04-27-94 Minutes~uper~or.m in Att~n~an~:
Mr. Whalmy M. colbert, chairman
Mr. ~dward ~. Barber
Mr. ~arry S. Daniel
~r, A~thur B. Warren
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
County Administrator
~s. Barbara Bennatt, Dir.,
Mr. Craig ~ryant, Dir.,
Utilities
Ms. Terrl ~urge~s, Interim
In£crma~iun Services
Asst. CO. Admin.,
Legis. Svcs. and
In=ergovern. A£fai~s
~hr. William A. Diggs,
Deputy Cu. Admin.,
County Ombudsman
Mr. William H. Howell,
Dir., Planning
Mr. John R~ Lillard, Dir.,
Airport
Mental Me~lth/Retar~.
Ma. Mary Leu Lylo,
Dir., Accountin~
Deputy Ce, Admin.,
Nursing Home
Administrator
Dir., Tran~9or=ation
Dir., =nv. Engine~r~n~
County Attorney
Dr. William Nelson,
Dir., ~ealth
Mr. Richard Nunnally,
Extension Agent
Mr. F. O, Parka, Dir.,
Mr. ~len Peterson, uir.,
Communi%y Dive~sion
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
94-~95 4/Z7/94
~e~ty Co. Admin.,
Community D~v~lopment
~4r. Lewis Wendell, Dir.
CDBG office
Sheriff Clarsno~ williams,
Sheriff's Department
Mr. Frad~riok Willis, Jr.,
Dir-, ~uman Resource Mgt.
Mr. Colbert ca!lcd the regularly scheduled meeting to order
at 3:00 p.m.
1. APPROVAL O~ ~INUTES
On me,ion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Nc~aIe, nba Board
approved the minutes of April 12, 1994, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimou~
Productivity and QHality Awards Pregran in Alexandria last
Award~ that the Award is an intense review of the county's
who are leaders in the area of quality initiatives; tha~ the
County's application wa~ the best cdc ever submitte4 from a
first-time applioant; and that the county will submit an
application newt year. He stated County s~aff i~ interested
evaluate~ on its effectiveness. ~e noted the County received
Robb and a Flag that had flown over the Capital. He
expressed appreciation and recoqnized Mr. James J. L.
participated in t~e Program.
received positive r~co~nition for its efforts in
participating in this ~rogram. ~e £ur~her ~ated th~ County
Mr. Ramsay then stated today wam "Nodal County ~ovsrnmsnt
Day" and noted the Board of Supervisors will be having dinner
with th~ high SC~0ol students participating in the Program.
K~ th~n introduced ~. Barbara B~nnett, Dir~cto¥ of 0ffXoe on
M~. Bennett stated the Model County Government Pr~gra~ is
a~onsered by the Office on Youth, the Chesterfield County
expressed aDpreeia=ion to M~r. Me,ale and ~r. Jim =vans, a
me~be~ of the YMC~ Board of Di~eotor~ fo~ thei~ leadership
in the Program.
for their interest in participating in County government. He
appreciation to all .the students for participating in the
Model County Gov~r~ent Day Pro,am.
94-2~9 4/~7/9~
Mr. Ram~ey then introduced Mr. Masden to present a brief
overview of the activities of the Health CEnter Commission.
Mr. Masden recognized Mr. Wayne Edmund,, Chairman of the
Health Center ¢ommissicn, and Mr. Jacob Ma~t, Administrator
of the Nursing Home. Mr. Nasden presented a brief history of
the Health Center Commission including the BOard of
Su~ervi~srm authsriziog a feasibility study in 1988 to
determine ~he need for a new facility and the feasibility of
renovating the present facility and at that time, the Board
authorizing staff to apply for a Certificate of Need; the
appointment of a Transition Committee to decide thc future
organizational struoture of t~e Nursing Home; the Transitio~
Cenumittee's ~¢ommendation to d~velep a Health Center
Commission; the Health Center Co~t~i~sion becoming effective
July 1, 1993 and taking operational contro~ of ~a
Bome January 1, 1994; and the Beard donating the land
facility to the co~ission. He further sta~ed ~e Co~is~ion
has an a~itional co~t of $178,800 a year due to cOSt im the
area~ of retirement and work~n'~ compensation; that the
County ha~ assisted the co~ission in keeplnq COSTS low;
th~ County is p~ovldln~ $44~,000 in FY95 and 458,400 in
%o ~hG Com~iG~ion as p~rt of th~ ~ill Burton o~ligatlon; and
pro~ra~s for employees, having the w~r~in9 Home
COnutruction by January, 1995, capital improvements ~or
old Nursing Home, completion of th~ design plans,
a r~asonable no~etary reserve, and the Co~i~io~ taking
advantage of ~hanges taking place in the health
industries.
Mr. Warren co,ended the Health Center Co,lesion for their
effor=~ and stated the health care field affect~ all
citizens.
Discussion, com~en~s, and questions ensued relative to how
the Co~iusion is dealing with the potential of a national
health ca~e refer; ~akinq ~he Nursing ~ome self-~ufflcien=
programs; ~a Board being i~formed of i~suss ~ro~ing the
health care field ~s it rela~es ~o Chesterfield County;
techni~es being used by the Co--lesion to evaluate interest
in future con~tr~otiun and development of healt~ care
facilit~e~ in the County; and the feasibility of competitors
coming together and building one facility.
Mr. Warren at,ted he feels the Health Center Co~ismion
doing a~ excellent job in d%aling with a complex proces~
expressed appreciation for their effort~.
Mr. Colbert stated there would be no Bo~rd Committee Report~,
~ir. Barber ~tated the public hearing for potential school
Board candidate~ for the Midlothian District i~ On April 28,
19~4, at 7:00 p.m., at Midlothian Middle School; that his
~ext "First ~on~ay" constituents meetinq will he held May 2,
1994 with the School Board candldat~ being the ~ue~t~ to
answer questions On their candidacy; end that the County
Council of PTA'S will hold a similar forum on May lQ, 1994.
94-300 4/27/94
added Item 5.B., A~option of Resolutlen Recognizing ~ay 1-7,
Aduptlun of Resolution Recognizing Mr. Jori Paul Nunemaker,
Item £.G.10., Accoptance of Paroel of Land Along Courthouse
Road from ~rederick G. RockweLl, III, Special Commissioner
for Kourt~o Limited Partnership; and added Item ll.E., an
Executive Session Pursuant to Section 2.1-34~(s) (7), Code of
Virginia, 19~0, as Amended, for Consultation with Legal
Counsel Regardinq Litigation Styled as Richard S. Kavanauch.
Sr-, et al. versus County of Chesterfiel~ Vlrqinla and
of Chesterfield, et al. to be heard with Item 11., an
~xeoutive Session Pursuant to section 2.~-344(A}(7), Cod~ of
Virginia, 19§0, as Amended~ for consultation wi~h Legal
~r. ~am~er state~ F~T. Jori Paul Nunemuker served the County
£er 19 year~ as the Residential A~eessmente superviso~ and
on ~otion of the Board~ the followinq resolution was adopted:
Chesterfield county as a Real Estate Appraiser with the
Residential/Agricultural Appraisal SuRervisor in 1985, anh
Virginia Association of Assessing Officers and th~
Interna~ioDel Association of Assessing Officers while
an~ pre=rices as advocated by these organizations; and
Chesterfield County soard of Equalization of Real Estate
opera, ions; and
~HEREAS, Mr. N~neneker wa~ known far his ability to work
e££actively with other County de~art~e~t~ and agencies as
well a~ his ability in serving citizenm of Chesterfield
County; and
~{EREAS, Mr. Nune~aker was dedica=ed to public service
to the citizena of Chesterfield County until his death on
February 14, 1994.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~SO~V~D, by the Chesterfield
County Board of Superwisors that thi~ r~solution be presented
to Mr. Jon Paul Nun~aker'e family in recognition of his
dedicated service to the clti~ns of Chesterfield County.
Vets: Unanimous
~r. Colbert pre~nted the executed resolution to Mrs.
Nunemeker and expressed eppre¢iatio~ for ~er husband's
service to the County.
Mr. stith introduced ~r. Carolyn Powers, C~airperscn of the
th~ Richmond metropolitan area, who was present to receive
th~ resolution.
WI~E~EA$, water is a basic and essential need of
humankind; and
believes citizens s~euld have a safe and dependable supply of
water both now and in the future; and
~R~A~, the Board of gupervisors is calling upon each
citizen to give drinking water a hand by proteoting eu~
am "National Drinking Water Week~ ~n chesterfield County and
rccogniae thc Yulue, importance, ~nd frugility of our wete~
leadership in tke County and State.
Ms. Powers expressed appreciation to the soard for the
recognition and ~uDpo~ting "National Drinking Water Week".
b~uoming bs~ter informed about water resources and noted the
League, in conjunction with other League Chapters throughout
the nation, will participate in a national town meeting on
Commonwealth university.
~. WORK $~S$ION$
There were no work Sessions scheduled at this time.
Th~r~ w~r~ no D~f~rr~d Ite~m eehedule~ at this time.
8. NEW BUSINESB
~r. Ramsay stated the Board set this date to eeneide~ options
relating to repair of homes damagsd by shrink/swell ~oil.
then introduced Mr. Willi~ Duple~ to pue~ent an overview of
the optiens and stated staff will be addressing the repair
estimates pzesented in the engineering report, options
outlined at previous meetings, and ~hs outcome of meetings
with the homebuilders.
Mr. Qppler introduced Dr. John ~rewer, a professional
engineer consultant with R. Stuart Royer and A~sociatss, and
a r~pras~ntative of one of the five firms with which the
County contracted to ~rovlde ~ngine~rinq r~ports for the
citizen~ k~tance Program.
Dr. Brewer stated the purpose of the Citizens Assistance
Program ie ~o provide fac%ual information to homeowners
r~garding the condition of their feundations~ ts provide a
prellmin~ry cost estim=te for the ~epair ef the foundations;
and noted the Program's purpose is not to provide a plan of
r~Dai~ which ~ould detail how ~pecific repairs will be made.
He further stated the preliminary cost estimates were based
on marke~ conditions in late 1992; that the ce~t included
underpinning thm foundation, replacing breksn bricks and
blocks, re-levelinq the foundation~ correcting doors
windows; an~ that the cost did no~ include painting interior
finishes or repairing o~aok~ in s~e=trock and tape. He
reviewed =he basis for ~etermining the preliminary co~ ~h~
development of a pla~ of ~epuir; and the market cost of
making the repairs.
F~r. stylian Par:hemes, Senior A$$1~%an~ County At=orney,
reviewed the ~ptions for which the Board requested staff to
contribution %o repair, and noted the first year debt servi~e
for a rebate program would co~t the County
$160,0OO f6r every $1 million borrowed Dy t~e County. W~en
a~ked, he ~tated thi~ r~bat~ ~ould not affect the County's
~ Bond ra~ing. H~ %hen reviewed option ~2., p~ovidlng a
hlgh~r t~vel of ~ir~ut assistance for "reD=ir needed" homes
~nd noted for ~very 10 ps,cent of additional assistance
provided to %he~e homes, ~e cost to the County would
approximately 8120,000; and Option ~3., conducting
referendum as part of the 1994 November general el~o~ion
authorize th~ issuance of bonds for shrink/s~ell foundation
repairs and noted in order t~ place this item on the ~ovember
ballot, the Board would ~ave to ta~e action no later than
~heir Auks: ~, 1994 Board meeting and a 20-year term
cDr:ailing th= bond~ would produce a first year d~bt service
would be reduced by the ~ount of the r~f~randum.
There wa~ brief discussion relative bo reallocating the debt
caDaclty for ~he 1995 and 19~6 fi~al year~, which
earmarked for schools, the regional jail, and John Tyler
Co, unity College~ i~ bonds are issu~d~ the decision to
94-303 4/27/94
reallccate debt capacity being a policy decision sf the Board
Of Supervisors; and the County violating its agreements with
rating agencies a~d t~ possibility ef putting the current
bond rating at risk if the County increases its planned debt
capacity.
Mr. Parthemo~ then reviewed Option ~4., financing repairs
through short-term borrowing that docs not require a
referendum, and noted the sost to the County would be
approximately $255r000 for every $1 million borrowed; option
#5., developing a County loan guarantee program for
homeowners who cannot otherwise qualify for leanm to r~pa~r
homes, and noted transaction costs to the County would be
approximately $50,000 and the County would be at risk to
satisfy loans in cases of loan ~e£aults; Option #~., the
County paying th~ first $1~000+ of any homeowner's r6pair
coots se that t~e ultimate repair bill is lower for ~ach
homeowner, and noted for every $1,000 paid by the County, the
cost to the County would be approximately $600,000 and the
debt service for each $600,000 increment would be
approximately $156,000; Option ~?., by agreement with the
County, selected cont~actsr~ and suppliers agreeing to
disoo~nt labor and materials ts repair shrink/swell
foundation~; option ~.~ formalizing a County a~si~t&ne~
program for pursuing hone warranty claims in conjunction wi=h
homeowners who have active home warranties; Option ~9.,
paying for all engineering cost~ far developing repair plans
that will provide appropriate repair plans for homes that are
repaired within 6-12 months of repair plan dev~lo~m=nt
(typisally, 10 percent of repeXr ~ost), from r~venues
received by increasing building permi= fees by $1=~ option
flO., requlrln~ all contractors and subcontractors, other
than ¢las~ "A" contractsr~! to obtain professional licenses
from the County, establishing fees for llcen~ure, a~d
establishing regulatory guidelines for lioensure; Option
~11., franchising all residential contractors who build in
the Cs~ty and ~ealtors w~o sell real e~tate in the County;
and option ~12., ~eq~esting t~e General Assembly to authorize
creation of a foundation repair "Sup~rfund" from fees
collected from hems ~uildsrs an~ ethers involved in the
building industry.
