one (1) year.
occupy cr use a roam or suite cf a ho~sl or
for p~ostit~tion, solicitation for prostitution, or
for any other criminal act.
(2] This or~inanoe shall become effeotive immediately
~pon adoption.
vote: Unanimous
· 6. ~EOU~BTS l~R REZON~NG
93~W0~45
SB~ER~SORS requested rezoning fr~ General Business (B-3) to
Neighborhood Business (C-2), ~e density of suo~ amen~e~t
will b~ ~ontrolled by zoning conditions or Ordinance stan~rds.
The Comprehensive Plan deslgnate~ ~e property for general
c~eroial use. ~is r~est lies on 6.9 a=rem fr~ntln~
approx~ately 2~0 feet o~ ~e ~o~th li~e of H~ll Street Road,
a15o fron~in~ 7~0 fee% on ~he eas~ l~ne ~f O~bri~ge Road and
a~oxi~ately 150 feet o~ ~e west llne of O~ridge ~oad. Tax
Map 49-S (1) P~ce~ 57 and Part of Parcel 14 (Sh~t 14).
Mr. Jacob=on presented a summary of Case 93SN0145 and stated
the Planning co~ission reco~end~ d~ninl.
~. Daniel stated thi~ reque~ wa~ initiat~dby~e Board in an
effort to ad~eaa nelg~orho~ concerns relative to the
residential co~unity. He fur~ ~tated after meveral
co~romi~e was reached and the Planning C~issio~ s~b~c~ently
inltlate~ an ap911catlon for C-3 zoning, whi~ wo~ld b~
considered by tse Boa~ this c~cning und, thc%fore, he
reco~ended wi~awal of Case 955N0145. ~ ~u~mit~ into =he
=eoo~d a oo~y of his remarks.
On motion of Mr. Duniel, seconded by ~. NcHale, the Board
withdr~w Case 93~N014~.
Vote: Unonimous
93~N0155 (~msnded)
In Der~ud~ Ntgisterial District, J, O4~L HORRIS requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of 19.7
agree and to Residential (R-12) of 4.5 acres. A single family
residential subdivision with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square
feet is planned. R~idential use of up to 5.63 units per acre
is permitted in an R-12 District and the applicant has agreed
tO limit the R-9 tract to a maximum of 2,54 unite ~sr acre.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed R-12 property
density ~eside~tial u~e of 1.5 units per acre or less. This
request lies on a ~4.2 ac~e parcel Srenting approximately 850
feet e~ thc north line of Enos Church ~oad, approximately 920
feet west of Point cf Rocks Roa~, also ~ront~ng ~n two (2)
place~ for u total of approxi~latsly 1,100 feet on the west llne
of 1-295. Tax ~ap 13~-14 (1) Parcel i (Sheet
F~. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 9~SN0155 a~d stated
the ~lanning Co,mission and staff recommends appreval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. He further stated the
~lanning Department has r~ceived two letters in support and use
in opposition to the request. He noted the lett~ of
opposition ha4 been received subsequent to the Plannlng
Commission meeting.
Mr. Jeff Collins, representing th~ applicant, stated the
recomm~ndatlon wa~
There Wa~ brief discussion relative tu the letter submitted
Opposition to the request.
There was opposition pre,est. Mr. Warren stated ~inoe there
was opposition to the request, it would be placed in its
regular sequence on the agenda.
93-287 4/28/93
...... LL J ~ ,I l L ~
TAWERN requested rezoning from Convenience Business (B-X) to
Community Business (C-3). A nightclub is ~lanned. However,
the property could be used or developed for o~her community
b~ine~ u~e~. The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance s~andards. The
District u~e. T~is rogues= lies on an 8.3 acre parcel fronting
approximately 6~O feet on th~ east line of Coalfield Road,
approximately ls~ feet ~euth of aidlothiun Turnpike, also
fronting approximately 75 feet on the ~outh line of Midlot~ian
Turnpike, across ~rom Crowder Dr~ve. Tax Ma9 15-12 (1) Parcel
39 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 93SN01§6 and stated
tea condition and a~ceptance of the proffered conditions. ~e
noted the request conforms to the ~idlothian Area Communitv
Plan.
