08SN0285
August 19, 2008 CPC
September 16, 2008 CPC
October 22, 2008 BS
June 22, 2009 CPC
July 22, 2009 BS
August 26, 2009 BS
November 18, 2009 BS
June 15, 2010 CPC
July 28, 2010 BS
August 25, 2010 BS
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
08SN0285
Emerson-Roper Companies, LLC
Bermuda Magisterial District
Ecoff Elementary, Carver Middle and Thomas Dale High Schools Attendance Zones
North line of Chester Village Drive
REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3) with conditional
use to permit multi-family residential use and conditional use planned
development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A multi-family residential development consisting of a maximum of sixty-five
(65) dwelling units, yielding a density of approximately thirteen (13) dwelling
units per acre is planned. The applicant has indicated the development would be
an extension of the adjacent Chester Village Green Apartments.
(NOTE: IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSIDER THIS
REQUEST AT THEIR MEETING, A $1,000.00 DEFERRAL FEE MUST BE PAID
PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
AYES: Messrs. Hassen, Gulley and Waller.
NAYS: Mr. Bass.
ABSENT: Dr. Brown.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reason:
While the proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester Plan which suggests the
property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use including residential uses of varying
densities, the proffered conditions do not mitigate project impacts on capital facilities
and, thereby would not insure adequate service levels are maintained to protect the
health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
The Owner-Applicant in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia
(1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself and its
successors or assigns, proffers that the development of the property known as Chesterfield
County Tax ID 787-657-6225 from A to C-3 with a CUPD to permit bulk exceptions, and
subject to the conditions and provisions as set forth below; however, in the event the request is
denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Applicant, these proffers and conditions
shall be immediately null and void and of no further force or effect.
1. Except as stated herein, the Textual Statement dated June 9, 2008 shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Except for the timbering approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry
for the purpose of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on
the Property until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the
Environmental Engineering Department and the approved devices have been
installed. (EE)
3. Direct vehicular access to Chester Village Drive will be restricted to one (1)
entrance/exit. (T)
4. There shall be no direct vehicular access from the property to the proposed North-
South Arterial adjacent to the property. (T)
5. Trail Easement and Design. The applicant, subdivider or assignee(s) (the
“Applicant”) shall dedicate a trail easement a minimum of thirty (30) feet wide,
parallel to and for the entire length of the western property line, to the County, in
conjunction with site plan approval. The exact location, width and design shall be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department at the time of Site Plan review.
Said easement shall be permitted to be located within any setback and/or buffer
required by the County. Said easement shall not increase the size of any required
setback and/or buffer.
2 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
The Applicant shall construct a ten (10) foot wide trail consisting of a minimum
six (6) inch depth of #21A stone over a compacted sub base with grading and
seeding of four (4) foot wide shoulders. The exact design and location shall be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department at the time of Site Plan review.
(P&R)
6. Cash Proffers.
A. For all dwelling units initially constructed with more than one (1)
bedroom the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following
to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for
infrastructure improvements within the service district for the property:
1. $14,998.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2010; or
2. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$14,998.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in
the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2009
and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid
after June 30, 2010. At the time of payment, the $14,998.00 will be
allocated pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $348 for
library facilities, $8,915 for roads, $5,331.00 for schools, and $404
for fire stations. Payments in excess of $14,998.00 shall be
prorated as set forth above.
B. For all dwelling units initially constructed with one (1) bedroom the
applicant, sub- divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County
of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the property:
1. $9,667.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2010; or
2.The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$9,667.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2009 and
July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after
June 30, 2010. At the time of payment, the $9,667.00 will be
allocated pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $348 for
library facilities, $8,915 for roads, and $404 for fire stations.
Payments in excess of $9,667.00 shall be prorated as set forth
above.
C. Building plans submitted for building permits shall designate the number
of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
D. Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as
otherwise permitted by law.
3 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
E.Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time during the life
of the development that are applicable to the property, the amount paid in
cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited toward, but not in addition to,
any impact fees, in a manner as determined by the County. If Chesterfield
should adopt a “workforce” or “affordable” housing program which
eliminates or permits a reduced cash proffer, the cash proffer for any
dwelling unit on the Property that is designated as “workforce” or
“affordable” housing, that meets all the requirements of the adopted
“workforce” or “affordable” housing program, and for which a cash
proffer has not yet been paid shall be adjusted to be consistent with the
approved “workforce” or “affordable” housing program.