Mr. Barber stated he requested staff to Dmepare a proposal,
which he developed, and requested ~ir. Parthemos to present
5., 7., 8., and 9., mentioned above, and adds an additional
program to solicit ¥oluntury contributions from private
r~maining shrink/sw~ll repair co~t; the County matching those
voluntary uantribu~icns dollar for dollar up to 33 1/3
p~rcent of estimated remaining shrink/swell repair cost; and
thc a~sis~ano= fund paying 2/3 of repair costs with citizens
paying the remaining 1/3. He noted a staff committee would
bm developed to imDlemen~ =he program and develop the proce~
by which contributions would b~ solicited and that the total
amount to be solicited for voluntary contributions and the
maximum amount to be matched by the County would be
million.
a~i~tanc~ i~ repairing homes including the possibility of
using the $125 fee increase ~o help design repair plans
within a specified period of time by a homeowner if desired
ta do so. Ee further st=ted the home builders ~nd~cate~ they
would not oppose the $~ to be used for a r~pair design and
would follow-up with individual homeowners of homes~ that
they construct~d~ to assist the homeowner. He further stated
the hems ~uilder~ ~xprossod concern relative to repairing
94-304 4/27/94
homes when statutory warranties have expired. Bs further
sta~ed the home builders have requeste~ a list cf all homes
in the assistance program und they would contact and visit
the homeowners in ways to assist in their home repairs.
Mr. ~arber stated his proposal is in the spirit of compromise
should be made. He further stated his proposal i~ requesting
contributions to be made to comprehensively take oars of
shrink/swsll moil problems with the contingency that 'the
private sector also match the County's centrlbu~ion and he
should be responmibl~ for the solution.
Mr. Colbert stated the shrink/swell soil issue arose in
September, 1991; that the Board of Supervisors conducted
seven town meetings with oitizsn$ to discuss the issue; %hat
additional citizen input has been gained from three public
hearings on soil and foundation issuss; and the Board has
discussed mh~i~k/swell ~oil in more than 30 Board meetings.
address shrink/swell soil including appointing a Citizen Soil
Commission; creating a shrink/swsll soil haS-line; creating a
Citizen A~i~tan~e P~eg~am; ~umerou~ improvement~ being made
to b~il~ing inspection ~ra=ti~es? the County's soil
being the most demanding in th~ Commonwealth; suing
developers and prosecuting builders for Building Code
wiolutions; adopting building inspection practice~; at
County's initiative, =he General Assembly changing State law
to increase the new home foundation warranty te five
an~ lengthening the statute of limitations of Beildinq Code
prosecution to two years. We further state~ it is now time
for the Bosrd to take action on the shrink/swell soil issJe~'
~r. Barber restated his proposal is in the spirit of
compromise and hopes the Board will agree that %he smelt
price the proposal is requesting the County and citizens to
pa~ w~ll be well worth the investment of keeping home
assessments and values where they should be.
~r. Barber then made a motion for the Board to approve Option
$~:-, develop~Dg a County loan guarantee program for
homeowners who cannot otherwise q~alify for loans to
home~; option $7., by agreemsnt with the Csunty~ selected
co,tractors and suppliers agreeing to discount labor and
materials to repair s~ink/swsll foundations; option ~8.,
.f~rmalizing a County assistance program for pursuing home
warranty claims in conjunction with ~omeewners who .have
uctive hom® warranties; Option ~9.t paying for 'all
engineering costs for dsve~spin~ repair plans that
provid~ appropriate repair plane for homeE that ar~ repaired
within 6-12 months o~ ~epair plan development (typically,
percent of repair cost), from ravenue~ received by increasing
building permitfees by $125; and add an additional option to"
solicit voluntary contributions from private industry and
citizens up to lf3 of the estimated shrink/swell repair cost~
the County~magchlng dollar for dollar of that contribution up
to the $3 million level, and the assistance fund
of the repair
Mr. Warren seconded the motion. ~s stated ha supports the
type of censa~er protection that ~ill addre~ the problem as
be~t ~ tho Board can under the current circumstances.
further statsd he feels the proposal consists of many items
~hat ~ndividu~l Board members will support and
Board to add~es~ their input on indivldual it~ns in th~
proposal.
Mr. Daniel referenced an event that took place in 1979-1~$Q
involving a house that was b~ilt on a ~tnmp dump and stated
tho ho~eo%rner had house repairo of appro×imately ~10,000 and
taxpayers did not partimipate in financing the resolution of
that situation. He further stated he could not support all
aspects of Mr. Barber's proposal, kowever, he could support
holding a public hearing on the $125 increase in building
permit foes ix he r~seives written confirmation from tho homo
~uilder$ that they support tb~ $1~5 building permit fee. He
further stated ha cannot support options #1., fa., #3.,
~5., ~6., and ~7 mentioned above, however, he could support
Option #8., formalizing a County assistanue prugra~ for
pursuing home warranty claims in conjunction with homeownerm
who have active home warranties; Option #1. and option 2A.
from the staff report that was presented to the Board On
February 23, 1994. He stated he feels the oth~r option~ all
require spending taxpayer dollars, which ha does not support
and after Mr. Barber's motion is voted on, he is prepared to
vote in favor of Option #$-, fo~-malizing a County assistance
program for pursuing home warranty claims in conjunction with
homeowners who have activ~ hom~ warranties; Option #1. and
Option 2A. from the ~taff report that w~a presented to the
Board on February 2~, 1994 and to defer di~cussio~ o~ the
$125 building permit fee until after a written formal
position has been received from the home builders.
Mr. MoHale stated tho most difficult job of being a public
official is to do what you must and not what you would like
to do. ~s further stated whet he world llke to de amd w~at
he must do so. as into conflict at times. M~ further stut~d
it is clear that homes have been damaged; that
building inspectors did not perform their job correctly; that
the contract between a home buyer and a home builder is a
private transaction; that it i~ the ultimate
of the home builder to correct any problems; and that he dues
feel the County has some responsibility in respect to the
building inspection process, he,ever, the builder
r~pon~{ble for any r~palrs. ~a further ~tated he cannot
vote, in good conscience, to spend money for repairs~ that if
the County decides to help fund the repairs, the County would
become involved in quarantining hom~ quality and not the
inspection process; %hat %he County is sot the guarantor of
quality~ that he feels the home builders are the ones who
should make sure the work is performed correctly; and that hs
fe~le it is th~ Eespon~ibility of the b~ilde~s to repair the
homes. He stated he can ~upport Mr. Barber's motion except
for the CoRnty mutchinq funds received from the solicitotion
of voluntary contributions ~rom private ~ndu~try and
citizens.
Fir. ~cHale then made a substitute motion to delete the
additional option to solicit voluntary oon~ribution~ from
private industry and citizens up to 33 1/3 percent of
estimated remaining sh~in~/$well repair oosb or $3 million,
the County matching contributions dollar for dollar, up to 33
1/3 percent o~ estimated remaining shrink/swell repair cost,
and the assistance fund paying ~/3 of repair costs
citizens paying the remaining 1/3~ continuation of option
~1., completing the existing Citizens Assistance Proqra~
(from the report that was presented ts the ~card on February
~3, 1994)~ option ~5., developing a County loam guarantee
program for homeowners who cannot otherwise qualify
repair loan~; option #7.~ by agreement with the county,
and materials to repair shrink/swell foundations; Item
formalizing a County a~istenee program for pursuing home
warranty claims in conjnnotion with homeowners who ha~e
active home warranties; and Item #9., paying for all
engineering costs for developing repair plan~ that will
provid~ appropriate repair plans fur homes that are repslre~
94~3Q6
. , I
within 6-12 months of repair plan development (typically, 10
percent of repair cost), from revenues received by increasing
building peri, it fees by $%25. He noted the ~oard would have
to hold a publlc hearing'to raise the building permit fee and
would require at least one more vote by the Board of
Supervisors after the public hearing.
hi~ motion i~te categories forths purpose of voting.
l~r. Micas stated on a main motion the Beard can only have a
single substitute motion~ however~ the Board could make
additional substitute motions sequentially.
l~r. Daniel stated he would like to vote on each item
i~dividually so he can support these that he favors and then
vote against those which h~ may
substitute motion before splitting the
M~. Colbert seconded the ~ub~titute motion.
~ub~titute motion.
~r, Mioa~ seats6 in or,er to make an nmen~ent to the
substitute motion, both the maker and tbs
reintroduce the Option offered by ~r. Barber for ~oliciting
volunna~y aontributions from private industry and citizens up
to 1/3 of the estimated s~ink/swell r~pair
million and th~ connty matching that contribution dolla~ ~or
dollar up to th~ $3 mXllion level, if the option is approved
by ~e voters in a November bend r~farandum.
Mr. McHala sta~d he could not ~uppo~t ~. Wa~ren's amendment
to hi~ ~ub~titut~
di~cu~ the a~ended
shri~/swell soil problems and ~e is disappoin~e~
~ow will not help ~0~= who need it.
realm giving the voters the ohance to vutu
~u most democratic form of lendermhip and he supports
allowing the voters to deci4e on whaler ~hey wan~ p~blic
~unds to pay fo~ s~ink/~well soil repairs and ~e Board
should 9lace %he issu~ on a ~on~
~r. Daniel stated he feels the issue goes beyond the Board'~
po~ition on publi~ a~i~ta~ce for shrtnk/sw~ll soil repairs
to ~ fundamental prlnciple~ of government. ~e further
~tat~d h~ f~el$ the public, in at least three Districts, will
be ove~helmingly opposed to placing this issue on a bond
referendum and that placing the issue on a referendum will b~
~upport placing th~ shr~/~woll ~oil in~ue on
~r, Barber stato~ Board member~ have h~lp~d in aidin~ uther
Di~t~ict~ a~ it i~ i~po~tant to the overall well bein~ of the
Coun=y.
94-30'7 4/27/94
Hr. Mc/~ale stated from his perspective, this issue is not
about money and if he concluded that it is the County's
responsibility, then the County would have been liable.
fuJcther ~tat~d Dothing can change the responsibility as
def~ne~ by the commonwealth of virginia and it is the
:esponsibility of the builder to take into consideration the
nature of the ~eil, even if :he county made an error during
the inspection process. He stated he feels it is unfortunate
doe~ not feel a referendum will change the nature of the
problem.
There was brief discussion relative to Mr. Warren making a
Mr. Colbert calls~ for the vote on the substitute motion made
by ~[r. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Board tO
to delete the additional option to solicit voluntary
contribution~ fro~ p~ivate ±nduetry and citizanz up to 33 1/3
percent of the estimated remaining shrink/swell repair cost,
the county matching contributions dolla~ for dollar, uD to 33
1/3 percent of estimated remaining shrink/swell repair cost,
and the assistance fund paying 2/3 of repair co~t~ with
citizens paying the r~aining lf3~ oenLinua~ion o~ option
~1., completing the existing Citizen~ A~sistance Program
(from the staff report that was ~resented to ~he Board on
February ~$, 1994); Option ~$., 4evelepi~g a County loan
for repair loan=; Option ~7., by agreement with the County,
~leoted contractors and emppliora agreeing to discount labor
and materials to repair shrink~swell foundations; Item
formalizing a County assistance program for pursuing home
warranty ola~m~ in ~onj~otion with hom~own~r~ who have
active home warranties; Item #9., paying for all engineering
eo~t~ for ~eveloping repair plans that will p¥ovid~
appropriate ~epa~r plan~ for home~ that a~e r~pa~rsd w~th~n
~-12 months Qf repair plan development (typically, l0 percent
of repair co~t), from revenues received by increasing
building permit fees by $12S; and setting a date for a public
hearing to conmid~r incraaming the building inspection permit
~ee by $125.
The soard being polled, the vote was as follows:
Aye: Mr. Barber.
Aye: Mr. Mo~ale.
Aye: Mr. Colbert.
Aye: Mr. Daniel.
It was generally agreed to rece~ for 10
Mr. Colbert stated Item 8.A., Adoption of Community
Corr~otion~ Plan for Chesterfield County would be heard after
Item 17.~ Reque~t~ for Rezoning and to reconvene at 6:30
to go into Executive Session.
ADOPT# ,ON,,,AN EMERSENC¥ EASIS~ AND SET DATE FOR ~U~L.XC
H~ING TO CONSIDER READO~TIO~_9~.AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND THB CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ~HESTEP~IELD.
1978. AS A~EEDED~ BY ADDING CHAPTER 7.$ EETITLED FLOOD
.~H 7.$-~0 AND REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
REPEAL
Mr. Micas stated the County's current flood plain management
ordinanse is part of the Zoning Ordinance and its a~option
insured that the County will cootinu~ to be able to
participate in the ~ational Floo~ Insurance Program, which
~erllit~ Ceonty homeOWners in floodplains to purchase flood
insurance. He further stated the Federal Emergency
~anaqem~nt Agency (F~4A) has info.ed the County that ~everal
minor changes must be made to the o~di~a~ce in order to bring
it into compliance with F~ requlations and that F~ has
indies=ed t~e amendments ~st be adopted prior to May 2, 1994
or the County will be suspended from the Program until
~en~nts ~re adcp=ed.