Mr. Barber returned to the meeting,
Hr. Warren stated since there were citizens present to speak on
the request, it would be placed in its regular sequence on the
agenda.
93BN0168
In Dale Magist~ria~ District, ~END~ S, BUSCH requested
Conditional Use to per,it a day care center ~n an Agricultural
(A) Diatriet+ The density of s~eh amendment will be Controlled
by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the pro~erty for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0
unltn per acre. This request lies on a 7.1 acre parcel
fronting approximately 963 feet on t/la west line of Newbys
Bridge Road, also frontin~ approximately ~90 fe~t on the south
line of Jacobs Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of
the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 50-15 (1) Parcel 19
(sheet 14).
Mr. Jacobsen prssented a summary of Case 93SNOX68 and state~
the Planning Commission and staff recommends approval subject
was oppo~ition to the request~ it would be placed in its
regular sequence on the agenda.
In Matoaca Magisterial Distrlot, RAM/BSE~OMM~NZ~ATZONg~
~/b/a AI{ERI~AN TOWER8 r~quested Conditional Use Planned
Development t~ permit ~ 425 £cot communications tower in an
Agricultural (A) Distriot. The density of such amendment will
be controlled by zoning conditions or 0rdinanee standards, The
comprehensive Plan designates the property for
agricultural/fore=tel use. Thi~ request lies on a 1,99 acre
parcel fronting approximately 295 feet on the west l~ne of
Beaver Bridge Road, appro×i~ate/y 4,~00 feet southeast of
Taylor Road. Tax Map 107-7 (1) Pa~t of Parcel 2 (Sheet 28).
4/28/93
Zdr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 99SN0169 and ~tated
the Planning Commission and staff reccAmends approval subject
to conditions.
Z~c. John Parsons, representing the upplicunt, stated the
recommendation was aoeepta~!e. There was no opposition
present.
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard
approved Case 93SN0169, subject to the following
1. There ~halt be no signs permitted to identify this use.
The base cf the tower shall be enclosed by a minimum Six
($) foot high fenoe~ designed to p~eclude trespassinq.
The fence shall be placed so as to provide ~uf~iclen~ room
between the fence and property line to accommodate
evergreen plantings having an initial height and spacing
to p~ovide eoreening of thc base of t_he tower and the
equipment buildings from adjacent properties. A detailed
plan depi=ting this req~iremumt shall be submitted to the
Planning Deloartmen~ for approval in conjunction w~th final
site plan r~view.
3. Any building or mechanical equipment ~hall comply with
Section 21.1-~48 of tho Zoning Ordinance relative to
architectural treatment of building exteriors amd
(NOTE: This condlt~en wo~ld require the screening of
mechanical ~quipment located on the buildin~ or ground.
Screen~nq would not be required for the tower or tower-
mounted equipment.)
4. Prior to release of a building per, it £or the tower, a
oepy of FAA approval shall be eubm~tted to the Planning
Department.
5. The tower and squipment shall be desiqned and installed so
as not to ~nterfe~e with the Chesterfield County Public
Safety Trunked System. The developer shall perform an
engineering ~tudy to determine the possibility of radio
frequency interference wi~h the County sy~t~. Prior to
release of a building pea-mit, the study~halt be submitted
tO, an~ approved by, the Chesterfield County
Co~unicntions and ~lectronics staff.
6. The developer shall be responsible for correeti~g any
frequency problems which affect the Chesterfield County
Public Safety Trunked Ry~tem caused by this use. such
corrections shall be made ~mmedlat~ly upon notification by
the Chesterfield County Co~u~unlcatlcns and Electronics
staff.
7. The color and lighting system for the towe~ ~hall be as
follows:
a. The tower shall bu grey or another neutral color,
acceptable to the Planning Department.
b. Mediu~ intensity strobe lights with upward
reflection ~ay be used during daylight hcura.
c. So£t blinkin~ red lights ~hall b~ ~sed during night-
time hours.
93-289 4/28/93
All driveways and parking areas shall be graveled and
maintained to minimize dust problems and provide ease of
ingres~ and egress.
