09-25-96 Minutes~r. Harry G. Daniel, chairman
County Administrator
Colonel Carl Baker
Police DQpartm~nt
Mr. Craig Bryant, Dir.,
Utilities
Ms. ~arilyn Cole, Exec.
A~t. to County A~min.
Mr. Michar~ Cordl~,
Parks and Recreation
Deputy Co. Admln.,
Mr. Russell Harris,
Ms. Tammy D. Haskins,
Dir., Planning
FU~. Donald J. Ka99el~ Ac=~ng
Ks. Mary Lou Lyla,
Dir., Accounting
Dir., Env. Engineering
Community Diverslun
Mr. ~amas J. L. stegmaier,
M~. Daniel called the ~¢~ul~rly ~chcdul=d m~eting to order at
1. APPROVAL OF MI~N~TE~
On motion of Nr. ~cHale, se=ended by gr. Barber, the Board
approved the mlnute~ of Septe~r il, i996, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENT~
Mr. Ra~sey introduced Fir. ~irum Johnson, with virginia
to brie~ the Beard om their ~fforts during the recent Hurricane
~. Johnson stated that Virginia Power repaired over 460 miles
of downed power lines a~d replaced more than 430 damaged
utility poles knocked out by the storm. He further stated that
Fram was tbs fourth major stor~ tu hit Virginia Power service
Power is expeota~ to ~p $10 million, bringing total ~to~
expenses to $30 million for th~ ~r. He ~tated that
approximately 9,~00 individual =pans of power lines were
'that approximately SOO transformers were damaged Or
that eleven =ran$~/s~io~ lin~s were disable~ and the= this
~at ~ore than 1/4 of the Company's 1.9 million customers
affecte4 ~ ~ result of th~ ~torm. ~ stated that 60,000
people ha~ lost electricity in Chssterfield County at th=
twenty-four hours, and power was re~tored to virtually
¢entral division, particularly around Richmond, was hardest hit
by the storm and that outage~ were widely $=attere~
%he Richmond an~ P~tersburg area. He stated additional crews
were brought in f~om ~he Central virginia area and neighboring
utilitie~ including South Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania. He further stated that contraot crew~ w~r~
brought in from Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, and
Georgia. Ha stated since the beginning ~f ~e storm~ which
b~ga~ th~ ~arly ho~ of ~pt~r 6th, Virginia ~ower received
received on the Friday morning of th~ ~torm, ~ further stated
that Virginia Power does not intend to seek a rat~ increase to
cover the storm damag6.
~. Daniel sta~ed the= of all ~e calls he received, there was
only omc c~ll who needed immediate, emerguno~ uttentio~
Of health situations wi~h her son. He further stated that the
majority of citizens feel ~e County cum~ out well conside~i~
the ~v~rity of ~e sto~m. ~e expxesse4 appreciation to
everyone who a~simt~d ~e County during the storm a~d
vir?inia Power fur their understanding and diligence in ge=ting
power restored to citizens as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Johnson e~ressed appreciation to the customers and
Co~ty for their patience while power was b~ing restored. Ke
and cities in the greater Richmond me~opolltan area asking for
their ~omm~nts and suggestions on how Virginia Power ~an
r~Epond, in r~lation to n~rv~c~ and co~un~cat~cn. ~e ~tated
~at the info,eriCh will be oompiled with the next few we~s.
Mr. Ramsey introduced Mr. Pirate =o brief the Beard on ~e
~l~-~p efforts du~ to ~ri~ng Fram.
~r. ~taro e~pr~d appreciation to all County D~partmentE for
~eir efforts and teamwork in the clean-mp efforts due to ~e
storm. ~e ~tated that approximately fifteen contract d~p
96-570
Trucks and approximately fifteen temporary hires each day
asaieted the County in the clean-up. He further stated that
regueatinq general information. He stated 2,419 were scheduled
the northern and southern landfillsr free of charge; that the
County has to-data assiatad 1,417 homes, including 372 homa~
that were not scheduled fe~ pick-up; that approximately 1,000
homes remain that need debrio Dice-ups and that clean-up
efforts should be completed by the end of n~Et week, ~e
fu~the~ stated that the Department has received many favorable
co~ent~, card~, l~tters, and phone ¢a11s from citizens
regarding the County's clean-up efforts.