On mo~ion o~ ~r. Warren, ~eccnded by Mr. Barber, the Board
~et the date of May 25, 199~ at 7:00 p.m. for ~ public
Code of the County of Ches%~rfleld, 1~75, a~ amended, by
adding Chapter 7.3 entitled flood plain management ordinance
· nd enactinq sections 7.$-1 through ~.3-10; re~rred the
cu~Ee~t flood plain ordinance to the Planning Commission for
~epeal; and adopted the fullowlng ordinance on mn emergency
basis:
~ O~INANCE TO ~EWD THE CODE OF JME COUNT?
OF CEEDTERFIE~D, 1975, AS ~ENDED, BY ADDING
C~TER 7.3 ENTITLED FLOOD P~IN ~NAGEEENT ORDIN~CE
~E IT ORDAINED by th~ Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County:
(1) That Chapter 7.3 Of the CO~ of the County of
Ch~s~rfielfi~ 197s~ =s amended, is added to read ~s f~llows:
Flood Plain Nnna~e~ent Ordinance
(2) That Sections 7.3-1 throuqh 7.3-10 of the Code of
see. 7.3-1. Definitions.
Administrator. The Federal Insurance Administrator who
ad~inietere t~e National Flood Insurance Progra~ of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Area of ~Deciak flood hazard. That land in the flood
plain subject to a one percent or greater ehano~ of flooding
in any given year, The area will be designsted on the County
Flood In~uranc~ R~te ~ap (FTP34) as ~o~e~ A, A1-Aii~ Al4, Al5,
Backwater. A ~low re~ardlng influence due ~o a dan or
other constriction such as a bridge or culvert, or another
Base Flood. A flood having a one percent chance of
being equalled or exceeded in any given year.
94-309 4/27/94
Development. Any man-made change to i~proved or
unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to~
buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations+
~xistinq construction. Structures for which the start
of construction commenced before the effective date of
ordinance- ~xisting construction may al~o be referred to aa
Flood. A general and temporary condition of partial or
complete inundation of normally dry lan~
~ood Boundary and F1Qodwav Macs (FarM%. The of£i¢ial
map of the County on which the Administrator ha~ delineated
the boundaries of the 100 an~ 500 year flood and floodway.
Flood Insurance Rate MaD (FI~M~. The official map of
the County on which the Administrator has delineated both
special hazard areas and t~e risk premium zones applicable to
th~ County.
?lend plain ~anaqe~ent. The operation of an overall
program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing
floQ~ damage, including, but not limited to, emergency
preparedness plans~ flood control works and £1eQ~ plain
management regulations.
Floodproof~ng. A combination of ~tructurml and non-
structural additions, chan~es er adjustments to structures
which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or
improved real property, water and sanitary facilities,
structures and their contents.
Floodway. As shown us the Cuunty*s FBF~, the channel of
a river or other watercourse, and the adjacent land
that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood
without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation
~ern than one fl) foot at any 9clnt.
F1oodwav f~ge. As s~sw~ on t~e Ccuntyl~ FBFM, the
ar~a of the flood plain that can b~ completmly obstructed
without inoreasing the water-surface elevation of the base
f!oo~ ~y more than one (1) foot at any point-
Manufactured home. A structure, transportable in uno or
more sections, which is built on a permanent ohassi~ and
designed for use with er without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities. For flood plain
management purposes the term "~anufaotured home" almo
includes park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar
vehicles placed on a mite for greater than 1~0 con=ecutlve
days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured
does not include park trailers, travel trailers, and other
similar vehicles.
New construction. Structures for which the start of
ordinance.
One Hundred Year Flood. See base flood+
Recreations% v~hia~e_ A vehicle which is: (a) built on
a ~ingle =h&~i~; (b) 400 ~quare feet or less when
at the lazgest horisental projection; (c) designed to be
self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck;
and (d) ~e~ig~ed primarily not for uss as a
dwelling but a~ temporary l~ving quarter~ for recreational,
oamping, travel, er seasonal usa.
substantial damage. Damage o£ any origin sus~ainsd by a
structure whereby the cost of restoring the ~tructure to its
the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial improvement. Any reconstruction
rehabilitation, addition,or other improvsment of a structure~
the Cost of Which equals or exceeds 5G p~rc~nt of the ~arket
val~e Of the structure before the start of construction of
the improvement. Thin term includes str~¢tures which have
incurred "substantial damage"~ regardless of the actual
repair work performed. The term does not, however, include
e~ther: (1) any project or improvement of a structure to
correct existing violations of state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been
identified by the local code enforcement o£ficial and which
arc the minimum necessary to assure sate living conditions or
{2) any alteration e£ a historic structure, provided that the
&iteration will not pruclud~ th~ structure's continued
designation as a historic structure.
The purpose o~ these provisions is to prevent los~ of life
and property, hamard~ to h~alth and safety, disruption of
unnecessary expenditure of public fund~ for flood protection
and relief and impairment of the tax base by:
(a) Regulating usea~ activities and development which,
~oting alone or in combination with other existing
or future uses, activities and development will
cause unacceptable increases in flood heights,
velocities and frequencies.
(b) Restricting or prohibiting ~ertain use~, activities
and development from locating within areas subject
to flooding.
(o) Req~i~i~g all those uses, activities and
developments t~at do occur in Sloodprone areas to
be protectud and/or floodproofed against flooding
(d) ~roteo~ing in~ividual~ from buying lands and
structures which are unsuited for intended purposes
because of flood hazard~.
Sec. 7.3-3. Duties ~snorallv of director of environmental
enqineerinq.
(m) Thi~ division ~hall be enforced by the director of
environmental engineering and such deputies as the
director of ~nvirenmental engineering may appoint.
The environmental engineer shall review all site
and schematic plan~ and building permits ~nd
certify that tho proposed development or
construction is not in violation of ~he provisions
cf this division. If such proposed development o~
construction is in conflict with ~hie division, the
director of environmental enqineering shall r=fuse
to approve such plan or building permit.
The director of environmental engineering shall
~aintain for public inspection, and furnish upon
reques~ for t~e determination o~ applicable flood
insurance risk premi~ rates within all areas
having special flood hazards ±dantifiod on 'the
county fl~od insurance rate m~p (FIRM), any
osrtlfloatos of floodproofing, information on the
94-311 4/27/94
elevation of the lowest floor, including basement,
above the base flood elevation and horizontal
distance eS the structure from the outermost
boundary of the ba~e flood for all new or
substantially i~provsd structures. Alsor records
will include whether er not such structures contain
basements~ if structures have been floodproefed and
the elevations above the base flood level to which
they were floodproofed.
(c) The director of environmental engineering s~all
maintain a record of all variance actlonm,
including justification for their issuance, and
report suck variances issued in the county'~ arnaual
report submitted to the administrator.
Sec....3~3-4. Floodplain districts and zones ~enerallv.
(a) Basis of Districts: Tbs 100-year flood shall be
adopted as the base flood for purposes of
floodplain management meas~. T~s SOO-year flood
shall be employe~ to indicate additional area~ of
flood rimk in the county. The basis for the
detlnsation of these districts shall be the '*Flood
Insurance Study and Related Maps for Chesterfield
County," ~rapared by the Federal Insurance
A~miniotr~tion, dated September, 1992, and as
further revised.
(1) The floodway did:riot is delln~ate~, for the
purposes of this diuisionr using the criteria
that a certain area within the floodplain mumt
b~ =apa~l~ of carrying the water~ of the ba~e
flood without increasing the water surface
elevation of that flood more than one Il) foot
at any point. The ~rea~ included in thi~
dia~rlct are ~p~cifically defined in table 2
of the above-referenced flood insuranc= study,
and are shown on the accompanying flood
bsundary and floodway map~ (FIRM).
(~) The flood fringe district shall be that area
of the base of flood area no~ included in the
floodway district. The basis for the outermost
boundary of this district shall be the base
flood elevation~ co,rained in the flood
profiles of the above referenced flood
insurance study, end m~ shown on th~
accompanying PBFM.
The approximated floodplain district ~hall be
that base flood area for which no detailed
flood profiles or elevations are provided, bnt
where a ba~e floodplain boundary has been
approximated. Such areas ara shown cn the
FI]gI~- For these areas, the one hundred (lO0}
year flood elevations and floodway information
sources mhall be umed~ when available. Where
the specific base flood elevation cannot be
determined ~sing other ~c~rea~ cf data, snch
as the U.S. Army Cerpm of zngineers,
Floodplain Information Reports, U.S.
Geological Survey Floo~prcne Quadrangles,
recorded ~ubdivision plats, etc., the
and/er activity shall determine this elevation
~n accordance with hydrologic ~nd hydrauli~
engineering techniques. Hydrolio and hydraulic
analy~ ~hatl ba ~R~ertak~n only by
professional engineers or others of
demonstrated qualifications, who shall oertlfy
that th~ technical methods meed accurately
reflect currently accepted teohnlcal concepts.
studies, analyeee~ computations, etc~, shall
be submitted ia sufficient detail to allow a
thoromgh ~eview by the director of
environmental engineering and shall include a
theoretical delineation of floodway from flood
fringe when ~evelopmsnt within an appro×i~ated
floodplain district is requested.
Basis of Zones: The county ghall b~ divided into
~on~s, eaGh havin~ a specific flood potential or
hazard. Each zon~ shall be assigned one (1) of the
following flood insurance zone designations:
Zones A~ Al-Ail, Al4, Al5 and Al6: Spaciat
floe~ hazard areas inundated by waters of the
base flood.
(2) Zone B: A~eas between the special flood hazard
area and th~ limit~ of the ~O0-year flood,
including areas of The loo-year floodplain
dire, levee or other water control mtructure;
also, areas subjeo% ~o certain types of
lO0-year shallow flooding where depths are
lens than on~ (1} foot, and areas subject to
100-year flooding from sources with drainage'
is not subdivided.
Zone C: Ail areas outside the limit~ of the.
~00-yemr flood. These areas are subject to
minimal or no flooding.
Floodplain Distriot Overlay:
The floodplain districts described abov~ shall
be overlays to the existing underlying zoning
districts as shown on th~ of£ici~l zoning
ordinance map. As such, the provisions for The
floodplain di~tri~t~ shall serve as
supplement to the underlying district
provimion~.
(~) Where there is any conflict between
provisions o~ ~eq~irements of any of the
floodplain districts and those u£ any
underlying district, the more remtrictive
provisions and/or those pertaining to the
floodplain dietricta shall apply.
(~) In th~ e~ent an~ provi~ion concerning a
~loodplain district is declared inapplicable
as a result of any logi~lativ~ or
administrative actions or judicial discretion,
the basic underlying district provisions shall
remain applicable.
~loodp!ain Maps: The boundaries of the floodplain
districts arm established ms shown on the flood
boundary and floodway nap and flood insurance rate
maps, which are declared to b~ a part of this
division and which shall be kept on file in'the
o~fice of the director of environmental
94-313 4/27/94
District Boundary Changes: The delineation of any
of the floodplain districts ~ay be revised by the
county where natural er manmade changes have
occurred and/or more detailed studie~ have been
conducted er undertaken by tbs U.S. Army Corps of
~ngine~rs or other qualified agency, or where
individual documents indicate tho need for such
change. ~owever, prior to any such change, approval
must be obtained from the federal insura~e
administrator.
Interpretation of District BQundaries: ~nitial
interpretation of the boundaries of the floodplain
environmental engineering. An appeal to the board
of zoning appeals may be taken by any person
aggrieved or affected by the interpretation.
2~c. ?.3-~. District regulations.
Generally:
(1) All u$o~, aotivitie~ and development occurring
within any floodplain district shall be
undertaken only in strict compliance with the
provisions of this division and with all other
applicabl~ ¢od~s a~d ordinances, ~uch a~ the
Virginia uniform Statewide Building code and
~he county subdivision and erosion and
sediment control ordinances. P~ior to the
issuance of any building permit, the director
of environmental engineering shall require the
applicant to provide, in addition to the basic
information on the permit, the followinq
information:
a. For every structur~ that will bo
~l®vated, the elevation of th~ lOWeSt
floor, including basement, above the base
flood elevation and horizontal distance
of the structure from the outermost
b. Tot every nonresidential structure that
will bo rice,proofed! tho elevation to
which the structure will be floodproofed.
c. Thu ~l~vation of the bass flood.
Un,er no ~rcummtan~n ~hall any u~e, activity
and/or development adversely affect the
capacity of the channels er floodwaye of any
drainage facility or syatem.
county's FIP~, and prior To approval by the
director of environmental engineering, the
applicant shall also obtain approval from the
water control board. Further, the applicant
sh~ll give notification of the proposal to all
affected adjacent ~unioipalitie~. Copies of
~uoh notifications shall be forwarded to the
~t~te water control board, the state
94-314 4/27/94
department of inteTgevern~ental affairs and
the.Federal Insurance Administrator.
(4) All new construction of residential structures
in subdivisiens~ within sones A1--16 and
unnumbered A zones on the county's FIRK, shall
be prohibited.
(5) All new construction of residential structure~
which are at least ninety-five (95)
subdivision within zones A1--16 and unnumbered
A zones on tho csunt¥~s FIPJ~, shall have a
minimum flour level of twmlvo (12) inches
above the base flood and cause no increase in
the base flood elevation.