F. Should Chesterfield County adopt a policy or ordinance which eliminates
or permits a reduction in the cash proffers for residential dwelling units,
the cash proffer for any dwelling unit on the Property that meets all of the
requirements of the adopted policy for which a cash proffer has not yet
been paid shall be adjusted to be consistent with the approved cash proffer
policy at the time the cash proffer is paid. (B&M and BI)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The property is located on the north line of Chester Village Drive, across from Village
Creek Drive. Tax ID 787-657-6225.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
5.0 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North and West – A; Single-family residential or public/semi-public (Chester Linear
Park)
South and East – C-3 with conditional use planned development single and multi-family
residential
4 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
The request site is within the Chester Water Pressure Zone. There is a twelve (12) inch
water line extending along the north side of Chester Village Drive that terminates
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the request site, opposite Village Creek Drive. In
addition, there is an eight (8) inch water line extending along the west side of Womack
Road, approximately 220 feet west of this site. Use of the public water system is required
by County Code.
To meet the requirement for an additional feed as specified by Utilities Department Design
Specification DS-21, extension of a twelve (12) inch water line along Chester Village Drive
from Village Creek Drive to Womack Road will be required with development of the
request site.
Public Wastewater System:
The request site is within the Ashton Creek Sewer Service Area. The public wastewater
system currently serves the existing Chester Village Apartments. An eight (8) inch
wastewater collector line terminates adjacent to the eastern boundary of the request site.
Use of the public wastewater system is required by County Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The subject property drains to the east through Chester Village Apartments and then via
tributaries to Great Branch. There are no existing or anticipated on- or off-site drainage or
erosion problems.
The property is currently wooded and should not be timbered without obtaining a land
disturbance permit from the Department of Environmental Engineering (Proffered
Condition 2). This will insure that adequate erosion control measures are in place prior to
any land disturbance.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations and transportation facilities is identified in the
Public Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvement Program and further detailed
by specific departments in the applicable sections of this Request Analysis.
Fire Service:
The Public Facilities Plan indicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS) calls
are expected to increase forty-four (44) to seventy-eight (78) percent by 2022. Six (6)
5 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. In
addition to six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5)
existing stations.
The Chester Fire Station, Company Number 1, currently provides fire protection and
emergency medical service. Based on sixty-five (65) dwelling units, this request will
generate approximately eighteen (18) calls for fire and emergency medical service each
year. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this
development on fire and EMS facilities. (Proffered Condition 6)
When the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed for
fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review
process. It should be noted, Fire Administration supports County Code requirements of
two (2) public road accesses for developments with greater than fifty (50) dwelling units.
Schools:
Approximately thirty-three (33) (Elementary: 15, Middle: 8, High: 10) students will be
generated by this request. This site lies in the Ecoff Elementary School attendance zone:
capacity – 838, enrollment – 724; Carver Middle School zone: capacity – 1,287,
enrollment – 845; and Thomas Dale High School zone: capacity - 1,851, enrollment -
2,396. The enrollment is based on September 30, 2009 and the capacity is as of 2009-
2010.
This request will have an impact on all schools involved. There are currently two (2)
trailers at Ecoff Elementary, three (3) trailers at Carver Middle and fourteen (14) trailers
at Thomas Dale High schools.
This case combined with other tentative residential developments and zoning cases in the
area, would continue to push these schools to capacity. This case could necessitate some
form of relief in the future. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the
impact of this development on schools facilities. (Proffered Condition 6)
Libraries:
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors’ policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed countywide. Based on projected population growth, the Public
Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space throughout the County.
The development noted in this case would most likely affect the Chester Library. The
Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space in the Chester service
area. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this
development on library facilities. (Proffered Condition 6)
6 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for three (3) regional, seven (7) community
and twenty-nine (29) neighborhood parks by 2020. In addition, there is a shortage of
community and neighborhood park acreage in the county. The Public Facilities Plan
identifies a need for 354 acres of regional park space, 252 acres of community park space
and 199 acres of neighborhood park space by 2020. The Plan also identifies the need for
linear parks and resource based-special purpose parks (historical, cultural and
environmental) and makes suggestions for their locations. It also addresses the need for
addition of recreational facilities to include sports fields, trails, playgrounds, court games,
senior centers and picnicking area/shelters at existing parks to complete build –out and
identifies the need for water access and trails along the James and Appomattox Rivers
and their major tributaries, Swift and Falling Creeks. Co-location with middle and
elementary schools is desired.
The applicant has offered to dedicate an easement and construct a trail along the western
property line in lieu of cash proffers to address the impact of this development on parks
and recreation facilities (Proffered Condition 5). With this provision, the applicant has
offered measures to assist in addressing the impact of the proposed development on parks
and recreation facilities. Current calculations indicate the value of the trail does not fully
mitigate project impact on park facilities.