~5r. Ramsay ~tated that Mr. Gregory Wingfield, Executive
Director of the Greater Richmond Partnership, will be present
thio afternoon to brief the Board on activities of the
Partnership, and requested the Board to defer this portion of
County Ad~inistrator,s comments until Mr. Wingfield's a~rival.
· There were no Eoard committee Reports at this time.
R~OUES?S TO POSTPONE ~CTYON~&DD/TIONS. OR
~F~m~NG~ IN T~E 0RD~R O~
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, aeuonded by Mr. Warren, tho Board
replaced Item 8.C.2.b.~ Appropriation of Clover Hill,
~idlothian, and ~atoama Diatriot~ Three Cent Road Funds for
F~C~ to Separate Route 2~8 and Evergreen Elementary ~chool;
added It~ 8.B.4., Nomination/Appointment of a Member tn s~ve
on the Camp Baker Management Board; deleted Item
Request for Ps,mission fram Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey C. Carroll to
have an ~xisting Cindarblock Retaining Wall ~ncroach Within an
existing Six,sen Foot Sewer Easement; and added Ite~
Authorization to Transfer and Appropriate Funds ~or the
Construction of Woolridgo Road Ex~e~ded from coalfield Road to
Route 60 and, adopted the agenda, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
There were ne Reaolutione and Special Recognitions at ~this
time.
6. WORK SESSIONS
0 EECODIFICATION OF THE COUNTY CODE
Mr. Jeffrey ~incko, Assistant county Attorney, presented an
uYerview of the recodification of the Count~ coda including
recodification proce~ and ~oted t~at the Code WaS last
recodified in 1975 and ia presently being rewritten,
reorganized, downsised. He stated that the goal of ataff i~
ensuring the County code is easier for customers to read, is
b~tte~ org~niued, and shorter. He reviewed a sugary of
substantive changes in the Co~ in the chapters relating to
General Rrovision and Administration; Amusements; Animals and
Fowl; an4 ~uil~ings.
96-~71
2, COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR'S COM/~E~TS (Continued)
Mr. Ramsay introduced Mr. Gregory Wingfield, Executive Director
cf th~ Greater Richmond Partnership.
Mr. Wingfleld ata~ed that as a publi~ prlvata corporation, the
Partnership takes the opportunity to thank all their investors
by ~ending out quarterly newsletters, spensoring various
receptions, and holding different events tc inform its public
and p~ivate investo~s of how theiT funds a~e being s~emt. He
expressed apprecimtion to the Board for their investment to the
that the Partnership is leveraging the Csunty~s public funds
leveraging more opportunities for their local partners witll
high tach initiatives and are positioning themselves, within
the greeter Richmond ar~a~ to take advantage of upcoming sits
oppor~unitles. ~e stated the Partnership is working with
issues. ~e further stated that he is pleased with the economic
acknowledged the outstanding relationship the Partnership
potential of the ~eadowville t~aot and the work that this Board
He stated that h~ hopes that as the Elko tract and Motorola
site are being marketed around the region, that the potential
of the Ksadowville tract also be marketed.
~ir. wingfield sta~ed ~hat thc Greater Kichmsnd Partnership will
market the Meadowville tract along with other technolsgyparks
in the area.
presence, or is even implied as being used in the marketing
strategy. He expressed aDpreclatlon %o Mr. W{ng~ield ~or ~he
progress that has been made end encouraged anyone interested to
review the marketing mater~al being used. He stated the next
significant event is the Partnership's participation of the Top
Partnership has a ver~ strong marketing program focused ~n
relocation here in Uhe United States, sBeoifically, a 9ru~
~at is te~nolo~ based. ~e noted that Mr. Wingfield will be
m~ing similar presentations ~o t~e Driva~e sector investors
O ~EGODIFI~ATIOi~ OP ~HS O0~Y GODS
Mr. Mincks continued to D~esent an overview oS the
recodification of the Count~ Code including ~ubstant~ve change~
to the Code in the Chapters relating to Elections; =roaion and
Sediment Control; Finance and Taxation; Fire 9rotectfon.