All substantial improvements of residential
str~etnTes, withi~ sones A1--16 and unnumbered
A zones on the county's FTPJ4~ shall comply
with section 21.t-40(1)a.
(7) All new sonst~u~tion and ~ubstantial
improvements of resldential ~ruotures, within
B a~d C zone~ on the county's FI~, shall have
a minimum floor level of twelve {12) inches
above t~e bas~ fluod elevation, adjacent
the nearest A zone, and be s~t b~ck a~
twenty (20) feet horizontal distance from the
(8> All new construction of residennla! and
nonre~id~ntlal ~tru~ture~ an~ all
~ub~an~ially improved residential and
nonresidential constru¢tion within the
floodway on the county'~ FBFH m~all be
prohibited.
[9) All new construction and substantial
improvements of nonresidential structures and
accessory buildings, within the floodway
fringe on the county's FBFM~ shall either:
with attendant utility and sanitary
facilities, be designed to be Watertight
level wit~ Walls s~bsta~tially impe~euble to
the passage of water, and with structural
components h=ving th= cupubility of re~i~ting
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic leads and e~ects
of buoyancy.
(10) A]i n~ c~n~t~uct~on and $ub~ta~tial
improvements of nonresidential structures,
within B and C zones on the county's PI~,
9hall either: ~ave a minimum floor level of
twelve (12) inches abov~ the base flood
~l~vation of ~h~ n~ares~ A zone~ or
with attendant utility ~nd ~anitary
fa=il~=ies, b~ d~signed so that at ]ea~ (12)
twelve inches above the base flood level of
th~ nearest A zone i~ watertight with walls
~ub~tantlally impe~abl~ to th~ pa~ag~ of
water, and with structural components having
the capability of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy.
94-3t5 4/27/94
(il) Where flood~roofin~ is u~ilized for a
particular ~tructure in accordance Subsection
(9) of thi~ sectisn, a registered professional
engineer or architec~ shall certify that the
floodproofinq methods ars ade~fuate to
withstand the flood depths, preesures,
velocities! impact and uplift forces and Other
factors assooiated with the base flood.
record of such certificates~ indicating the
Geodetic U~rtical Dattrm of 1929 (NGVD)) to
wh±oh ~tructura~ are flocdprcof~d, shall be
maintained with the director of
engineering in accordance with section
(1~) The director of environmental engineering
sh~ll require t/%at owner~ of existing
nanufactured home parks and manu£aCt~d hems
subdivisions, located wit~i~ zones Al--16 an~
~mn~b~red A zoDes o~ the eounty'~ FIP~4, file
an evacuation plan i~dioa=ing alt~rnat~
vehicular access and e~cape rou~$ with the
~ Virginia state Disaster Preparedn~ Office.
(13) All e~i~ting manufactured homes (in parks or
on indlvidual lohs/9arcels), locate~ in
special flood ~azard area (A Zones) on the
county's ~I~, sh~ll b~ anchored to
flotation, collapse or lateral movement by
providing over-the-top and frame ti~s to
ground anchors_ Specific ~equi~e~nt~ ~hall be
~e four (~) corners of the manufactured
with two (2) additional ties per sidm at
intermediate locations, with manufactured
hom~ le~ than fifty (50} fact lon~ re~iring
one (1) additional tie per ~ide; frame ties be
~rovided at eaoh corner of ~he home wi~h five
(5) additional ties per sid~ at int~dia/e
points, with homes le~s than fifty (50) feet
long requiring four (4) additional ties per
side;-all components of the anchoring
be capable of car~ing a force of forty-eight
hundred (4,800) po~ndm; and any additionm to
the hom~ bm similarly anchored. All much
manufactured homes mhall be located no
than thirty-six inche~ (3~~'] above ~ade,
provided that no manufactured tome at ~e same
site has sustained substantial ~amage from a
flood. If any manufactured 5omc at t~e ~ame
site ~a9 sustained substantial d~age from
flood, all exi~tlnq manufactured homes ut' ~e
foundation, suet that the lowest floor of ~e
manufao=ured home is elevated to or above the
base flood elevation.
(14) The placement of new manufactured homes
individual leas or parcels, the construction
manufacture~ hom~ subdivisions an~ the
existing manufactured ~ome parks and
manufactured home subdivisions shall be
prohibited within sones Al-al6 and unnumbered
A zones on the county'~
4/27/94
(15) The placement of new manufactured homes on
individual lots or parcele,.the construction
manu£ac~ured home subdivisions and the
and manu£aoturpd home suhdivi~ionm
require, within zones B and C on the county'~
compacted fill or on pilings so that the
leweet floor of the home will be at lea~t
twelve (12) inches above the base floo~ level
twenty (~0} feet horizontal distance from the
augermoat boundary of the base flood; adequate
provided; and in the instance of elevation on
pilings, lots be large enough to permit steps
piling foundations be placed in stable soil
nor more than tan (1Ol feat apart and
~einforce~ent be provided for pilings more
than six (6) feet above tha ground level.
(16) All ~ubdivision proposals and ether proposed
new developments shall include, within such
the aoo~ ~rlvewaye elevated to at least the
base flood level.
(18) There shall b~ ~e filling ef any floodplains
On fi!~ with the department of environmental
engineering.
Floodway District:
(1) Generally: In the floodway district, no
residential or nonresidential
permitted.
subject to review and aDD, oval
comply wish the provisions o£ the underlying
district end are not prohibited by any other
ordinance. Further, no development shall be
development on flood heiqhts ~e fully offset
a~rove~ by the environmental engineer an~/o~'
state authorities, as required:
farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant
nurseries, horticulture, truck farming,
foreatry! sod farming and wild crop
harvesting.
vehi¢l~, ~ay camps, ~icnic grounds, boat
horseback riding traile, wildli£~ and
and hunting and fishing areas.
Accessory residential uses, suc/~ aa yard
ar~a~, gardens, play areas and loading
Accessory industrial and commeroial usest
such as yard areas, parking and loading
areas, airport landing strips~ ets.
e. Material extraction which will not
increase the level of flooding or
velocity. S~e chapter 7.2 of thio Code
and sections 21.1-195(b) and
21.1-39 Ia) (12)-
f. Temporary outdoor recreational u~es~ ~uch
as circuses, carnivals and similar
g. Utilities and public facilities and
improve~ent~, such as ralireads, streets,
bridges, transmission lines, pip~linez,
water and waste water treatment plants
and other similar or related uses,
h. Water related uses and activities, ~uch
as marinas; docks~ wharves, piers, etc.
i. Storage of mate~ial~ and equipment
provided ~ha~: they ar~ no~ soil
stockpiles, buoyant, fla~mable~
explosive, toxic, or radioactive and are
not subject to major damage by flooding;
and/or prsvided that such material and
equipment is firmly anchored to prevent
flotation or movement, an~/or can ~e
readily removed from the area within %he
tins available after flood warning.
j. structures accessory to the u~ss and
aGtivitX~ in the preceding list.
k. Other similar uses, structures and
activities provided that t~ey cause no
increase in flood heights and/or
Flood Fringe District:
(i) Generally: In the flood fringe district, the
deYelopment and/or use of land shall b~
permitted in accordance with the regulations
of the underlying zoning diztriot~ provided,
that all such uses, activities and/or
levels and shall be undertaken in ~trict
compliance with ~he floodD~osfing and related
provisions contained in the Virginia Unifo~
Statewlde Build~n~ Code and all applicable
c~des and ordinances. Under no circumstances
will filling in =he flood fringe stem be
pe~mittad to mak~ a building lot for the
purpose of ossa:rusting a residential
dwelling.
Permitted uses:
a. Those us~s permitted in the floodway
district, subject to review an~ a~proval
of the environmental engineer.
Residential fltru~tu~es, ~bject to the
provisions of section
o. Nenresidential construction, subject ts
the provisions of section
d. Acses~ory residential structures, subject
21.1-37(a) (9).
e. Golf courses.
(d) Approximated Floodplain District: In the
approximated floodplain districf~ all development
and uses shall be the same as permitted in the
floodway district,
sec. 7.3-6. A~Dlicationm for variances.
The borden of p~ef re,ts ~pon the applicant for a varianc¢,
and without ~uch proo~ a variance must De denie~. The
appliQsnt ~u~t ~how good and sufficient cause~ that f~ilur¢
to grant the variance would result in an exceptions%
hardship; that g~anting the variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional thr~ats to public
or extrucrdinar~ public expense, create nuismnce~t cause
~rau~ on er Vi¢%i~i~a~ien oS %he public or ssnflio= with
existing local laws or ordinances; and that the variance iS
the mlnlmun necessary, considering the flood hazard, to
afford relief.
in considering applications for development in the
floodway and flood fringe districts and variances,
of zoning appeals shall consider the following
(1) The danger te life and property due to
iDarea~ed flsod heights or velocities caused
by encroachments. No building permit or
variance shall be granted for any
floodway or $10od Sring¢ ~istricts ~ha~ will
~ase year flood.
lands or downstream to the injury of others.
(3) The proposed water supply and sanitation
mystems and the ability of these systems to
usnditiens.
(4) The susceptibility of the Dropomed facility
~nd its contents to flood damage and the
effect ef such damage sn the individual
(9) The importance of the ~ervice~ provided by the
proposed facility to the e~mmunity.
(6) The requirements of the facility for a
waterfront location.
Sec. 7.2-B.
(7) The availability cf alternate locations not
s~bject to flooding for the proposed u~e.
($) The compatibility of the proposed USe with
existing and anticipated future dsvelepment.
(9) The relationship of the proposed ~se to r~a
general plan and floodplain management program
for the area.
(10) The safety of access to the property in time
of flood by ordinary and emergency v~hicles.
(11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate
of rise and sediment transport of the
floodwaters expected at the site.
(12) The loss uS beneficial natural stormwater
(13) Such oth~r factors that are relevant to the
The director of envirennental engineering ur the
board of zoning appeals may refer an application
and accompanying documentation for a building
pernit or varian¢~ to an engineer or oth~r
qualified person er agency for technical aseistano~
in evaluating the propose~ project in r~lation to
plans for protection or any other rela~ed matters.
Th~ board of zoning appeal= may forward requests
for variances to the federal ~neurance
administration for ce~u~ent.
The director of environmental engineering and board
of =using appeals shall notify the applicant for a
b~ilding Der~it and/or variance, in writing, that
the approval of such for construction Of a
m~ructure ~slow the ~aae ~leod elevation could
increase risk to life and pnoperty, and could
result iD increased premium rates ~or flco~
k record of the above notification, as well as all
variance actions, including justification for their
issuaDce, shall be maintained by the director of
environmental engineering. Variance approvals shall
be noted in %he an~al report submitted to the
administrator.
Existino structures in floodmlain districts.
A structure or use of a structure on premises which lawfully
sonformity with this division~ may be continued smbjest to
the following conditions:
(a) aesidontial structures: Ih~ mo4ification,
alteration~ repair~ reconstruction or improvement
of aRy kind to a structure r~quiring a building
permit and/or use located in any floodplain
(50) percent of its value, in accordance with the
eQunty assessor's records, ~hall ~ elevated to the
~reatest extent possible.
A residential structure that receives substantial
improvement shall be elevated to at least twelve
(b) Nonresidential structures: The modification,
alteration~ repair, reconmtruction or improvement
any floodplain dimtrict %c an extent or a~ount of
lose than fifty (50) percent of its value, in
shell be elevated and/or floodproofed to the
{~reatest extent possible.
A nonresidential ~tr~¢ture that receives
substantial improvement ~hall be elevated to at
least twelve (12] inches above the base flood level
and/er floodproofed to at least twelve (12) inches
above the base flood elovatlon.
Sso. 7.3-9. Additional provisions relative to flood hazard
areas, as delineated, t~e following additional previsions
shall be met:
other critical electrical installations shall be
permitted only at elevations at leas~ twelve
(b) Water supply systems, sanitary Waste water
and gas and oil supply systems shall be designed bo
system~ and discharges from the eye,ems into
accordance wi~h BOCA requirements.
(o) Adequate drainage shall be provided to minimize
exposure to flood height~.
(d) Preliminary plat requirements shall include a map
designated floodplain dietrich, includin~
elevations, boundaries OS the floodplain districts,
proposed, lots and sites~ and fills and areas
subject to special deed restrictions.
(e) Building permit apDllcation shall innlude lo~ation
See. 7.3-10. Coun%v~.iabilitv.
(a) The degree of flood protection sough% by the
provisions of this division is considered
reasonable for regulatery~ purposes and is based
upon asoep%able engineering methods of study.
restricted by debris. This division does not imply
that areas outside th~ floodplain districts, or
land uses permitted within sue~ districts, will be
free from flooding or flood damages.
(b} This division shall not sreate liability
part of the county, or any officer or employee
reliance on this division, ur any administrative
deoi~ion lawfully made thereunder.
94-321 4~27/94
<3) That this ordinance
immediately upon adoption.
Vote: Unanimou~
shall become effective
APPOINTMENTS
On ~otion of Er. Barber, seconded by ~. Colbert, the ~ear~
District, and Nr. Alfred P. Elks, representing Hidlothian
terms are effective May I, 1994 and will expire April 30,
1~97.