Transportation:
The subject property is located adjacent to a proposed north/south arterial (the
“North/South Parkway”) as identified on the Thoroughfare Plan. The Transportation
Department cannot support this request because the applicant has not addressed the traffic
impact of the development per the Board of Supervisors’ Cash Proffer Policy.
Based on the proposed maximum density outlined in the Textual Statement and trip
generation rates for apartments, development of the property could generate
approximately 450 average daily trips (ADT). These vehicles will be distributed through
the Chester Village development to West Hundred Road (Route 10), which had a 2009
traffic count of 37,841 vehicles per day between Chester Road and Harrowgate Road.
In September 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request (Case
06SN0244, Branner Station) consisting of approximately 1,615 acres for a mixed use
project. With that zoning approval, the Board accepted proffered conditions relative to
transportation that, among other things, require the Branner Station developer to
construct a four (4) lane divided road, the North/South Parkway, which is located along
the western boundary of the subject property.
Access to major arterials, such as the proposed North/South Parkway, should be
controlled to minimize conflict points and help maintain acceptable levels of service.
The applicant has proffered that no direct vehicular access will be provided from the
property to the North/South Parkway. (Proffered Condition 4)
7 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic
generated by this proposed residential development. The applicant has proffered to
contribute some money towards mitigating the traffic impact of the proposed residential
development; however, the amount is not consistent with the Board of Supervisors’ Cash
Proffer Policy (Proffered Condition 6). As development continues in this part of the
county, traffic volumes on area roads will substantially increase. Cash proffers alone will
not cover the costs of the improvements needed to accommodate the traffic increases.
There are no projects in this area currently included in the Six-Year Improvement
Program.
As stated earlier, without the applicant fully addressing the traffic impact of the
residential development, the Transportation Department cannot support this request.
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
Per Dwelling Unit
Potential Number of New Dwelling 65.00* 1.00
Units
Population Increase 174.20 2.68
Number of New Students
Elementary 14.30 0.22
Middle 7.80 0.12
High 10.40 0.16
TOTAL 32.50 0.50
Net Cost for Schools $594,295 $9,143
Net Cost for Parks 79,755 1,227
Net Cost for Libraries 19,175 295
Net Cost for Fire Stations 39,910 614
Average Net Cost for Roads 925,080 14,232
TOTAL NET COST $1,658,215 $25,511
* Based on a proposed maximum of sixty-five (65) (Textual Statement, F). The actual number of
dwellings and corresponding impact may vary.
As noted, this proposed development would have an impact on capital facilities. At the time this
rezoning application was submitted, the calculated fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on
schools, roads, parks, libraries, and fire stations was $15,648 per unit. Effective July 1, 2009 the
maximum per-dwelling-unit cash proffer was increased to $18,966. The applicant has been
advised that a maximum cash proffer of $18,966 per unit would defray the cost of the capital
facilities necessitated by this proposed development.
8 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
The applicant has offered cash in the amount of $14,998 per unit for units initially constructed
with more than one (1) bedroom to address the development’s impact on schools, roads,
libraries, and fire stations. The applicant has further proffered $9,667 for each unit initially
constructed with one (1) bedroom to address the impact of those units on roads, libraries, and fire
stations (Proffered Condition 6). The applicant has also proffered to dedicate an easement and
construct a trail to address the development’s impact on park facilities (Proffered Condition 5).
The cash and improvements, as proffered, are equivalent to paying $15,600 per dwelling unit.
These conditions do not adequately address the impact of this development on any of the capital
facilities categories. Consequently, the county's ability to provide adequate facilities for its
citizens will be adversely affected.
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed
and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case.
Staff recommends the applicant fully address the impact of this development on capital facilities.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this
request, may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request that may
justify acceptance of proffers as offered for this case.
Police Department:
The applicant is proposing to build a high-density residential project. With the support of
the County Administration, the Police Department seeks to have developers of new high-
density residential projects implement its recommendations for Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) which are planning and designing principles
that constitute proactive crime prevention tools. Through CPTED principles, proper
design and effective use of the environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and
incidence of crime. At time of site plan review, the Police Department will work with the
developer to implement CPTED principles.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Chester Plan which suggests
the property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use uses. The Plan notes higher
densities are not precluded, provided development is designed to add to the village feel
and appearance.
Area Development Trends:
Adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned, Agricultural (A) and are occupied by
single-family residential uses and public/semi-public use (Chester Linear Park).
Adjacent property to the south and east was zoned and is being developed as part of the
Chester Village Green Mixed Use Development. The subject property is to be
9 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
incorporated into this development. The Plan anticipates development of a mixed use
center in this area.