9/25/96
Fire Protection-Chapter relating to open burning and additional
Mr. Mt~OkS continued to review substantive changes to the Code
in the Chapters relating ts Garbage, Re£uss, and Weeds; Health
and Sanitation; Licenses; Motor Vehicles and Traffic; and
Offensss-Miscellanauus.
Thsre was brief discussion relative to tbs County's experiences
i~ i~ui~g citation5 for curfew violations and the use of
~r. Mincks continued to review substantive changes to the Code
in the Chapters relating to Regulated Activity; Streets,
Sidewalks and Public Places; Subdivision of Land; Water and
Sewer~; and ~oning. Me stated that the Planning Commission
held a public bearing on rescdification of the zoning Chapter
Of the County Cod~ and has recommended the recodification
changes. He further stated the Planning Commission recommended
a zoning case from tho current 90 days to 100 day~, which
jes~ approved by the 1995 General A~sembly. He stated that
when the Board dimcu~sed the 1996 Legislation e~rlier this
Board set the date of October 2~, 199~ fo~ a public h~aring
eo~sider adoptiu~ of the r¢cudified County Cod%.
~, Ramsay stated the cha~geu to th= fire prcvisionm do not
require the Court to levy that fine, but are the maximum that
the Court can levy.
F~r. Daniel requested that the public hearing date b~ mmt for
Ced~.
There was brief discussion relative to the process %hat will be
~ollowed a£~er ~he ~ublic he,ring is hold on the recodification
of the County Code.
On motion of ~r. Daniel, secondsd by Mr. Ko, ale, the Board set
the data o£ November 13, 19~& at 7:00 p.m. for a public hear{n~
to consider adoption of the r~oodified ~o.pnty Code.
Vote: Unanimous
?, DEFERRED ITEMS
approved incorporating the following private stre6tlight~ into
the County streetlight Program:
* Include eleven private streatlights in the ~arbour Point
Subdivision late the County Strasttight Program
Vote: Unanimous
OD motion of Mr. ~cMale, seconded by Mr. Barber~ t~e Board
nomination/appointment of members to serve on th~ Graatec
Riohmcn~ Tran~i~ Company Boar~ of DireQ~er~; ~h~ Richmond
Metropolitan Authority Board; kke Appomattox Bamln Industrial
Development Corporation; and the Camp Baker M~nagement Board.
Vote: Unanimous
$.B,1, ~R~XTER BI--eND TRANSIT COM~:%NY. BO~D O~ DIRECTORS
On motion of F~. McMale, ~eoond~d by Mr. Warren, the Board
simultan~oumly no~nated/appointed Mr. David W. Mathewe;
Daniel E. ~mi~h; and M~. S. Joseph Ward~ to serve on the
Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) Board of Directors,
October 16~ 1996 and will e~ire at the annual
s~ockholder's meeting in October, 1997. And, further, the
Beard authorized the County Admini~tra:or or hie designee to
appear at the co=abet 1~, 1996 GRTC annual meeting to vote, on
be/~alf of the County, for t_he GRTC Di~eotors appointed by
Board and ~y Riohmen4 City Council.
Vote: Unanimous
Board tu simultaneously nominate/reappoint ~r. Charle~
Richmond ~etropolitan Authority (PJ(A) ~eard, whose term
Richmond Metropolitan Authority Board and ~hat he feels some
stated there has been some ~issussisns aver ~he toll project,
in which he does net feel Chesterfield i~ particularly happy
together to develop u combined directive as ~o w~at is expected
supervisors. When asked, he elariXied tha~ ne would like to
seven to e~ght years, the ~eer~ has communicated with
D~legation and the farthest City i~ the Richmond metropolitan
Metropolitan Authority to provide more Chesterfield County
Mr, Warren stated that an individual ~as e~pressed interest in
consideration of this nomination until the october 9, 1996
meeting.
F~rs. Humphrey withdrew her original motion.
}~r. McHale withdrew his s~cond to the motion.