Vote: U~a~i~e~
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board
appointed Ms. Donna Link and Mr. Tom McK~nley, representing
Dale District, to serve on ~he Solid Wast~ ~dvisory
Committee, whose te~'~ ars effective immediately and will
expire December 31, 1994.
vote:
S,B- ~BPROV~L OF ~OMHUNIT~ D~E~OPNBNT BLOCK ~RANT
STREETLIGHT iNSTALLATIO~ COST A??~OVAL$
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~Lu. Colbert, the Board
approved the following Community Development Block Grant
streetlight installation cost approvals:
. Car~er ~eights Drive and Landfill Road
· Carver ~eight~ Qrive, between LandfilI Road and West Booker
Boulevard
· Carver Height~ Drive and W~s% Booker Boulevard
, Carver Heights Drive and Eae~ Booker ~culevard
· Carver ~eights Drive, between ~ast Booker ~oulevard and
We~t Hundred Road
Carver Heights Drive and Wast ~undred Road
Carver Middle School, a% school bus turnaround
East Booker Boulevard, on pole
· west ~ooker Boulevard, on pol~ NL-28, remove private l±ght,
· W~at Booker Boulevard, on pole N1H-22
(~t is noted there is no cost to install tho lights
~rvice charqez will be. paid by the Streetlight Electrical
Service Account.)
Vote= Unanimous
94-322
INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL
Oh motion of Mr. McHale, seconded Dy Mr. Barber, the Beard
approved a ~treetlight installation ¢c~t approval at the
intersection of Eve Lab= and T~eely Road in Burmudu
~agisterlal District. Iii is noted ~here is no cost to
in,tall the light.)
Vote: Unanimous
8.F.2. ADOPT, ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS, AND SET DATE
FOR_~u~L~C H~TNG TO CONSIDER ~N ORDINANCE TO
~KEND THE ODDS O~ THE OOU1T~Y DP OHESTERPIELD. 1978
A~ ~MENDBD, BY ~DIN~ ~ECTION 15.~-~4 RE~TIN~ TO
~. Micas stated at the Board ~eeting on March 23, 1994, ~he
Board referred to the Planning Co~ission a proposed zoning
o~dinance defininq adult entertai~ent establi~h~ent~ and
with a ~onditional ~e. ~e f~rther ~tated the Planning
co~i~ion determined the zoning ordinance was not ~e b~st
approach in r=~latin~ thi~ t~= of u~e and decided to
prohibiting public indecency w~thin the County. ~ stated
the Plannin~ c~mmls~ion chose to reco~en~ thi~ or~in~nce
because it would provide ~reater protection from the
nelg~orhood impact associated with public nudity and nude
adult entertainment establishments.
set tha date of Kay 25, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. to consider
adopted, on ~n emergenoy basis, the following ordinance;
OF ~EST~FIELD, 1978, AS ~ND~D, DY ~DING SECTI0~ lS,l-~4
~e~terfi~ld~ 1978, as amended, is added to read a~ follow~:
1. For purposes of this section n~dfty shall mean:
a. ~aving the pubic region or g~nitul~ covered
lams than com91u~=ly and o9a~=!y; or
b. Having l~ms th~n the ~ajority of each buttock
to and below any p~rt of the ~reol~ Govere~ ieee than
completely and o~aquely.
in~ntlonally app~ar~ in a ~tate of nudity in public or in a
public place or in a place open to the public or to public
view, or in an e~tablishm~n~ which offer~ m~mb~r~hlp~ to the
appear~ ~hall b9 guilty of a class I misdemeanor.
3. Every p~r~on who knowingly, voluntarily and
i~teDtionally engages in specified sexual activities in
4/~7/94
public or in a public plaue or in a plaoe ~pen to the public
or to p~bli¢ view, or in an e~tablishment which off~r~
memberships to the public, or who employs~ encourages or
procures an~t~her ac tQ engage, shall bs guilty of a Cla~ ~
misdemeanor
4. Per purposes of thi~ section specified sexual
actiwities sha~l mean: s~owin~ ~unan ~eni~als in a stat~ ~f
se~ual ~timulation or arousal; real or simulated acts of
touc~hing of one'= own or another's genitals, pubic region,
genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
5. Nothing contained in thi~ moct~on shall be
construed to apply ~o the presentation of any play, ball.t,
~rea~ntations as a form of expression of opinion,
(2) This o~dinance zhall become effective i~mediately
upon adoption.
On motion of Mr. colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the ~oard
authorized th~ Police Department to apply for two grants
under the Intensified Drug Enforcement A~ni~tance Grunt
~rogram and appropriated fund~ upon notification from the
state. (It is noted the Police Department will pay ~
percent, $5,250, the first y~ar for the~ ~rantg and fund~
from the Drug Asset Shoring Program will pay the County's
portion.)
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~r- Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the ~oard
approved the transfer of $4,000 from the Bermuda Dist,±et
Three Cent Roa~ Fun~ to t~e Department cf Parks and
R~creation to pay for materials and cxpenseu to ausi~t with
approved the transfer of $49,400 for design of the Christmas
adopted and ep~roprlated in the FY95 c~pitat Improvement
Program. An adva~c~ of $49,400 will b~ fro~ ~e~ignate~ funds
in the Reserve for C~pi=el Projects unt~] July 1, 1994.}
Veto: Unanimous
~4-324 ~/27/94
hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Ca~e cf th~
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and
reenacting Section 21.1-19 relating to leos, specie,sally
elimination of certain re~ening fees a~ an additional
development incentive within Jefferson Davis ~ighway
Highway ~nher~ri~e Zone ap~llcatlon to in~lude the
incentive and referred eaid ordinance to the Planning
Vote: Unanimou~
8.~.5. REOUBBT~ ~OR BIN~O!.R~.~L~..~ERMITS
On ~otion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board
approved the following bingo/raffle permits for calendar year
Or anization -Type
Richmond J~me~ River Liens Club B~nge/Raffle
James River High School
Athletic Roosters, Zncarparated Raffle
Vote: Unanlmou~
O~ ~otio~ es ~r. Colbert, sucended by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved entertai~ent/music festival ~ermits for the Easter
Seal society of Virginia for a ~er~es of outdoor music
concerts to be held on Friday evenings from 5:00 - S:30 p.m.
beginnin~ April 29, 1994 and e~di~g A~g~$t 26, !994 and to
the Chesterfield County Police Department and ~M~ Radio
Station for a "Spring Kiekin" event to be held on sunday, May
5~, 1994, each subjmct to suoh conditions as the County
8.~.7.' STATE ROAD AOOEPTA~CE
This day =he County ~nvironmcntal ~ngineer, in accordance
with directions from this Board~ made report in writing upon
his examination ef the road in a portion of Mount ~lance,
~cti~n 4, Bermuda District, and
Whereas, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation hae advised the Director of Environmental
Rnglneering, the street in a portion of Mount Blanco, ~tien
4, Bermuda District, meets the requirements established by
the ~ubdivislon Street Requirements of the Virginia
Department of Transport~tien~ and
4/~7/94
Whereas, the County and the virginia Department cS
Tran~pQrtatio~ have entered into an agreement, recorded in
Deed Book 2453, Page 405, January 21, 1994~ for all
s~Qrmwater detention/retention faciliti~ in the Cou/lty.
Therefore, upon consideration whereof, an~ on motion of Mr.
Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, it is resolved that tho read
in e portiun oS ~ount ~lanosj section 4, ~ermuda Ointrict, be
and it hereby is ~stablished ua u public road.
And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Depa~ta~ent of
Secondary System, pursuant to S~ction 33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and thn Department's Subdivision S~reet
Requirements, the following:
Name of Street: Owl'~ ~ellcw Length: .06 miles
From: Sloan Drive extends .06 miles fro~ Route S0~
To: the cul-de-sac
Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 30 feet.
Thi~ request f~ inclusive of the adjacent ~lope, ~ight
dietaries, clear zone and de,ignored Virginia Department Of
Transportation d~ai~&g~ eazement~ indicated on the
development plat.
Tho developer has defaulted on his responsi~illty to
construct the road and the County had to co~plete the
road providing a public service, i~ may be added tu the
System as an addition under Section 35.1-229 of the Code of
Virginia.
This section ~ount Blanoo i~ recorded a~ followa:
TO PROVIDE CONS,~L~I,N~ SERVI~E~ REL~TIN~ TO THE
COUNTY'S ~EOGRAPMI¢ INFORMATIO~ SYSTEM ~RO&ECT
on m0tio~ of M~. Colbert, seconded by Mr. 8arber~ the Board
authorized county e=aff to amend the existing contrast with
Plangraphics, Incorporated, in the a~o~t Of $30~0~ to
pmovide consulting services relating to the county's
~eographic Information System project. (It i~ noted the
amendment ul ~his =ontr~t will no~ require any additional
County funds. ~ne cost will b~ funded within th= existing
project appropriation.)
Vote: Unanimous
approved a request from ~. and Mrs. Richard M. M~ller to
Road, subject to the e~ecnt~on of an amended egreement.
Vote: Unanimnu~
~CCEPTANCM OF P~RCEL O~ LAND,LONG GOUR~KQMSE
ROAD FROM MR. FREDERICK G. ROCKWELL, Iii, EPECI~
COMMISSIONER FOR KGURTCO LIMITED P~TNERSHIP
accepted, on b~alf of the County, the conveya~c~ of 0.0~0
acres of land along Courthous~ Road from ~r. Fredari~ G.
Ruc~etl, III, Special Co~imm~oner for Ken,too L~m~t~d
Partnership, and a~thorized the County Administrator to
is filed with ~e papers of this Board.)
e.G.11. DOMATIOM TO THGKAE DALE HIGH EGHOOL FOR CLASS
OF 1994 ~RADU~TION PARTY
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seoonded by ~r. ~arber, th~ Guard
donated $1~000 fro~ the Bermuda District Three Ce~t Roa~ F~nd
to Thoma~ Dale High Suhool Cl~ss of 1994 to o~mi~t with their
~r~duation party,
Vote: Unanimous
Ther~ w~re no H~rings o~ ci~i=en~ on Unuohe~ule~ Matters or
Ctaim~ scheduled at this time.
10. REPORTS
On me, ion of ~r. Barber, seoonded by Mr. MoRale, the Board
accepted the following report~:
~r, R~msey presente~ the Do~rd with a report on the developer
water and sower oontraote executed by the County
Administrator.
Mr. Ra~ey pre~ented the Board with a ~tatu~ report on the
General Fund Balance; Reserue for Future Capital Preject~;
~i~trlct Road and str~t Light Fund~; and L~ag~ P~rohase$,
~r, Halsey stated the Virginia Department cf Transportation
hoe formally notified the County of the acceptance of the
following roads into the 5tote secondary system:
~DDITION~ L=NGT~
ANTLER RIDGE. SECTION 5 - ~Effectiue 4-8-94%
Romte 4920 (~entncky Derby D~ive) ~ Fro~ 0.07
mile Southwest Route 4924 to 0.0] mile North
R~nte 4905 0.13 Mi
ROUte 4925 (Kentucky Derby Ptaos) - From Route
Route 4925 (Stallion Way] - From Route 4920 to
0.10 mile Northeast Route 4920 0.10 Mi
Re~te 4927 {Naehua Drive] - From Route 4926 to
0.1~ mile Southeast Route 4926 0.13 ~i
Route 4928 (Nashua Court] - From Route 4927 to
0.03 mile Eost Route 49~7 0.03 Mi
9~-527 4/27/94
WALTH~LL. SECTION 7 - (Effective 4-1~-94)
Route 4067 [Walthall Creek Drive) - From 0.09
mile West Route 40~4 to ROUte 620 0.30 Mi
4067 to 0.13 mile Northeast Route 4067 0.13 Mi
WALTHALL CREEK. SECTION 9 - reflective 4-13-94)
Route 4069 (Clear Springs CoUrt) - From Route 4064
Vote: Unanimous
1~. DIMNBR NITH MOD~L COUNTY GOUER/4MENT DAY STUDE~TS
On ~otion on
recessed to th~
dinner.
Vote: Unanimous
Colbert, ~conded by Mr. Barber, the Board
Administration Building, ROOm 502, for
ll.A.
EXECUTIVE ~E$$IOH ~URSUA~T TO SECTION 2.1-~44(A) (?),
COnE OF VIR~N~ 1~6~r ~8 AMENDEDr FOR CONSULTATION
WITH LEGAL COLr~SEL TO DI~CUS~ SPECIfiC LEGAL F~ATTEH~
A~EALS
ll.B. EXECUTIVE SESSION ~RGUA~T TO SECTION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERF.IELD~
ET AL.
On notion of ~r. Colbert, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board
~44(A)(7) Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~umanded, for
consultation with le~al counsel to discuss specific l~gal
matters related ~o Board of Supervisors v~rsnm Board of
Zoning Appeals and an ~xecutive Zes~icn pursuant to Section
2.1-344(a)(7), code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for
consultation with legal counsel regarding litigation ~tyled
as Richard S. Kavanaugh~ Sr.~ et al., versus County of
chesterfield, Virginia and walter W. sarah versus the ~oard
of $~e~vi~o~ cf the County ~f Ch~terfield~ et al.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
on motion of Nr. Barber, seconded by Hr. McHale, the Board
adopted the following re~olution:
WHEREAS, the Board of SuDervisors has this day adjourned
into Executive Session in accordance with a fore,al Vot~ of
tho Board an~ in accordance with the provisions o~ the
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; ~nd
WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
effective July 1, 1989 provides for certification that ~uch
NOW~ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the ~oard of Supervisors
does hereby certify that to the best of each member's
k~owledge~ i} o~ly ~blic busin=mm matters lawfully exempted
from open meeting requi~ementm under the Freedom of
Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to
which this certification applies, and
ii) only much puhlle business matters as were identified
i~ the ~otion by which the Ex~cutiv~ ~ggion was convened
wars heard, discussed, or considered by the Board. NO member
dissents from thi~ certification.