93S~0170
In ~ermuda Magisterial District, ~ACK ~. ~HOO~MIT~ requested
amendment to u previously granted Conditional Use (Case
91SN0269) tO permit the reduction of a buffer at an approved
borrow pit ~ite. Specifically, the applicant wishes to reduce
a required buffer adjacent to the Appomattox River and Johnson
Creek. The density of such amendment will be controlled by
zoning conditions os ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property for general industrial usa and
100-year floodplain. This request lies on a ~16 acre p~oeI
fronting apRroximately 4,7~7 feet OA the east line of Allled
Road, approximately ~,~00 feet north of East H~dred Road. Tax
~ap 136 (1] Parco! 11 (Sheet 43).
~{r. Jacobsen pre~entnd a summary Of Case 93S~0170 and stated
the Placating Commission and staff race--ends approval subject
to a condition.
~r. Dean Hawkins, reprasentinq the applicant, stated
recommendation was acceptable. There wa~ no opposition
present.
T~ere was brief discussion relative to tho buffer conditions
and whether the amended condition woul~ provide
vegetation along ~he rivers.
On motion of F~. McHale~ seconded Dy M~. Daniel, t~e Board
approved Case 9~SN0170, subject to the following conditions:
1. A buffe~ shall be ~ain~ained alon~ the south and eamt
property boundarie~ cf the request site adjacent to
$ohnacna crack and the confluence of the James and
Appomattox Rivers. This buffer shall consist of all
property lyln~ between John~ons Creek, the confluence of
the James and Appomattox River~ and th~ eight (~) foot
contour. TBS removal of vegetation to accommodate
utilities, archaeological inspection views, pedestrian
paths an~ facilities associated with any 9emitted usa
shall be permitted only upon approval by the Director of
Planning. (P)
(NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 1 of Casa
Drier to the issuance oS an amended land diet=thence
permit, the limits of land dletu~hance as depicted on tAe
approved ~ite plan shall be flagged and inspecUedby the
Planning and Enviror~mental Engineering Departments for
approval.
(NOTES: a. This condition is in addition to
conditions of zoning approval for Case
91SN0269.
b. Except a~ ~oted herein, all
oondition~ of zoning apR=oval foM Case
915N0269 remain in effect.)
Unanimous
Vote:
93-290 4/28/~3
,I
92SN0~89 (Amended]
amendment to a previously granted rezoning (case 89SN0303)
relative to architecturul treatment of buildings. A shopping
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan dezlgna%es the property for office use.
Thi~ r~quest lies in a Neighborhood Business (C-2) District on
a 9.83 acre parsul fronting approximately 837 feet on the west
line of Huguenot Road, approximately 930 feet oat he north llne
cf Old Buckingham Road and approximately 850 feet On the east
line of Alvers~r Driv~ and is located at the inter~uctlonu of
thes~ roads. Tax F~ap 16-8 (1) Parcel 56 (sheet 7).
Itt. Jacobsen presented a Summary of Case 93SN0189 end ~tated
the Planning Commission and staff reeommend~ approval and
acceptance of a proffered condition.
Mr. William A. Johns ~tated the ~eCu~acndation was acceptable.
There was ne opposition present.
On motion of F~T. Barber, sesonded by ~r. Mc~ale~ the Board
~xoept az stated herein, the architectural treatment of the
buildings shall conform to Section ~1-~-~48 Of tho Zoning
Ordinance. Buildings shall utilize red br~ck f~onts with
accents and cowered walks ~hall have roofs ~%illzlmg metal seam
roofing ~olored generally the color of teal green. The
building sid, s an~ back~ vi~ible from Old Buckingham Road and
Alverser Drive shall utilize b~iek ~ed split block with red
brick secants. A '*village'~ atmosphere shall be created for
pedestrians by provision of covered walkwaya along store fronts
which shall be separated from the parking areas by a colonnade.
The store fronts shall be con~trncted primarily of gla~.
Rooftop mechanical ~quiUmeat shall be screened from public
view. In conjnnction with site plan review, architectural
elevations mba11 be submitted to the Planning Cummi~elon for
approval.