96-574
On Motion of Mr. MoHals, seconded by Mr, Wmrran, the Board
deferred eomside;;a~ion Qf a member to serve on the Richmond
Metropolitan Authority Board un=il october 9, 1996.
On motion o£ M2r. McHale, seuon~e~ by Mrs. HumDhrey, the Bear~
~i~lta~eo~sly ~o~inated/appointed M~. Gary Thomson,
re~resentlng the County at-lnrgs, to ~arve on the Appomattox
Basin Industrial Development Corporation, whose t~u~ is
~ff~otive Ootob~r t, 1996 amd will expire S~ptember 30~ 1997.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, th~ Board
simultaneonsly nominated/appointed ~s. Annelise M. Dietz,
r~presentlng Dale District, to serve on tho Camp ~aker
Management Bosrd, whose t~rm is effective October l, 1~96 and
will expire April $0, ~99~.
Vote: Unanimous
adopted the following resolution:
are important for our quality of life and prosperity; and
WHEREAS, such rivers and waters are vital natural
and their habitats; and
opportunities for pubti¢ Dealing, huntinq and fishing and ot~er
vi~itor~; and
their benefits, both now and for future generations; and
WHEREAS, individual citizens~ bueine~ses~ and
term environmental benefits; and
WHEREAS, t~e Fall Rive~ Renaissance campaign will
encourage caring citizens to conserve und improve the rivers
their exceptional ~ffort~.
96-575
NOW~ TKEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
21, 1996 thr0~gb October 19, 1996 as the Fall River Renaissance
in Chesterfield County and urge all our citizens, businesses
and organizations, public and private, to observe and
participate in this campaign to conserve an~ enhanue the rivers
and water~ of the County in order that we may enjoy a mere
beautiful, ~ealthy, and prosperous community.
AND~,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, t~et County citizens are
encouraged to ~upport the 3am~e River Ta=k Force, a regional
and charged with promoting the J~me~ River in it~ planning of
a major clean-up of the River in the Spring in connection with
the Fall River Renaissance.
Vote: Unanimous
A ~E~R~L C0~ ~OR~ ~R.m~T TO FUND HIRING FOUR
(]~ME) TEC~NOLO~
On motion of ~r. MoHalk, ~cond=d by ~. B~rb~r, the Board
technology.
vets: Unanimous
~UTHORI~TION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DO/~IN FOR THE
ACOUiSITION OF A SEWER E~SEMENT ~0~ ~ROPERTY
authorized the County AUtorne¥ ~o proceed with eminent domain
Alice C. Newlan~ and Virginia L. Johnson and instructed the
County Administrator to notify the owner by certified ~il on
Septe~be~ 27, 1~96 sf the County's intention tc proceed with
the acquisition of the e~$ement for th~ installation of the
sewer line to serve Villages of Midlothian. (It is nu~ed a
espy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of this Beard.)
FROH LIBERT~ PROB~RTY DEVBLOBMEMT CORPORATION
On motion of ~r- ~o~al~, ~e~ond~d by ~r. Barber, the Board
accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a parcel
of land ~outaining 8.01 acres between North ~ingston Avenue and
Kingston Aven~e from Liberty Property Development corporation
and authorized ~he County A~ministrator .to e×.cut~ the
the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
ALONG HULL STREET ROAD ~ND NORTH EAILE¥ BRIDGE
RUED FROM F.IDELiTY F~D~R~L S~VIN~S BANK
On motion of I~r. McHale,'~ ~econded by Mr. Barber, the Board
aooeptod, on behalf of tho county, tho oonYeyanoe of a parcel
of land containing 0.191 acres along Hull Street ~ead
3~0) and North Sailoy Bridge Road (Route 651) from Fidelity
F~deral Savingn Bank and authorized the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed. (It ks noted a cody of the plat is
filed with the papers of thi~ Board,)
Vote: Unanimou~
AI~THORI~ATION TO DESIGRATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
INTERSECTIOR iMPROVeMENTS AT C0Ul%THOUSE ROA~
AND ROUTE 10 AND WID~RING OF COURTHOUSE RO~D EXTENDED
On motion of I~r, Mc~ale, se¢~nde~ by Mr. Barber, the Board
designated right-of-way for inter~ecticn ~prcvements at
Courthouse Road and Rout~ ~O and widening of Courthouse Road
extended and ~u~hurlzed ~h~ County Adminls~ratcr ~a execute
8.~.~. APPBO%~AL UP ~TIL~T~ES CONTF~A~T FOR THE ROUTE $6~ WATER
On notion of Mr, MoHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Beard
~xten~ion to Malborn Tract Project, which D~cjeot inolud~o
5,000 L.F. ! of 24 inch water line as follows and authorized
DevEloper: Ottordale
Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle company~ Ins.