Development Standards:
The request property lies within the Chester Village Core area and is subject to Village
District standards. Village District standards are intended to recognize unique villages
within the County and to maintain and reinforce the character, identity and pedestrian
scale by continuing and enhancing existing patterns of development. Where not
addressed in the Textual Statement and proffered conditions, development of the site
must conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which address, among other
standards, access, landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks, parking, signs, buffers
and utilities.
Density:
With this proposal, Textual Statement, Item F limits development to a maximum of sixty-
five (65) dwelling units. This would yield a density of thirteen (13) units per acre.
Chester Village Green Apartments was approved at a density of fourteen (14) units per
acre.
Setbacks:
The Zoning Ordinance requires specific setbacks for structures from roads, and property
lines for buildings, drives and parking areas. The applicant is proposing no setbacks for
building along internal roads, interior private driveways, parking areas and streets
(Textual Statement, D). This is consistent with the requirements for the existing Chester
Village Green Apartments.
The proposed “North/South Parkway” adjacent to the western property line is designated
as a major arterial. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum ten (10) foot setback for
buildings, drives and parking from this arterial.
Parking and Driveways:
The Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off-street parking spaces for each
dwelling unit. An exception is requested to allow any on-street parking to be counted
towards the required number of parking spaces (Textual Statement, A). It should be
noted, the Zoning Ordinance allows designated parking spaces in a public right-of-way to
be counted towards the required number of parking spaces when more than one-half of
each space adjoins the site. In addition, the required number of parking spaces may be
reduced by ten percent (10%) if the development contains a sidewalk or other pedestrian
walkway system that connects to or may be connected to existing or future walkways. In
view of this, the requested exception may not be necessary.
10 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Landscaping:
In an effort to create an extension of Chester Village Green Apartments, the applicants
have proffered landscaping consistent with this adjacent apartment complex. (Textual
Statement, B)
Building Heights and Architecture:
Within the Multifamily Residential (R-MF) District, the Ordinance limits the height of
buildings to three (3) stories or forty (40) feet, whichever is less, and accessory buildings
or structures to half the height of the principal building or twenty-five (25) feet,
whichever is greater. The applicant is proposing dwellings that would be a maximum of
four (4) stories and accessory buildings or structures half the height of the principal
building. (Textual Statement, C)
Additionally, in Textual Statement, Item C, the applicant proposes an architectural style
the same as that of the adjacent Chester Village Green Apartments.
CONCLUSIONS
While the proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester Plan which suggests the
property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use uses, the proffered conditions do not
adequately address impacts of this development on necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the needs for roads, schools, parks,
libraries and fire stations is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the
Capital Improvement Program. The proffered conditions as discussed herein do not mitigate the
impact of this development on capital facilities and, thereby would not insure adequate service
levels are maintained to protect the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
Given this consideration, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (8/19/08):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to September 16, 2008.
Staff (8/20/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later that August 25, 2008, for consideration at the Commission’s
September 16, 2008, public hearing.
11 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Staff (8/27/08):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (9/16/08):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Hassen noted the application fails to address the impact on capital facilities and the
security concerns expressed by the Police Department.
Dr. Brown also expressed concerns about the lack of the security proffer and proffers that
fully address the impact on capital facilities.
Mr. Waller noted the cash proffer policy needs to be examined with respect to the number
of bedrooms and that the Comprehensive Plan could address this issue.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended
denial.
AYES: Messrs. Bass, Brown, Hassen and Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (10/22/08):
On their own motion, the Board remanded this case to the Planning Commission.
Staff (10/23/08):
The applicant was advised in writing the case would be rescheduled for public hearing
before the Planning Commission once it has been amended or at a time as requested by
the applicant.
Applicant (4/13/09):
The applicant advised there would be no amendments to the case and requested the case
be scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (6/22/09):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
12 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Mr. Hassen expressed concern that the impact on capital facilities had not been fully
addressed.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended
denial.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Brown, Bass, Hassen and Waller.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (7/22/09):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
There was discussion among the Board relative to a deferral of sufficient time to consider
changes to the cash proffer policy; to evaluate in-kind improvements; and to work with
Staff to assess where agreement might be reached.
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their August 26, 2009 public
hearing.
Staff (7/23/09):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than July 27, 2009 for consideration at the Boards August
26, 2009 public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (7/29/09):
To date, no new information has been received.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (8/26/09):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to November 18, 2009.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (8/27/09):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than September 4, 2009 for consideration at the Board’s
November 18, 2009 public hearing. In addition, the applicant was advised that a
$1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the Board’s public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
13 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Staff (10/23/09):
To date, no new information has been received nor has the deferral fee been paid.