(NOTE$~ a) This condition supersedes Pre£fered Condition 3
o£ Case 89SM0303.
b) A~i other conditions cf zoning approval for
Case 89SN0303 remain in effect.)
vote: Unanimous
In Dale Magisterial District, THBCHBSTERFIBLD COU14TYRL~NNING
C~9~LI$$ION reclue~ted rezonlng from General Business (B-3) an~
Residential (R-7) to Co,unity Businesz (c-3) wit~ conditional
Uss to permit office/warehouse uses. The dans~ty of s~eh
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for
general commercial use and re$identlal use of 1-51 tO 4~00
unlt~ per acrs. This request lies On approximately 9.23 aere~
~ro~ting a~preximat~ly 90 feet on the south line of ~ull Street
Road, also ~rsnting approximately 750 f~et on the east line of
Oxbridge Road end approxim&tsly 1~O feet on the west line of
Oxbrldge Road. Tax Map 49-8 (1) Part cf Parcel 14 (sheet 14).
l~r. Jacobsen presented a s~m~ary of case 93SN0181 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommends approval subject
to a eo~ditiom and acceptance cf the proffered condition. He
~eted the Planning Commission had withdrawn that pertiun o£ the
request for multi-family and tow~house residential uses.
the recommendation was acceptable. ~a noted at a later data
the property owner muy seek zoning for multi-family and
townhouse residential uses. There was no opposition present.
F~. Daniel expressed appreciation to staff and interested
~itlzens for wor~iDg together on this
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~¢Hale, tho 8card
apprsved Case 935N0181, subject to the following condition:
Im conjunction With th= grunting of this request, un exception
line for office/warehouse uses, having loading areas oriented
toward ~he eastern property line, shall be granted.
(NOTE: Such u~es will be required to conform to Community
Business (C-3) base setback and buffer requirements unless
relief is obtained through variances and/or site plan review.)
And~ further~ the Beard accepted the following proffered
condition:
The property owners in this rezoning sase, pursuant to Section
15.1-491.2:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the
Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfiel~ County (tho "Ordinance"), for
themselves and their sucoesssre or aesigns, proffer that the
development of the Property under consideration wall be
devel0pe0 according to the following condition, if, and only
if, the razoning request £or C-3 is grants~. In th~ event the
rezoning requemt is den~ed, the proffer ~hall in%mediately he
null and VOid an~ of no further force or ef£ect.
~xcspt a~ ~ualified herein, uses permitted on the Property
shall bet hose uses permitted by-right and those permitted with
res~rictlons or as accessory usus, in the C-3 Distrlc~ except
that the following uses shall not be permitted:
A. Night ~lubs. Restaurants, shall be permitted.
B. Feed~ seed and ice sales.
C. Hospitals.
D. Hotels.
Lahore%orlon, except that laboratories accessory to a
nedieal office or laboratory, or laboratories de=oted to
optometrists sales and/or s~rvices shall be permitted.
F. Paw~ shops and second-hand stores; provided, however,
Fast food remtaurantm with a drive-through for food pick
H. Taxldermles.
I. ~atsrial reclamation receiving canters.
~. Occult sciences, such as palm readers, astrolagists,
forhune tellere, tee leaf readers and
K. Automobile service stations, including self-service
sta=~one.
L. Motor vehicle washes.
M. Motor vehicle repair and service, including faoilitles
that provide ell changes, tune-Up~, align~eBt~, brake
repair/replacements, body werk~ tlrsohanglng/replasement~
repair/replacement, radlater servloe/repalr;
however, ~stablish~ent~ that repair, servlo~ or in,tall
automotive it~m~ such ae cellular phones~ car
radios/stereos/tape~ or CD player~, or gla~ repair end
ins=allation shall be permitted.
N. Automobile an4 motorcycle ~ales.
Vote: Unanlmou~
93-292 4/28193
93B~0~55
In Bermuda ~agis~erial District, J. CA~L HOHalB requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of 19.7
sores and to Residential (R-12) of 4.5 asres. A single family
residential subdivision with a mlnimumlot size of 9,000 square
feet is plan~ed, Residential use of up to 3.63 units per acre
is permitted in an R-12 District and the applicant has agreed
to limit the R-9 tract to a maximum of 2.~4 units per acre.
for light i~d~mtrial a~d the proposed R-9 property for low
~enmi~y resides%iai ume o~ ~.5 units p~r ecrm or less. This
f~et on ~e nor%h line of Enos church Road, approximately 920
fe,t west of ~oint of Ro~s Road, also fronting in two (2)
plaoes for a to,al of approxi~tely 1~100 feet on t~e west line
of 1-295. T~x ~p 135-14 (1) Parcel 1 (Zheet 42).