Contract Amount: ~stinate~ Total
Total Estimated county cost:
Water (oversizing)
(Refund thru connections)
District: ~atoaca
SET DATE FOR A PUBLI~ HS~RING TO UGNSIDSR THE FYg~
On motion of ~r. MoHalk, g~cond~d by M~. Ba~be~, the Board set
the date of October 9, ~99~ at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing
to co~side~ t~e FY98 thru~gh FYi3 S=ccndary Ruud Six Year
Improvement Plan and ~e FY98 Secondary Read Improvement
Budget.
vote: Unanimous
S,~,Z, APPHO~RIATIOR OF THREE GERT ROAD FUNDS
8,G,~,a, HATOAGA DISTRIGT FOR THE VIRGINIA STATE UNIYEREITY
scHoL~s~XP
~r~. H~mphrey in honer ~£ ~he scholarship and the academic
excellence that Virqinia State University .provides to the
9/25/96
95-$??
community, i~ requesting that the Board app~0vethe donation of
$1,000, in ~atoaca Distri¢~ Throe Cent Road Fund~r to the
University. She stated that she will be attending the ground-
breaking for the Whaley K. colbert Baseball Field on September
26, 199~ at 10:00 a.m. at Virqinia State University end invited
anyone =o attend in his honor.
on motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. MoBale, the Board
transferred $1,000 from the Matoacu District Three Ce~t Road
Fund to the virginia state university ~oholarship Fund.
$.~.2.b. CLO~r~R ~ILL. M~TO~. ~L~ ~IDLOT~I~N DISTRICT~
~LEM~NT~Y SCHOOL
~ildren play within 75 fset of the major highway. She
~=~ CeDi Road ~und donation towards the fence. She
Mr. Barber stated that Evergreen Elementary Sohool i~ looa~d
in the Matoaca District, however, he believes Mi~lothian
District has tbs largest percent of ~tudents attending ~e
~chool and Clover Hill District ha~ a larger per=en=ag~ of
further st=t~d the School is situated in an area where
approval of this request will benefit three Di~ricts.
On ms=ion of ~r~. Humghrey, ~conde~ by ~. ~arber, the Board
Vote: Unmnimoum
B,O.10, T~;EEB ~ND APPROPRIATE ~UND~ ~0~ OO~STR~TION O~
~OOLR~D~E RO~D EXTeNDeD ~ROM ~D~L;IELD ROAD TO
ROUTE ~0
Hr. Barber ~ta=e~ ~hat he brcugh~ =his item forward, requesting
thc Board ts transfer $1 million to begin rued impr0ve~e~ts to
benefit residents in the Midlothian, Woodlake, and Brandermili
area. He ~urther ~tat~d that the Village of Midlothi=n ks ~
v~ry congested area. He s~ated ~bat t~are is a planned
commercial development beginning in this area. He further
s~ated t~e Board Bas the opportunity ~o use $20OsQQQ O~ t~e
d~¥alopers funds for the pro, er construction of Wool~idge Road
and the in~ermeo~ion, as o~Dose~ to t~e developer aocessing
Walton Park Drive with those funds. He stated with the
COU/~y'S appropriation, along with the developers contribution
and future development~ Woolridge Road can be conmtructed from
Midlethian Tu:npike, at the surrmnt entrance to Walton ~ark,
96-578
through to Coalfield Road, where the YMCA currently exist,
which links to a piece of Weelridge Road that will link to the
will make a major corridor between Midlethien Turnpike and
Route 3~O. ~e stated that'the $I million trsnsfer will relieve
the County from the burden of what will he done regarding the
congestion in the Village of Midlothian. He stated that he
feels this iea proper and cost-effective plan that will most
likely ellminate road improvements in this area from the
County's Thoroughfare Plan in the future.