Ths Board being polled, the vote was as f011ow~:
Mr. Warren : Aye.
Mr. Daniel : Aye.
Mr. Mc~ala : Aye.
13, INVOOATION
~Lr. Colbert introduced Reverend Raby E. Moore, Pa~tor
G~eenwood Presbyterian Church, who gave the invocation.
of
AHERIOA
~r. Jacobsen led the Pled~ of Allegianoe to the Flag of the
United States of /Lmerica.
at this time.
APPROXIMATELY $S~ FEET ~ROM CONTInUaL
public h~aring to consider authorizing the County
A~nimtrator to convey to J. M. Kullls~ Incorporated, or its
opti0ned by th~ County fronting Ruffin Mill R~ad
approxinat~t7 ~50 fe~% from Continental Boulevard and kno~
as Tax ~ap ~arcel 150-9-1-7.
Mr. R~sey stated after public input, staff
Board dolor action on th~s issu~ until May 11, 1994.
No one c~o fo~ard to speak in ~avor of or against this
issue.
On motion of Mr. Danlsl, ascended by ~r. Warren, the Board
deferred consideration of authorizing the County
Administrator to convey to J. M. Mollie, Incorporated, or its
designee, twenty acres, more or less, of a parcel cur~e~tly
optioned by the Csun%y fronting Ruffin Mill Road
approximately ~0 f~t from Continental Boulevard and known
as Ta~ Map Parcel 150-9-1-7 until ~ay 11, 1~4.
TRANSFER TO THE ~CKOOL ~UND
~r. StegDai~r ~tated this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an anen~nen~ ~u the P¥93-94
b~get to appropriate $652,~00 in anticipated additional
Stat~ ~ale~ ta~ r~venue in order to increase the transfer tu
Schools.
No one came forwar~ to spa~k in favor of or ~gainst this
issue.
On notion o~ Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ =be ~oar~
approved an amend_men~ to the ~Y~-9~ budget and appropriated
$652,S08 in anticipated additional State sales tax revenue to
Vote: Unanlmuus
MA~S OF ~HESTER~I~L~ CO~¥, VIRGINIA, AND TO
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY O~ CHE~T~IELD. 1978.
~E~DED, B~ ADDING GECTION~ 21.1-11.1 ~D 21,1-11.2
R~L~TIN~ TO 2ONIN~ CONDITIONB AND CO~ITIONAL ZONING
Mr. $~eobso~ stated thi~ date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to ccnslder an ordinance to amend thc
zoning district maps o£ the County and to amend the Code of
the County of Chesterfield, 1~78, a~ ~ended, by adding
Sections 2~.1-11.1 and 21.1-11.2 relating to xoning
conditions and conditional zoning. 5e further ~tated recent
legal decisions have resulted in the inability of property
owners, in certain oases, to apply fo~ zoning changes when
their property i~ a portion of a larger tract subject to
proffers or conditions. He stated these zoning amendments
will establish the property o~n~rE right to apply for zoning
a~endment~ will achieve hiqher quality development and
standards, end will simplify the logi~ti~ of applying for a
z~ning change to the County. Ne further stated the Planning
Commission recommends reedoptlon of the ordinance amendments
r~commended by staff and an additional o~dinance amendment
whiuh will pru¥ide a higher level of notification to property
owners within th~ original zoning casa.
Ths~s was brief discussion relative to the type of
notification process %hat would be in place i£ the additional
amendment was not addsd to the ordinance; the language
difference between what is currently in place and the new
amendment; and ~limination of th~ additional notification
rscsmmsnded by ~he Planning Commission.
John Cogbill, Esqulr~ stated ha supports the original
ordin~nc~ as recommended by stuff; that he feels ~otioe to
civic a~so¢iations is an important issue and one which is
adequately covered by staff; that adding the 1,~00 foot
requirement is oppressive; and expressed concerns relative to
94-330 4/27/94
t~e language drafted rela~ing to "operating within tbs arsa
enconpa~ed by the property which is subject to the original
zoning." Ho requested tho Board approve the ordinance as
developed by staff.
Oliver Rudy, Esquire stated he is in agreement with the
remarks expressed by Mr. Cogbill as he feels ~=gurdless of
the amount of notification given, there will always
citizens who were unaware of the issue.
There being no one else to address this ordinance, th~ Dub/ia
hsa~ing was closed.
Mr. Daniel made a motion, smoonded by Mr. Warren~ for the
Board to adopt an ordinance to ~nd tho ~oning district maps
of Chesterfield county, virginia, and to amend the Code of
the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by adding
Sections 21.1-11.1 and 21.1-11.2 relating to zoning
conditions ~nd conditional zoning as recommended by the
Mr. Be~bsr stated ho feels th~ add6d notification in the
P~annlng Co~u~ission~s amendment to th~ ordinaoce is an added
coot and time expense to the County and doe~ not increase the
~erefere~ made a ~ub~itute ~otio~ to adept th~ ordinance
develope~ by
Mr. Mc~ale seconded the ~ubstitute motion.
Mr. Daniel inquired as to th~ differenc~ between staff'~
passes, staff would not, in addition to what they do now,
o~iq~nal ~a~on~ng and would ~Ot ~otify property owners up
1,500 feet within that original rezoning. ~en asked,
stated the Planning Commission endcrmed ~tmff'm
reco~endation am wall as the ~i~ional notixication
r=quirementu.
Mr. Daniel clarified that the motion would a~end the ~lanning
Commission's reoumm~ndatlon an~ staff would not ha~ to make
the extra notificationm.
Mr. Warren stated the amendment to the ordinane6 originated
from a r~es% arising from the Harbour Points area ~o be
notified if properties are to be rezon~d. He ~urther
ha fe~ls this process could be accomplished th=saSh a
"g~ntl~m~n'~ aqr~m~nt~ rather than a r~iremen~ and it
the responsibility ox ~he Board of supervisors to obtain
input from th~
~ere was brief disuussion ~elative to notification
would be given if ~e ~ub~titute not,on i~ passed ~s
~dditio~al comt for each zoning case for staff time if the
Board approved ~e P!annin~ co~ission's reco~endation.
~r. ~c~ale ~ated he i$ not opposed ~o no=ification~ Dst
feels the Planning Department h~s a proactive process
unnecessary to notify all civic associations. He indicated
Mr. Warren clarified thio ordinance would only apply to the
community associations where the potantia! zoning change
would occur and he feels ~he Board has not had ample ti~e to
review the ordinance. ~e requested the ~oard to consider
94-331 4/27/94
Mr. Barber stated he feels the Board should move forward on
staff's recommendation and reconsider the addftionai
notification at a later time. Ee further stated if the Board
f~ls additional notification is important, it ShOUld be
considered with every zsnin~ cuss.
Mr. Daniel stated he suppor:s adopting tho ordinance a~
recommended by the Planning Commission ab thim time and if
nacemsary~ the ordinance could be modified mt a later time.
Mr. Colbert Called for the vote on the substitute ~oticn made
by Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. MoEale, for the Board to mdopt
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO~34END THE ZONING DISTRICT MAPS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, V%RG!NiA, A~D TO AMEND THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF .C~ES~RF%ELD, 1978~ AB AMENDED, BY ADDING
SECTIONS 21.1-11.1 AMD 21.1-I!.2 R~%~TING TO
ZONING CONDITIONS A~D CONDITIONAL ZONING
BE iT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County:
(1) Tha~ the zoning District Maps oS Chesterfield
County, Virglnla~ are amended to reflect imposition cf the
following condition for all property zoned wi~h condi=ions
prior to thm ~ff~otive date of this ordinance:
When any applioation to ar~nd the
conditions contained herein or to request
rezoning of any portion ef the ~ropmrty
is filed, the application will be heard
and decided regardlems of whether or not
all of the Property iS included within
the application.
(2) That Section 21.~-I1.1 of the Code of the County cf
Chesterfield. 1978, as amended, is added to read ac follows:
§ 21.1-11.1. Amendments. k~ application to on,nd a zonin~
c~ndition or rezon~ property which received its orlginal
zoning after April ~7, 199~ and which meets the requirements
Of thio chapter, shall De considered Dy the Board of
Supervisors notwithstanding the fact that all parcels subject
~0 ~he eriginal condition or zening are not included ~ithln
the application to a~end or rexona.
(3) That Section ~1.1-11.~ of the Code of the County of
~ 21.1-11.2. Conditional zoning amendments. Ail conditional
zoning cases decided on or before April ~7, 1994 shall be
s~bjeot to a condition that Del'mits an applicant to amen4 ~
zoning condition or rezone property notwithstanding the fact
that all parcels subject to the original condition er ~onin~
ar~ not included within tho application to a~nend or rezone.
(~) That thi~ ordinanc~ shall b~come ~ffe~tiv~
immediately upon adoption.
Ayes: Mr. Barber and Mr, McHale.
Nays: Mr. Colbert, Mr. Daniel, and Mr. Warren.
Mr. Colbert called for the vote on the motion made by Mr.
Daniel, seconded by Fir. Warren~ for the Board to adopt the
following ordinance:
A/~ ORDINANCE TO A~END THE ZONING
OF CHEETERFIELD COUNTY~ VIRGINIA, AND T~ A~END THE ~O~E OF
ZEE COUI~TY OF ~ESTERFIELD, 197~ AS ~ENDED, BY ADDING
ZONING CONDITIONS ~D CONDITIONAL ZONIN~
BE IT O~AINED ~y the Board of Supervisors of
Chemterfield Co~ty:
(1) Tha~ th~ Zoning District Maps of ¢hesterfield
County, V~rglnla, are amended to reflect imposition of the
followinq condition for all property zona~ with
w~n any application to amend the condition~
contained herein or to request re~oning 0f any
p0rtio~ of the P~operty is filed, the application
~ilI be heard and decided regardless O~ who%her or
not ull of ~= Property is included withi~
~Dlication, p~ovi~d that in addition to the
notice required by ~ ~1.~-18 of the Code of the
Co~y o~ C~e~=erfiel~, 197s, a~ aman~u~, written
notice of any public hearing on th~ application
~hall be ~iven ~o all civic asso=i~tion~ on file
with th~ Plam~ing Department operating within the
to the original zoning or condition and to all
property o~er~ of record with the assessor's
office on the date on which the application
original zoning or condition and whose p~operty is
located within one thoumand five hundred (1,500)
feet of the property which is the subjeo~ of
application. 8~ch notice shall be provided by the
Director cf Planning, or his agent, in accordance
~ith the provisions of ~ 21.1-18(c) of the Cod~ of
the County of Chesterfield.
(~) That section 2~.1-~.~ of the code of =he Countv of
~e~te~fiald, 1978, as a~e~ded~ is added to read as follows:
~ 21.1-11.1. Amendments. ~ application to amend a zoning
zoning ufter April ~7, 1994 and which m~ets the requirements
o~ %bls ~hap~sr, ~kall b~ ~onsider~4 by the Board of
Supervisors notwithstanding the fact that all parcels sub3ect
the application to amend or rezone, provlded that in addition
~o the notice rm~uire~ ~y ~ 21.1-18 of the Code of the county
cf Chesterfield, 197~, as amended, written notic~ of
pUDliC ~earing on ~h~ applioa~ion shall be given to all civic
a~ociations on fil~ with th~ Planning Department operating
within ~e area encompassed Dy t~e property w~ie~ is subject
to the original zoning or condition and to all
which the application is ~ubmittud whose ~rupurty was subject
locat~ within one thousand five hundred (1~0) feet of ~e
D~oDe~ty w~iek is t~e s~bjact ~f th= applicution. Such
notice shall be provided by =he Director of Planning, or his
the Code of the Co~ty of Chesterfield.
~ 21.~-11.~- Conditional ~ouing amen~ents- Ail cunditional
zon~n~ ca~es d~c~d~d on or hafor~ April ~7, 1994 shall
subject %c a condition that permits an applicant to amend a
zoning condition or rezone property notwithstanding the fact
94-333 4/27/94
that all parcels subject to the original condition or zoning
are not included within the application to amend or rezone,
provided that in addition to the notice required by ~ 21.1-18
of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as a~ended~
written notice of any public hearing on the application shall
be given to all civic ~s$ociations on file with the Planning
Department operating within the ~rea encompassed by th~
property which is subject tc the ~riginal ~oninq or condition
an~ to all property owners of record with the assessor's
office on the date on which the application i~ submitted
who~e property wa~ subject to the original zoning or
condition and whose property ia located within One thousand
five hundred (1,~00) £e~t o~ th= propemty which is the
~ubject of the application. ~uch notice shall b~ provided by
the Director of Planning, or his agent, in acoor~ano~ with
the provi~ionn of ~ ~1.1-18(c) of the Code of ~he County of
Chesterfield.
[4) That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon adoption.
Ayes: ~r. colbert, Mr. Daniel, and Mr. Warren.