Mr. Jacobson preseRted a $u~a~ of came 93SN0155 and stated
a polioy to requite applicant~ to proffer public water and
considered if the need exist.
Mr. 9am ~yo ~tated he resides in ~toaca Digtrict, hag
rai~e~ on Co~ty well water, and he felt citizens ~hould not
required to u~e public water.
On motion of ~. McHale, ~econded by ~. Col~rt, th~ Soard
1. At time of recordation of a ~ivi~ion plat for property
sou~ of =he CSX Ra~road, forty-five (45) ~et o~ right
of way un the north side of Enos Church Road meamured from
the centerline of that pa~ of ~on ~ch Road
i~edlately a~jac~n~ to ~he property ~hall be
free and unrestricted~ to ~d for the ~nefit of
~esterfiel~ County.
3. To provide for an ade~ate roadway ~y~tem at ~he time
for ~e following:
a. Construction of ad~itional pavement along Enos
Ch~ch Road at th~ approved access to provide a
right turn lane.
b. Relocation of the ditch to pro,ida an
shoulder along the nor~ side of Enos Church Road
for the entire property fronta~a.
c. Dedication to ~e County o~ Chester~iel~ fr~e and
~estrieted, any additional right of way
93-299 4/2gl93
4. There shall be at least a 200 foot setback from the
Interstate 295 right of way. This setback shall be
~xolu$ive o£ all required yards. All natural vegetation
shall be maintained within this setback area unless
removal of the vegetation i~ approved by tho Planning
Commission.
5. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the
following to the County of Chesterfield prior %o the time
of building permit application for infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the property:
a. $4,000 per lot, if paid on or prior to June 30,
1993; or
b. The amount approved by the Board cf Supervisors not
to exceed $4,000 per lot adjusted upward by
increase in the Karshall and Swift Building Cost
Index between July 1, 199Z and July 1 Of the fiscal
year in whiah the payment is made if paid after June
30, 1993.
6. ' The portion of this property south of the existing CSX
Railroad shall no, have more than a total o~ 50 developed
lot~.
7. The lot~ ab~tting the west and south boundary of the
pnrt~nn of ~h~ property ssuth of the CSX Railroad shall
contain a minimum of 10,000 square feet.
8. An overall drainage plan for the portion of this request
which lies south of the CSX Railroa~ shall be sub~itte~
with the con~tructlon plans for the initial development of
the parcel south of the CSX Railroad.
vote: Unan~mon~
In Mid~ethian Magisterial District, OLD B~KIN~HAH INN AED
TAVerN requested rezoning from Convenience ~usines~ (B-l) to
Community Business (C-3). A nightclub is planned. ~owever,
th~ property could be used cr developed for other co--unity
business uses. The density of such amendment will b~
¢oetrolled by se~i~g ¢o~ition~ or Ordinance ~tandards. The
Comprehensive Plan dea~gnate~ the prsperty for Village Shopping
District u~e~ Thi~ request lie~ on an 0.$ acre p~rcel f~onting
a~roximately 620 feet on the east l~ne of Coalfleld Road,
approximately 185 feet south of Midlothlan Turnpike, also
fronting approximately 75 feet on the ~o~th line of M~dlothlan
Turnpike, a=ro~s from Crowder Drive. Tax ~ap 1~-1~ (1) Parcel
39 {~heet 7).
to a ~ondition and aoeeptamoe of the p~offe~ed oonditionm. He
noted ~e re,est confo~s to ~e Midlothian ~ea Co~unltv
~lan+
Ms. ~rgaret Adams stated she is an adjacent property owner;
~at she has attended the existing restaurant; and ~ut she
felt the restaurant was operated properl! and, ~erefore, she
supports the r~t.
~s. borthy ~=ker stated she resides in the Hidlothlan area;
has visited the restaurant; and she felt it is a very nice
establishment.
93-294 4~28/93
Mr- Barber stated he has visited the restaurant several times
and he felt it was a nice establishment and indicated there has
not been any opposition to the request.