improvements at the intersestion. He further stated, that he
can support using the $200~0~ that is available from completed
road projects and the $200,000 from the developer for this
project. ~e stated he has difficulties going to th~
Fund and transferring the entire amount of money for the
appropriation of this capital project. ~e further ~tated the
Board has held the must ex~eneive series of public hearings in
an effort to develop a capital expenditure plan and developlng
a bond referendum plan. He stated that the message the Board
ha~ made clear is that the fund= have been spent and the Board
has taken into consideration where the p~blie has spoken. He
further ~tat~d that thi~ it~n wam n~ver brought about duriDg
$1 milliQn from the 199S aevenue Sharing Program, which is
combination of $500,000 f~e~ the County'm Treasury and
$~00,000 match from the State to fund this project. He further
stated that funding this project this way the County would not
have ts ge into its Budget this year te take critically needed
Surplus and could still get the project accomplishment. He
indicated that if the Board starts a new mechanism of funding
~oad p~ojeet~ it will be ~etting a p~o~dent. He further
stated he would sonslder loaning any upfrent cash from this
have it returned out of next year~s Sudget. He stated he is
not opposing the project, but recommended that the Board
Support his suggestion for funding the project as he ~eels it
is a more prudent way to fund the project.
~r. Barber stated that the Board had a choice to make road
improvements e~ the intsrsection of Forest ~ill Avenue and
Buford Road in this Midlothian District, however, chose to
scale down the project and use these funds in ether par=~ of
the County. He further stated that a park was going t~ built
on th~ Ja~s River with County fundm, but is now being
privately because of the involvement of County staff and
himself in dealing with the p~operty owners mod seising an
Opportunity. ~ further mtat~d that hm is now a~king the Board
to 'allow him to seize ~e opportunity with funds that are
av~il~bl~ from the private s~tor for a short window of time in
o~der to benefit at leamt three Magisterial Districts.
million ~rom Completed Road ~rojects {$200,~90] and the Reserve
Capital p~oj~tE ($799~01~) and appropriate $162~134 ~or the
~. McHale stated he would like to knew of an~ downsidem 0f
Daniel. Ee further stated that it is not unpruc=d~nted that
the County participates in road projects, however,
concer~s relative to setting a precedent if the project
funded t~roug~ t~e rec0mmendat~on of ~. server. He stated
9/25/96
96-~9
that previous projects have bean funded through local funding,
some cf which have bmen in his District. He inquired as to any
TQ~¢er~ aho~t Mr. Daniel's funding proposal.
~r. Barber stated he cannot adequately articulate his concerns
minutes before the Board meeting. He further stated that he
would hove tO investigate the proposal further. He stated that
when the Board reaches the point where it is making road
decisions, hc will certainly give consideration'to projects cf
priority ix other ~istr~ot~. ~e further ~tated he is not
he has not r~arched the i$$~e with ~taff. ~e stated that he
publicly offer his willingness to work ca future read projects,
regardless af which District is de~iqnated to have d~scretlonal
funds spent.
F~. warren stated he is also has had projects in hi~ District
that were funded with local fun~ing and inquired as to whether
the proposed project is a priority ne~d for Chesterfield County
that improvements to Ro~t~ 60 ha~ bean idantifled a~ a priority
the area cf the village of Hidlothian and will have a po~itlve
that staff has developed a Revenue Sharing Program that ha~
six year plan i~entifiod. Ke further state~ that the Revenue
Plan fun~s have ~een matched togebh~r. He clarified that if
Program, it will affect other projeot~ in thc Secondary Road
improvements on Woolridge Road.
residenns of the Da~rrun Community =upporting thi~ proposal.
Delegate John Watklns and the ~MCA supporting the proposal.
concerns as to'whether or not using local funds is setting a
prec~deDt and clarified that it i~ not s~tting precedent.
further stated that approval of this proposal will improve
traffic problems at Walton Park and will mov~ foreword in
improvlnq a situation that has developed by people trying to
fund~ that will be dovetailed into the Seoondary ~i~ ~eor
Program, he feels it all fits together in n mechanism that will
a11ew everyone to see the benefits in the near furze.