Nays: Mr. Barber and Mr. McHale.
l?. REOOE~T~ FOR REZONI~
94~R0172
In Midlothian Magisterial District, L. DALE P~RiSH
renewal of a conditional Use (Case ~SN0192) to permit the
continued operation of an insurance office in an Agricultural
(~) ~i~trict. Th~ density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or 0rdinan~e standards. The
Comprehsnsi~ Pla~ 4e~ignaten the property for residential
u~e of ~.51 to ~.0 units per acre. This request l~es on s
1.0 acre known as 10271 Rob~oun Road. Ta~ Nap 17-7 (3) Avon
Pa~k, Lot 3 (Sheet
Mr. Jacobsen pre~ented a summary of Case 945R017Z and stated
the Planning Commission and s~a££ reco~l~ends approval subject
to conditions. There was no opposition
On ~otion of ~. Rarb~r, seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, the Board
approved Case 94SR0172 subj~=~ to the fei!owing conditions:
1. Parking areas an~ driveways shall be located es
generally depicted on the plan prepared by Dean
~awkins, AS~2%, dated July 13, 1988, shall be
the plan of development.
2. At ~uch time as the existing septio ~y~tem fails, the
owner shall extend public ~ewer to the property and
connect all structures to the public s~stem. (U)
There shall be no direct acce~ to Robious Road.
4. Signs shall be as regulated by the Zsning ordinance for
home occupations. (P)
5. This Conditional Use shall be granted ~u and for L. Date
Parrish only and shall not be transferrable nor run with
the land, and further shall be limited to the operation
of L. Dale ~arrish's insurance office.
6. No more than two (~) employees, not to include L.
Pettish, shall be permitted. (P)
94-334 4/~T/94
I i
no additions or ~terior alteration~ ~hall be permitted
to accommodate thio use. The residential a~aarance of
the ~truetur~ ~hall be maintained.
Driveway and parking areas shall be screened from view
of adjacent proper%les to the south~ east and west.
Screening ~hatl consist of a solid beard fence and/or
landscaping. The e~act ~ethod of ~creening shall be
determined at the time of site plan review.
Hours Of operation shall bs limited ~u between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall he no
Saturday or Sunday buo~noss activity on-site.
94B~1~4
re~uamtad rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential
25]. k single family residential subdivlsi~n with a mlnlmum
proffered conditions, a density of up to 1.09 units per acre
would be permitted. ~he comprehensive Plan designates the
property for residential mme of 1.0 unit per acre or leos.
This request lies on 5.0 acres lying approximately 1,850 feet
approximately 1,100 feet sou~h of Leafield Drive. Tax Map
16 (1) Part of P~rcel 3 (Sheet
Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Came 94SN0184 and misted
the Planning Coi~miooion and staff rsco~u~ando approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. ~e noted the
proposed zoning and land ucc uonform to ~hm U~mer Swift Creek
Plan. There wa~ no opposition present.
On motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Far. MeH~le, the Board
conditionm:
1. Th~ average lot ~iz~ shall be 40,000 square feet.
The minimum lot size shall be 30,000 square feet.
Public sewer and water shall be used.
The developer shall elect to hav~ Planning Commission
approval of t~e tentative subdivision plan.
5. Prior to any pubtio meeting for tentative subdivision
approval the developer shall give at least two weeks
written notice of the public meeting to Salisbury Civic
6. At least two weeks prior =o the Planning commission
with the Salisbury Civic Association to review the
tentative ~ubdiviuisn plan.
7. The upplicant, subdivider, mr assignee(s) shall pay the
following to tke County o£ Chesterfield prior to the
time of building per, it application for infrastructure
property:
a) $~,043.00 per l~t~ if paid on or prior to June ~0,
h)
The amount approved by the Board cf supervisors net
to exoee~ $~,04~ p~r lot adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index between ~uty 1, 1993, and July i Of the
fiscal yea~ in which the payment ie mad~ if paid
after June 50,
Vote: Unanimous
94SN0111
In Dale Magisterial District, BEUL~J{ UNITED METHODIST
requested rezoning from Re~identlal (R-7) to Agriuultural (A)
with Conditional Use to permit access to ~opkin~ Road for
commercial development on adjacent prnpsrty to the south.
The 4ensity of ~uah amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The ce~prehensiv~ Plan
designates the property for public/s~mi-public u~e. Thiz
request lies on 1.3 acres known as 6925 Hopkins Road. Tax
~ap S6-8 (1) Parcel 13 (~heet
Mr. Warren disclosed to the Board that he is a m~mber of
B~ulah United MethOdist church, declared a potential conflict
of intermst pursuant to the virginia Comprehensive Confllct
of Interest Act, and e×oused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Jacobsen pre~ent=d u mummery of Case 94SNOlll and stated
staf£ recommends a~roYal subject to one condition and th~
~lanning Co~mimsion recommends denial as they are concerned
about pedestrian and vehicular safety given the proximity of
this develepment to the intersection of Beulah and Hepkins
Road and the prassdence for continued commercial development
north along Hopkins Road.
Mr. 3ohn Cogbill, Esquire, stated he is representing the
applicant and requested th~ Board to approve a 2~ fuut
driveway adjacent to property currently zoned C-3 at the
coxner of Hopkins and Beulah Roads. Re presented an overview
Of the case and stated the si%~ plan presented by ~haff
irrelevant to the request with the exception that it shows
the location of the ~0 foot access easement; that th~
applicant is requesting the Board to allow access across
piece of property no larger than 2~ feet and expressed
concern~ relative ts the site plan process as it r~lats~ to
this request. He stated this ~ropoeal will not negatively
impact the co~unity~ that the proposal is b~ing
only to provide =afc access ~o property that has been zoned
since 1958~ t~at this property ~es already zoned when Fuqua
Farms was developed; that county staff stated this is a safe
and prudent access; and ~ead into the record a portion of a
letter hy =he virginia Department of Transportation
Commissioner stating VDOT is satisfied that the plan meets
all necessary safety requirea~ents. He further stated 16
accidents have been cited over the pa~t three years and only
one in the area of the proposed access; that VDOT dc~s
consider this area to be a dangerous intersection; that this
reques~ sets aucess on Hopkins Read at 19~ feet from
corner of Bopkins and Beulah Roads and compared ~he
to a similar request approved in 19~8 at the intersection of
trenb~idge and Cogbill Read~; that t~e applicant's
exceeds county standards specifically, relating to traffic;
that approval of this case will not set a precedent; that the
Beard of supervisors nas disagreed with Planning ccmmim~ion
recommendation~ in the past; that the sale of alcohol should
not be an issue in this request; that a 20 foot access will
not iDcrea~e Or ~eerea~e the incidence of crim~ on the
property; that he feels the concerns of those oppssln~ this
Administrative Board of Beulah Un~tsd Methodist Church are in
support of the access; that a 20 foot driveway provida~
new~ clean, healthy bus~ne~e for the ¢ountyx that the Ceunty
should support allowing resources such as %his to assist in
encouraging businesses to come to the county~ and
the Board to approve the request. He submitted into the
record a packet Of information relating to the request.
Mr. Ji~ Davi~, a ma~b~r of Beulah United Methodis~ Church,
stated he supports approval of the rnzonlng~ that the Church
realized many ~ears ago that change and growth was coming in
the County; that the Church began taking steps to make
provisions for future growth; that the Church purchased over
seven acres on the west side o~ aepkins Road which included a
ago, the Church ~egan ~uilding on that property -- around the
convenience store and service station~ and that when the
Church built their new sanctuary, they ~ound it necessary to
remove the commercial property from use.
Mr. Barber excused himself from the meeting.
adjacent property; and that the leader~hlp of the Church
that they feel the development is well suite~ ~or the parcel
the Church an~ bh~ community; that Mr. Charlie Quaiff~ a past
morally justifiable.
s~ated this request has gone through the proper business
conoideraticn~ at the Church; that the Church feels the
connnun~ty; that even though the Chursh i~ a non-profit
organization, they are not opposed to neighboring businesses
~aking profits; that th~ Church has hire~ off-duty
west side of the proper~y; that the Church feels this is a
f~iendly neighbor concept to allow this d~v~lop~ant to take
place; and requested the Board to givs favorable
~o. Patricia Lohr, Pr~zid~nt of the Fuqua Farm~ Civic
Assnclatlen, stated she is a member of Beulah United
~ethodi~ Chnr~h; that she opposes the additional 20 f~et of
zoning; that the 20 feet is the only buffer for the Church
and the school from the business; that she does not feel it
is in the best interest of tbs Church or Beulah Elementary
School; and expressed co~cerns relative to the traffic
congestion and crime in the arsa and set~ing a precedent
Road. She further stated ~he fsel~ Amoco has proposed an
deny the request. It is noted approximately 25 parsons stood
~61337 4/271~4
Ms. Klm Rotan, repre~en~ing Beulah Athletic Association, read
and entered into the record a latter from Mr. Warren
Hevermala, President of Beulah Athletic A~ociation, oppoming
the request as the Association i~ concerned about increased
traffic in the area ae children walk to SOhQQ~ along ~opkims
and Deulah Road~ and to a ~-hour establishment with an
alcohol license being located so close to an elementary
school.
Mr. Lewis Kinq, a resident of Fuqua Farms, expressed
appreciation to the Beard and County staff for their
throughout the years in guiding the orderly development of
the County. He inquired as to whether the raqmast was for
the entire Church property and for a conditional use pe~it
on 20 feet.
Mr. Jacobue~ stated the property is being rezoned from R-? to
agricultural and the conditional use, which will allow access
to ~opkins Road at the designated location.
Mr. King stated he realm this is an unplanned zoning request;
requested the Board to address %he 20 ~eet and not the entire
tract; requested the Board to deny the rezonin~ on the tract
and the conditional uae permit; and expressed uoncerne
rmlative to th~ number of traffic accidents in the ares.
Ms, ~ancy ~soD mXpremsed concerns relative to th= proposed
rezoninq, specifically, maintaining thc viability of older,
more e~ablished neighborhoods as a residential area. She
stated th~ primary concerns expressed ~y citlz~ns of
community was the impact this request wikl have on the future
of the community.
Mr. S~e~man Litten~ a member of Beulah united Ms=hodi~t
Church, stated he is ap~oza~ to ~he request and expressed
concerns relative to this requeut setting a precedent for
future commercial dave!apPear in t~e area; access; the
rmquemt b~ing residential and not commercial; t~e C~uroh
supporting a ~asinass selling alcoholic beveraqee in close
proximity; and requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. John Cogbill stated this request is a downzoning; thmt
the applicant ia only requesting 20 faa% of access; that
whether this request is approved or not, children will always
walk along Beulah and Hopkins Reade; t2~at thi~ re~ueet will
not set a precedent for strip zoning; that citizens i~
area knew this property was zoned Gcmmeroial; that th~m
request is not an i~s~e of strip goDXng and the only immux
being requested in thi~ came ia the access of ~O f~eb in
order to improve safety and efficiency of the area; that thm
request will net have a negative impact em Fuqua Farms or any
other communi=ies along Kcpkins or Deulah Roads; that in
erder for taxe~ to stay low and the County to continue to
prosper, the Board must provide opportunitiem for commercial
development within the County; and requested the Board to
grant the ~0 foot accems.
it was generally ~greed to recess for five minutes.
Researching:
Mr, Daniel referenced a Board meeting held in 1980 relating
to the Amoco site and relocation of Beulah Road an~ s%ate~ i~
was never the intent of the Board of Supervi~or~ to allow
commercial zoning to go north of Beulah Read; that ia
preparation for the relocation of Beulah Road, it was
reported that the commercial usa of this property would
become a banking facility; and that aceem~ is available sm
Beulah Road to the parcel.
County having other ordinances in place dealing with direst
access; the dista~se of access from int~rsactionm in similar
cases; property owners not having a legal right to have
access to both sides of an intersection; whether Beulah Road
is a lessor or higher street when compared to Hopkins Road;
minimum standards of entrance to State highways and
documentation in these standards that relate to County or
local requirements versus state requirements; the traffic
situation at Beulah and Hopkins Road~; turn-around ~paoe for
tank trucks; tho consistent recommendation of stuff being
currently zoned C-3; staff's recommendation being that it
wo~ld be safer to ~ave an access onto Beulah Road rather than
Hopkins Road due to the turn lane movements going throuqh a
controlled signalized intersection on ~opkins Road; concerns
remaining the same whether the access was right in and right
out; and a right in and right out access not b~ing a good
design.
~r. Daniel stated he feels he should have ensured, in
writing, a~ to fh~ absolute intent of what this property
would become after Beulah Aced was releoated~ that ha feels
%he right-of-way should not have been vacated; and that he
the site.
There was brief discussion relative to a current schematic
plan being reviewed similar to this request and staff
recommending that the acc~ he provided through an adjacent
cul-de-sac street instead of to Coalfield Road.
Mr. Daniel stated ha is prepared to make a motion, however,
for two weeks to allow for verification of questions.
Mr, Daniel thee made a notion, seconded by Mr. Barber, for
the Board to close the public hearing and defer consideration
of Case 94SN0111 until May 11~ 1994 to allow further review
of th~
Ayes: Fir. colbert, Hr. McHale, Kr. Barber~ and Mr. Daniel.
(It is noted Mr. Warren excused himself from the remainder of
the meeting.)