Mr. Daniel indicated he felt u conditional use, ratchet than
rozoning, would be more appropriate. ~e expressed concerns
relative to the proximity of the emtablish~ent to Midlothian
~iddle School and stated he did not feel ha caul4 support the
request at thim time.
E{r.- Warren stated the Bo~d of Supervisors recently requested
the Planning Commission to evaluate a policy ~elative to the
sale of alcohol in close proximity of schools and wam
uncomfortable with approving the request at this time. He
further stated information had been provided regarding the
Police Department responding to v~ious calls at the
establishment and expres~e~ conoern~ about the establishment
being in close proximity to a school and, therefore~ he could
not support the requemt at this time.
Discussion, comment~, and questions ensued relative to ~he
r~oning of the property i~ general; whether the request ~hould
be a conditional use; and the mechanisms available in granting
~4r. Mc~ale stated he fslt there were certain events which could
nat be controlled by a business owner and the business owner
had acted appropriately in responding to the vari0u~
situations. He express~ concerns relative to zoning requests
~elng judged on this type Of criteria and stated although he
understood the other conc~n~ e~,c~res~ed~ he c0~ld s~pport the
~4r. Barber stated the applicant has pru£forsd limitation on
uses. He further stated he met with the Midlethian Middle
School Principal who indicated there has net bee~ any conflict
regarding the proximity of the establishment to the School.
Mr. Barber then made a motien~ seconded by 14r. MoKale, for the
Board to aDproYe Case ~$N01~6 subject ~o the following
condition:
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern
property line. This bu£fer shall be maintained in its natural
state. The Planning commission may modify this buffer
requirement in accordance with Section 21.1-226 (i) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
And, further, for the Board to accept the followlng proffere~
conditions:
1. Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (~5) feet of right
of way on the east ~ide of Coalfield Road, measured from
the centerl~ne of that part of Coalfield Road immediately
adjacent to the property shall be ~edicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County.
=. The following u~es shall not be permitted:
a. automobile self-service stations
b. automobile service stations
d. electrical, plumbing or heating supply sales,
e. hospitals
f. mo=or vehicle washes
3. In addition to other uses permitted, nightel~bs Shall only
be permitted subject to the following restrictions:
a. No more than one nightclub Shall be permitted.
b, The night¢!ub shall not exceed a gros~ floor area of
Mr. Warren stated his objection to the request was not related
directly to the business establishment, but that the Board
should review the policy recently remanded to the PlanniNg
co~mission regarding t~e sale of alcohol within close proximity
cf schools prior to consideration of this request.
Mr. W~ren then called for the ~ote on the motion mad~ by ~r.
Barber, seconded by Mr. McHale, for the Board to approve Case
93~N01~6 ~bjeet to the following condition:
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall ~e maintained along the southern
property line. This buffer shall be ~ainta~ned in its natural
state. ~ne Planning Co~isalon may modify this buffer
requirement in accordance with Section 21.1-226 (i) of the
Zoning 0rdinanoe.
And, further, fo~ the ~0ard =o accept the following proffered
conditions:
1. Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (~5) feet of right
of way on the east aids of Coal£ield Read~ measured from
the centerlins of that part of Coalfield Road immediately
adjacent to the property shall bm dedlcated~ free asd
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County.
2. The following uses shall not be permitted:
a. automobile self-service stations
e. contractors' offices and display rooms
d. electrics!, plumbing or heating supply sales,
service and related display rooms
e. hos9itals
In addition to other use~ permitted, nightclubs shall only
he permitted subject tc the following restrictions:
a. Ne mere than one nightclub shall be ~ermitted.
Nays: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Warren.
In Dale Magisterial D~str~ot, BREND~ 8. BUS~ requested
Conditional U~ to permit a day ~are =enter in an Agricultural
(A) D~tr~ct. The density of such amendment w~11 he sontrolled
by~oaing conditions er Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the p~sperty for resident/al ~se of 1,51 to 4.0
unit~ per acre. This request lies on a 7.1 acre parcel
fronting approx~atsly 96~ feet on the west line of Newbys
the intersection of these roads. Tax Hap 50-15 (1) Paroel 19
(Sheet 14).
Mr. Jacobsen pra~ented s su~msry of Case 93SN0168 and stated
the Planning commission and staff recommends approval subject
to a condition.