Mr. Daniel called for the vote on the motion made b~ ~r.
Barbe~, seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, for the Board to transfe~
million from Completed Road Projects ($~00,~90) and the Reserve
for Capital Projects ($799,010) and appropriate $162,154 for
Vote: Unanimous
96-580
Mr. Daniel ~ta~ed that %~ ahew unanimlhy of the issue, he voted
in support of the r~cfu~t.
There were nc Hearings cf Citizens on Unscheduled Matters er
Claims scheduled at this time.
10. REPORTS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by ]4r. Barber, the Board
accepted the following
A report on Developer Wa~er and Sewer Contracts and a ~tatus
~eport on the General Fund Balance; Reserve for FUtur~ Capital
Projects; Dis~rlct Road and Street Light Funds; Lease Purchases;
and School Board Aqe~da.
And, further, the Board eccepted the following roads into the
state secondary system:
ADDITIONS L~GTH
(Effective S-21-96)
Route 3469 (Celestial Lane} - From Route 649 t
0.~0 mile East Route 649 0.~0
PeDdlar
Route 7~4 (SDruce Avenue) - From 0.9~ mile
Northeast Route t0 to 0_67 ~ile Northeast
Route 10 0.$4 Mi
Vote: Tnanimoue
11. DI~ER
On ~otion of Mr. MeHale, seconded by ~, Ba~bur, tho Soard
reoe~ed to ~he A~minis~ration ~uilding, Room ~02, for dinner.
vote: unanimous
1~. INVOCATION
Mr. Russell Harris gave the invocation.
Chief Robert L. ~anes led the ~ledge of Allegiance to the
of the United States
~LT. Daniel in~roduced Mr. Stewa Jones.
~LT. Jene~ ~tated th~ Beard of Supa~visor~ have ml~ays
youth activities in the County and the Chesterfield Little
League is one that has benefited by this suDDcrt. Re presented
each of the Board members a picture dlspl~yln~ part~clpant= in
tho chesterfield Li~tl~ Leagus and honored guest. H~ e~pressed
appreciation to th~ Board for their support. Ke introduee~
Carel Marshall the new President of the Chesterfield Little
League.
9/2~/96
96-581
14. RE~OL~TIONS...AND. nPR~I~L RECOGNITIONS
0 ~ECOGNT~TN~ OCTObeR 6-12, 1996 AS "~E~L ~SSISTANT~ WBEK"
Mr. Hammer introduced Ms. Jane Nuttall~ 9resident uf the
Richmond A&&ociation Of Legal As~i~tant~ (RALA), who was present
to receive th~ re~olutlon.
On motion Of the Board, th~ following remolution was adopted:
WHMR~AM, th~ l~gal assimtant or paral~gal is a trained
professional who ia dedicated to providing high--c/~ali=y
proficient asslmtanc~ to attorneys, th~ courtm, and the public
in the private and public sector; and
WHEREAS, legal assistant work i~ a growing and increasingly
important profession to the Virginia legal =ommunity; and
WHSFd~AM, legal as~is~amts and paralegals perform a wide
variety of tasks including preparing of briefs and m~more~da,
document production and organization, factual and legal
· answers, and assistance a~ ~riml~ and hearings; and
WHEREAS, six p~cfessional legal assistant org~nization~
make up the Virginia Alliance of Legal Assistants Associations
including t_he National capital Area ~aral~gal A~so~iation;
Peninsula L~gal Assistants, Incorporated; Richmond A~oeiatlon
el Legal Assistants; Roanoke Valley Paralegal Association;
Shenandoah Valley Paralegal Association; and Tidewater
Assouiatiun of ~egal Assistants.
NOW, T~SR~FORZ ~= IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors publicly receqnizes October 6-12, 1996 as
"Legal Aesiutant~ Week" in chesterfield county an~ calls this
observance to the attentidn of all it~ citizens.