Applicant (10/28/09):
The deferral fee was paid.
______________________________________________________________________________
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (11/18/09):
On their own motion, the Board remanded this case to the Planning Commission.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (11/19/09):
The applicant was advised in writing the case would be rescheduled for public hearing
before the Planning Commission once it has been amended or at a time as requested by
the applicant.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (3/12/10):
The applicant advised staff to advertise the request for the next scheduled Planning
Commission public hearing.
Applicant (5/24/10):
Amendments to Proffered Condition 6 were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (6/15/10):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was support present noting
concern about the lack of differential cash proffers in the current Policy that would
appropriately fit the request.
Mr. Bass indicated that although he had not previously supported the request, the
applicant’s presentation influenced a change in his position.
Mr. Gulley indicated support for development but noted the cash proffer was a Board of
Supervisor’s Policy; that the Commission had been criticized for previous deviations
from this Policy; and that Policy changes should be Board-driven.
14 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
Mr. Hassen clarified the basis for the first remand was for possible changes to the Cash
Proffer Policy; the second remand was for consideration of an age-restricted
development; and that the Policy is based upon averages, not number of bedrooms.
Mr. Waller noted the village concept cannot survive without residential uses. He stated
that issues of village importance should be addressed with the new comprehensive plan,
that the Board needs to address the Cash Proffer Policy; and, reluctantly that he could not
support the case.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended
denial of this request.
AYES: Messrs. Hassen, Gulley and Waller.
NAY: Mr. Bass.
ABSENT: Dr. Brown.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (7/28/10):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to August 25, 2010.
Staff (7/29/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than August 2, 2010 for consideration at the Board’s August
25, 2010 public hearing. In addition, the applicant was advised that a $1,000.00 deferral
fee must be paid prior to the Board’s public hearing.
(Staff 8/3/10):
To date, no new information has been received nor has the deferral fee been paid.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, August 25, 2010, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
15 08SN0285-AUG25-BOS-RPT
a ,~
RUDY, COYNER
ASSOCIATES.PLL~
OLIVER RUDY LAW BUILDING
9910 WAGNERS WAY
P.O. BOX 58
CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832
CARRIE E. COYNER, ESQUIRE TELEPHONE (8041 748-3600
MICHAEL G. MONTGOMERY, ESQUIRE FA$ClM1{.E (804) 748-4671
OLIVER D. RUDY (]937-2007)
August 2S, 2010
Mr. Carl Schlaudtt,
Assistant Director of Planning
Chesterfield County
Chesterfield County, Virginia 23832
Re: Case No. 08SN0285- Zoning Application of Emerson-Roper Companies,
LLC, for rezoning of Chesterfield County Tax ID 787-657-6225 from A to C-3
with a Conditional Use to permit RMF and a CUPD to permit bulk exceptions
Dear Carl:
The Owner-Applicant in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the
Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County,
for itself and its successors or assigns, proffers that the development of the property
known as Chesterfield County Tax ID 787-657-6225 from A to C-3 with a CUPD to
permit bulk exceptions, and subject to the conditions and provisions as set forth below;
however, in the event the request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by
the Applicant, these proffers shall be immediately null and void and of no further force or
effect.
The Applicant hereby amends Proffered Condition #6(A) and (B) as follows:
6. Cash Proffers.
A. For all dwelling units initially constructed with more than one (1) bedroom the
applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of
Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the property; provided however that
for the period from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014 the applicant, sub-divider, or
assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield, immediately
after completion of the final inspection:
1. $14,998.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2011; or
2. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$14,998.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2010 and July 1
of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 3011.
At the time of payment, the $14,998.00 will be allocated pro-rata among
the facility costs as follows: $348 for library facilities, $8,915 for roads,
$5331.00 for schools, and $404 for fire stations. Payments in excess of
$14,998.00 shall be prorated as set forth above.
B. For all dwelling units initially constructed with one (1) bedroom the applicant,
sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield,
prior to the issuance of a building permit for infrastructure improvements within
the service district for the property provided however that for the period from July
1, 2010 to June 30, 2014 the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the
following to the County of Chesterfield, immediately after completion of the final
inspection:
1. $9667.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 201 l; or
2. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$9667.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2010 and July 1
of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30,
2011. At the time of payment, the $9667.00 will be allocated pro-rata
among the facility costs as follows: $348 for library facilities, $8,915 for
roads, and $404 for fire stations. Payments in excess of $9667.00 shall be
prorated as set forth above.
Carrie E. Coyner, Ag t