93-296 4/2S/93
a policy for churehe~ re~uesting zoning or conditional uae to
dedicate the proposed right-of-way to the County and
concerns relative to the uae of public water and sewer in the
County.
N~. Brenda Busch ~tate~ the number of children in the day care
~ente~ would be relatively ~mall; that the day Car= maintains
its septic and water systems; and if expansion ooo%~rs, the day
care would consider the land dedication and use of public
utilities at that time.
After brief discussion, an motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by
/~r. ~c~ale, the Board approved Ca~e 9~S~0168 subject to the
following condition:
Omtdoar playfleld~ ar ~imilar active recreational areas shall
be located u minimum of forty (40] feet from adjacent
properties zoned for residential purposes or zoned agricultural
and shown on the ~eneral Plan as rgsid~n~ial uses.
Vote: Unanimous
.91~N~Z3~. (i%men~ad)
In Bermuda Magisterial District, mw~LYN ~. G~t~Y requested
rezoning from Agricultural (Al to Community Business
The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
condit~on~ or O~dinance ~ta~dards. Th~ Comprehensive Plan
de=ignates the property for commercial/office, light industrial
an~ 100 year floodplain uses. This re~uest lies on 54.7 acres
fronting approximately ~,~00 feet on the south line of East
fi~ndred Road, also fronting on the east and we~t lines of
Kingston Avenue, and loaatad at t~ int=rs~ction cf these
roads. Tax Map 118-14 (1) Parcels 19 and 24 (Sheet 33).
Mr. Jacobean presented ~ $~ary of Case 915N0276 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommends denial. Be
further stated while the proposed ~oning and land usez
generally conform te the Eastern Arms Land Us~ An~
Transportation Plan~ the transportatio~ impacts have not been
adequately addressed.
Zdward Willey, Jr., =squire, representing the applioant~ ~tated
there is one proffered condition which needs to be worked
with the County Attornmy'a o~fice and requested the Bsard
con~ider remanding the request to th~ Planning Co.mission.
Mr. George B~adles stated he felt the case ~hould be withdrawn
er denied as the ~ey issue of concern ~s still present and
requested the Board to consider making a deci=ion at this
rather than r~mandlmg the roq~e$~ to %he Planning Co~iss~0n
Mr, Daniel exc~sed ~i~setf from the meeting.
Mr. McHale stated there were teshnioal issues which needed to
be resolved by the Planning Commission. He further stated a
lot of time and effort has already been inve~t~d in this
request and he felt it would be appropriate to remand the sase
to the Planning Commission in an attempt to re~olve the
remaining issues.
Mr. McHale then made a motion, seconded Dy ME. Warren, for the
Board to re~s~d Case 91SN0276 to the ~lanninq Co~/~i~sie~ for
further review.
Mr. Daniel returned to the meet~ng.
Mr. Barber clarified it was not the intention of the Board to
compromise the principles Of staff and expressed appreciation
to staff for their efforts in addressing thi~ request.
Mr. Warren staked sta££ operates independently and it was not
the intention of the Board to inform stuff on how tO pa~
judgement em their re¢ommenda=ion to the ~lanntng Commission.
Mr, Warren called for the vote~ on the motion made by Mr.
McKale, ~e=onded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to remand Case
91SN02Y5 to the Planning Commission for further review.
93S~0153
In Matoaca Magisterial ~istriot, G. ~RZ~O~ ~Z~RD~, ~R. AND
~RET D. PIC~DAT requested rszening from Agricultural (A)
to Residential (R-15). A single family residential sub~ivlsion
with a minimum lot size Of 15,000 equate feet i~ planned.
Residential use of up to 2.90 units per acre is permitted in
Residential (R-~) District. The Comprehensive Plan de~ignntes
the property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 units per
acre. Thi~ request lies on a ~9.9~ acre parcel frontin~ in two
(~) pla~es for a to,al of appreximatel~ 145 ~eet on the south
~. Jacobsen presented a sugary of Ca~e 93SN0153 an~
~e Planning C~ission ~d staff rmco~ends approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. He noted ~e
reco~endation wa~ acceptable.