94;N0178
In ~idlothlan ~agisterial Di~trlct~ ~S~ ~3UR r~qu~t~d
Conditional Uso to permit a family day care home in a
Residential (R-15) District. ~p~ifioally, th~ applleant
desires to keep twelve (12) children in her home. The
density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
oondition~ or Ordinance ~tandards_ The comprehensive Plan
d~slgnutes the property for residential use of 1.O0 units par
acre or less. This request lies on 1.7 acres known as
Win%erfield Road, Tax Map 7-1 (5] ~alisbury Fountain
Block A, Lot 1~ (Sheet
Mr. Pools presented a sum~ery of Ca~e 9ASNO17S and stated
st~ff recommends approval ~ubjeet to conditions and the
Plam~i~g Commission recommends denial because of the concern
for a precedent for non-residential type uses in the area.
~ichael Hall, Esquire, stated approximately three years ago
the applicant opened her family daycare home; that many
salisbury residents have benefited from the program; that the
applicant has never received a complaint about the home
94-339 ~/~7/94
daycare~ that the applicant wac unaware that any zoning was
required for the daycare; that there are over 148 business
l~cenmec that have been issued to salisbury residents; that
the applicant has a staggered d~ep-off and pick-up time to
control fraffio~ that the applicant not only babysit~, hut
teaches the children; and referenced a proclamation by former
Governor Wilder stating the ne~d for high guality~
accessible, and affordable dayoar~ in Virginia. Ke further
stated State legislation hac chosen to treat family
dayeare ~if£erently from other types of $cning i~sues by
having a more simplified administrative procedure in whic~
local residents will be notified and if th~r~ is no
opposition, a public hearing would not be held. He requested
the Board to ~ive favorable consideration to the request.
Mm. Lice Zajur, acccmpanie~ by her husband Mr. Michelle
Zajur, stated she is a former Chesterfield County elementally
school teacher; that she decided to stay at home and use her
talent~ and ski]is with their child~e~ through a family child
care program; that she has provided the pro,ram in ~alisbury
for the past thr~e year~; that the children arrive by 9:30
a.m. and depart by 12:45 p.m.; that she has 11 pre-school age
children; and reviewed the activitien of the program and
presented a brief slide presentation ~f the dayeare program.
she further stated family child care i~ important to the
sera. unity because it is convenient within the nclghborhood,
flexible, offers the benefit of family life in a home
environment~ has smaller groups with ~cre individuallzed
attention, and ar~ the moat prevalent f~rm of child care used
by parents in virginia; that she feels her family c~hild care
pregram in Salisbury is perfect use of residential property;
provide ~amily child care because i~ must take plat= within a
hom~ in a neighborhood; that she has never ~eceived any
complaln=s about her child car~ program; that the
of the ~ome~wners Association visited the daycare and
p~rsonally did not have ~ problem with the ~aycare; and that
th~ concern expressed by the K~meowners Association was the
issuing of ~ha conditional u~ per.it and this
~tting a precedent. She further stated ~he feels family
child care should not b~ classifie~ in t~e ~a~a category as
business; that ~he i~ licensed and regulated; and
th~ Board to c~n~d~ her family child care as a perfect use
of residential property be approving the request-
~. Hall then presented a brief overview of %h~ neighborhood
of those per~ons in support an~ in opposition of the
and ~ubmitted into the r~cord a 9~ti=ion of approxlmately 1~2
persons in ~uDDort of the applicant's request.
~. Barber clarified that ~he a991icant reoheoked everyone in
there was come misinfo~ation given to the neig~orhood prior
to ~ke Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Carolann Ramsey, President of the Virginia Alliance of
Family Child Care Associations, stated ~amily daycare is an
issue being dealt with around the ~tate; that family daycare,
by definition, iza program that iz offered in a home of the
daycar%m near th%ir ho~m; that ~any Stat~m utiliz~ zoning
a means to re.late child care; that ~e Alliance wants every
provider to be regulated; and that many providers tend to qo
them. She stated she supports %he request.
9%-340 4/27/94
Ms. Marlene Slngleton~ a member of the Sallnbury Homeowners
Association, stated she. is a realtor; that many questions
regarding the ava/lability of child care and pre-sensei
~acilities within the vicinity are constantly inquired from
positive factor to have an area Church child care operation
and a family oriented child care program in the neighborhcud;
that she feels it has been an asset to Salisbury by having a
Licensed child care provider within the neighborhood; that
the home next door to the applicant sold within the average
selling time and the applicant's da¥care program did not
Majority of the neighborhood feels they have a high-quality
program, she further stated that home daycares offer shall
groups with individualized attention; provisions for part-
time care at an affordable cost~ ensures the benefit of
family life; and allows individual programs for
developmentally appropriate activities.
~rs. Charlis E. Pike, Jr.~ a renident of Salisbury, stated
she supports th~ request; tha~ ~he is a school bus driver for
the County; that she does Let have any traffic problem~ near
the applicant's home; ~at sh~ and her husband ara
parents; that they placed their fester child in the
applicant's day care; that she is very comfortable wi~h the
applicant's day care; and requested the Board to ~ete in
favor of the request.
~s. Susan Lockhart, a resident of Salisbury, stated she
trusts the applicant ~ith her children; that she does not
feel the day care will negatively impact property values in
the neighborheed; and that sh~ de~s not hav~ any traffic
~S. Joyce MOSS, a ~esident of salisbury Mills, stated at the
Planning co. in.ion meeting~ Salisbury Hills wa~ f~lsely
represented saying they were opposed to the dayoare; that she
~as spoken with eight families in Salisbury Hills and they
all ~up~ort t~e daycare program; tha~ she £~els
misrepresentation of Salisbury Hills was damaging
to th~ applican~ ~ha= her daughter attends the applicant's
daycare; and that she feels the applicant's program i~ far
superior than any other program their daughter has attended.
She further stated mhe prefern home daycare to commercial
care centers because of the continuity of the care giver and
that ~he fe~l~ momt parents feel ~ore comfortable with a
commercial daycare setting.
Ms. Linde Madures~ a resident of Salisbury, stated her child
a~ten~s the applicant's day care prcgram~ that as a resident
of Salisbury! the issue of the applicant's Conditional use
has never gone before the Salisbury Homeowners Association
and has o~ly been denied by the President of the Salisbury
Homeowners Association; that by opposin~ the conditional usa
child care buslnes~, but forcing the applicant to operate in
a five child per shift basis which will create additional
neighborhood confusion and traffic. She Iurt~er eta%ed there
ham been an outpouring of nupport for the opportunity the
applicant provides for the children of the community and
requested th~ Board to support the request.
Ms. Cindy Blair, a resident of Salisbury, stated she feels it
is ssnsntial to have family child care; that two of her
children attend the applicant's child care program; and feels
the applicant nhnuld he ~rantsd the conditional use permit.
94-341 4/27/94
............ I .................... I .......... L ........ / L
Mr. Joe Wlc~k0eki, a resident of Salisbury, stated his
daughter attends the applicant's dayca~e; that his daughter
enjoys attendin~ the day.are; and stated he feels e_he issue
should not be a cup of five students, but I0-15.
Ms. Roberts Cousins, a resident of S~liobury~ stated she is
happy with the care her daughter receives at the applicant's
daycare; that the deycare has been ~n ideal situation for
her; that the applicantrs deysare is e goe~ guallty program;
and requested the Board to support the request.
Pits. Lynn Whi~, a Ie~ident of ~allsbury, stated her daughter
participates in the applicant's child care program; ~hat she
her program is legal by all State end Ceunty educational
standards; that she does not feel bu~Xn~s~ in the
neighborhood affect the value of her hame; and that she
~he applicant's child care proqram is an asset to the
community.
Mr. Michael W~it~, a ~esid~nt of Salisbury, stated that he
has been ~y the applicant's hume and feels traffic is not an
issue; that no more thnn 12 children can be i~ ~er home at
one time; that ~he applicant has net received any cemplaint~
in over thr~e years; and requested the Board to approve
~s. Cynthia Evers! a salisbury resident and me~ber of the
salisbury ~omeowner~ Association, ex. reseed concerns relative
have not been noti£ied or able to vote on having a family day
c~re in Salisbury. She further stated it is difficult far
parents to find a famil~ setting for child care; that the
family day care; and that par~nt~ race--end the applicant ss
th~ applicant's daycare program has never been a problem, but
children attending t~e day care~ and requested the Board to
had a traffic problem near the 5pplicant's hone; that she
feels the ~ppllcant's day care is an asset to the
Ms. Sandy Giberson~ a resident of salisbury, eta~ed she
concerns relative ~c eases such as this being approved in
other neighborhoods and not approved in Salisbury.
Board to approve the request.
re~resentlng the Saligbury Babysitting Cooperation; that she
had a child attending the applicant's daycare; that she is
unique; and that her son enjoys the daycare.
MS. Barbara Leaton read a letter into the record on behalf of
Ms. Francis Showgrin, a Salisbury resident, stating her
support for the applicant's
Maria Carswell and Ms. Patricia ~oere stating the
neighborhood was mi~repremanted regarding the intention of
the applicant's daycare and that they feel the dayoare is an
asset to the neighborhood.
MS. Tamson Six stated her son attends t~e applicant's
program; that she supports the program; that she has
currently attending another daycare; that her youngest child
Mr. Miohelle Zajur, the apDlleant's husband, stated %hey car~
abo~t the children they teach; that the ~ubdivision i~ very
supportive of the program; and %hat family shitd care is an
extended family. ~e requested the ~oard to approve the
request.
precedent if it is approved; that the Association ebjsct~ to
children at any given time without the conditional us=; and
their opposition of t~e conditional ~ue.
OliVer R~dy, Esquire, rupres~nting the Salisbury Homeowners
Association, stated tho i~sua is lan~ use and not the
abilities of the applicant o~ the s~vice she is providing;
~ha~ salisbury is a residenti&l community, not commercial;
children participating in the program a% one time; that only
he fe~ls the five director~ which unanimously vete~ against
the request are not in sine with the majority of the
neighborhood; and requested the Board to approve the
conditional usa request.
U~nXors Wom~ns C~uh supporting the applicant's daycare. He
parents being able ~o stay home with =heir children; that ne
applicant's home and dayoare program; and referenced a
similar request recently approved in Dale District. He
further stated he feels there is a need for home dayoara and
expressed appreciation ts those who contacted him in support
ef the request. He noted he ~eceive~ one ~hone call in
opposition to the request and did not receive any calls from
the Board to approve Case 94~N017~ ~ubject to the following
conditions:
1. The Conditional Usa shall be ~ranted to an~ for Lisa
Zajur and shall not be transferable nor run with the
len~. (P}
not exceed twelve (12). Other than the appllcant and
involve4 in the operation at any one time shall be
limited to no more than one (1) person. (P)
94-343 4/27/94
........ I~ c__~l .......... L ...... J L .................
3. There shall be no additions or alterations to the
~Yimting structure to accommodate this ~se~ (P)
4. There shall be no ~ign$ p~rmltted to identify this use.
5. At such time as the public wastewa~er is adjacent to the
subject property, any structure being utiliued for
family day ears use shall be connected to the public
{NOTE: U~on approval of this request, the applicant must
obtain approval from the Building Inspection and Firs
Prevsn~isn Departments relative to ~omplianee with building
and fire
Mr. Daniel stated family life is changinq and he feels tbs
Board needs to consider establishing a uniform ordinance to
address residential daycer~. He further Stated there is a
need rem neighborhood child care and it is important for
working families to bs able to receive quality child cars
services. Be stated he supports ~he re~uest and instructsd
staff to review the County's ordinnncsm on child csre.
Ther~ w~s brief dimcu~sion relative to subdivision
restrictive covenants as it rela~es to this
Mr. McHale ntated he supports )Ir. Barbaras motion.
Mr. colbert called for the vote, on motion made by Mr.
Barber, seconded by ~r. Daniel for the Board to approve Came
945NO178 s~bject to thn followin~ conditions:
1. The Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Lisa
zajur and shall not be transferable nor run with the
land. (P)
The number of children permitted at any one t~me shall
not axcee~ twelve (1~]. Other than the applicant and
her immediate family members, the number of employees
involved in the operation at any one time shall be
limited to no more than cna (1) peasen.
There shall b~ no additions or alterations to the
e~i~ting ~truct~re to accommodate this use.
4. Thsre shall be nc signs permitted to identify this use.
kt much time as the public wastewater i~ adjac,nt to the
subject property, any structure baln~ utillzsd for
family day care use shall be connected to the public
wastewater system. (U)
(NOTE: Upon appreval of this request, the applicant must
obtain approval ~rom the Building Inspection and Fire
P~evsntien Departments relative to compliance with building
and fire codes.)
Ayes: Mr. Colbert, ~r. Me,ale, ~r. ~arber, and Mr. Daniel.
8.B. ADOPTION OF COMMUWITX B~ED CORRECTIONS PLAN FOR
CHESTEP~IELD COUNTY
Mr. H~mmer statsd the Community Based Corrections Plan i~ a
County, municipality, or a city can recsive reimbursement
from the State Department of ¢orreetion~ for jell
for jail oonetr~ction reimbursement funds in the amount of
Me then introduced Ms. Mary Ann Curtin who presented a brief
overview of the Co,unity Base~ Corrections Plan.
On motion of ~. Barbe~, seconded by ~r. MCHalm, ~h~ Board
adopted the Community Ba~ed Correction~ Plan.
Vote: Unanimous
(It is noted a copy of the Community Based Corrections Plan
On motion of Kr. MeHa!=, seconded by Fir. Sarber, the Board
Whaley ~4: Colbert 1
chairman
94-$4~