~. George Beadles ~xpressed concerns relative tO
~. sand~a B~tn~ e~pre~ed con~erns relative to d=alnage
problems in the area and t~ ~eW d~V~lOp~e~t adding to
probl~m she is currently
~. Colbert ~tated the dralna~e problem would ~ addressed
subdivision
~r~ was brief dlscuE~ion relative to buffgring adjao~nt to
~e houses on~itehouse ~oad and ~he steps that Wo~ld ~e taken
to a~ure that s~fac~ water from ~e development will not
affect the existing houses on~it~ouse Road.
Mr. M~ole stated he would be comfortuble in approvi~g
re,est if the drainage problem is resolved and the ~urro~dlng
~. Colbert stated ~e drainage problem would be addr~used at
the time of subdivision review and he is satisfied with the
Mr. Jacobsen ~ta~e4 the ~rminage Dro~l~woul~ be ad,reseed at
the time of tentative subdivision approval. ~e f~
Planning suaff Dos= si~s nouifying s~rouuding proper~y
whence developer ~mlts subdivision designs to~e County to
allow ~ro~rty o~=rs to appeal designs. He noted affeoted
prepay ~n~r~ have the ability to appeal ~taff's decisions
wi~ ~e ~a~nage de~ign~.
93-~98 4/28/93
Mr. McHale requested an ~mend~ent to the motion to direct
Planning s%aff %0 provide written notice ef the tentative
subdivision ~ubmittal to the owners of the properties x~sidlng
on Whitehouse Road.
Mr. Colbert accepted t/%e amendment to the motion.
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
&ppreved Case 9~SNOl~3 eubjeot to the followinq condition and
di~eo=ed staff to send ~itten notification to ~e prop~y
o~s r~sldlng on ~it~oume Road at s~ch tim~ the tentative
s~ivision plan is s~mitted:
A buffer ~hall ~ provided along the no~ern ~roperty llne
a~jmcent to Parcels 6, 40, 42, 56, 57, 58 and along the
prop~ty line adjacent to Parcel $ on T~ ~a~ 163-5 (1) ~n Tax
Map 163-5 (1). wi~in ~m buffer, a soli~ board f~nce mhall
be ~nstalled ~o minimize the view of this development fr~m the
adjacent prop~ty to the north, ~e exact design and height of
the fence ~halI be approved by ~ ~lanning Depar~en= at
time of ~=a=ive ~Ddivision approval. Thi~ buffer
requirement may be modified or waived ~y ~e Pla~in~
Co~imsion ghrough tentative s~ivimion review if ~e
of the m~ivi~i0n is compatible with ~e adjacent lots to the
north. If a waiver or modificatlcn of ~e bu~S=r
i~ xe~e~ted, ~a u~r/develup~ mhall notify ~e o~ers of
time and~te of the Plannln~ Co~i~ion's consideration of
tentative plan and such notification shali be given a= least
twenty-one (21) days Drlor to th~ Co~i~ion's oonside~atio~ of
the tentative pl~.
~d, further, th~ Board accepted the following ~roffered
con~itlons:
1. The p~lic water sys=em shall be u~ed.
2. The publlc wastewater system shall be uzed.
3. At the ti~e 0f recordation of a ~bdiVision plat,
forty-five (45) feet of right of way on the
.of that ~art of ~it~Use aoad i~ediately adjacen~
~o the property ~hall Da dedicated, free
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of chesterfield
Co~ty.
4. Th~ applicant, ~ubdivider, or assignee(~) shall pay
th~ followin~ to the County of chemt~mfield prior
the time of building pe~it appl~ca~io~
infrastructure imDrov~ents within the service
district for the property:
a. $4,000 p~r lot, if paid on or Drlor
June 3~, 1993; or
b. The amount a~proved by ~e Board of
Supervi$or~ not to exceed ~4,o00 Der 10t
adjusted ~pward by any increase in the
Marshall and SwiSt ~uildlng Cost Index
~tween July i, 1992 and July i of
fiscal y~ar in which t~e pa~ent ~ ~de
if paid afte~ JUne 30, 1995,
of ~i~y~ei~t ()8) lots shall be
4/28/93
18.
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by ]4r. ~c~ale, the ~oard
adjourned at 9:50 p.~. until May 12, 1993 at 3:00
Vote: Unanimous
Lane B. Ra~ey ~
County Administrator
A~thur S. Wa~en
chair~aa
93-300 4/28/93