MS. Nuttall expressed appreciation for the recognition and
submitted information to each Board members regardlngl~%~A amd
the Virginia Alliance. She recognized Ms. Mary Han~on,
Certifie~ Legal Assistant~ and Ms. Louis Sharing, Cc-Chair oS
~HUR~ RO~D CORRIDOR RO~D IMPROVEMENT
M~. Crockett, representing Homeowners Associations and residents
in the Sale~ Church Road area, stated that they are
improvements to the Salem Church Road area. She further stated
that parents ars concerned about the safety of their children.
She stated they have received letters from the Principal at
Salem Middle School, the Principal at the Salem Elementary
School, the Ashton Woods ~omeowners Association, the Salen Wood~
Rcmaownsrs Association, Alton subdivision, ~ox Hollow Homeowners
Aamco±etlon, residents in Kingsland Woods Subdivision, and
resident alon~ the Salem Church Read corridor supporting
improvements. She further stated their plan outlines sidewalk~
and hiketraile to allow s=udents te net have te walk on the
roadway; a turning lane added from Salem Church into ~entington
Creek Hills; a rlgh~ hand turning lane a~ded at the light of
Salem Church Road and Contrails Road; stoplights that will cycle
through during school hour~ er special times when activities are
planned at the middle and elementary schools. ~he ~u~mitted a
sopy of their proposal plan and eight letters into the record in
support of the proposal -- fo~r of the letters being from area
9125196
~omeownere Aemsciations. 9he stated she does net feet the iasu~
needs to be studied any further.
There was brief dlseussion relative to. the number of homes
Mr. Daniel directed staff to review the proposal, dete~ine a
cost estimate, and report back to the Board of Supervisors with
There was brief discussion relative ts there being ne bus
service to students residing within a one mile ra~ius of the
school.
thiz past Monday mornlnq and concurred with Ms. Crockett on the
majority of the aDuassment of th~ uituation ut the school. She
~urtber s~ated tha~ this issue may be a School Board issue, she
briefly explained change~ mad~ to the bus loop at the School
stated a lc= e£ ~arents choose to bring their children to
~chool, rather than lettimg them walk. Sh~ ~tated that there
has not been uny great developments in area neighborhoods that
bas increased in vehlcular traffic, hut circumstances that have
teen put in place. She further stated that she feels an
im~ediate!y solution would be to address the issue of bus
service being provided to all middle school children, she
~tated that tho parking lot and th~ changu in the distribution
of vehicles also needs to be addressed w~th the school Board.
She ~tated she f~el~ that adding a turning lane may be an
option.
Mr. Daniel stated that the Board has directed the County
Administrator to take into consideration the input
assessment of Ms. Crockett and recommend possible solutions as
soon as possible to the Board o~ Supervisors.
16. PUBLIO HEARINGS
~O~ES
~r. Jacobsen stated this date and time has been advertised for
a public hearing to consider an ordinance role=inS to
m~nufactured and mobile homes_ Ne further stated that staff and
~he Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance.
NO one came forward ~o speak in favor of or aqain~
ordinance.
0P DctioD cf Mr. Rarb~r, s~oonded by ~r. Wa~e~, the
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINAMOE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CO~TY
OF CHEST~FIELD, 1976, AS ~ENDED, BY ~NDING ~D
REENACTING SECTIONS ~1,1-9~; ~1.1-1~4~ ~1.1-1~5,
21.1-~31 ~D 21.1-281 RE~TING TO MOBILE HOMES
BE IT ORDAINED by t~e BoaEd Of Supervisors of C~e~terfield
County:
(1) That Section 21.1-~2 oX th~ Code o~ th~ County
Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, i~ a~end~d and re~nact~d to read
am follows:
96-58~
under certain conditions.
After January 1, 1973, nc premises shall be used for the
location of manufactured or mobile homes; provided, that nothing
herein shall prohibit a person who has located a manufactured or
mobile home in an R-? District, by virtue of a permit pr=vio~$1y
granted, from applying for a renewal of said perni= for a
temperary manufactured or mobile hems; and provided further,
that Ofte~ January 1, 1973~ a manufactured or mobile home permit
may be granted for the original location of a temporary
manufactured or mobile home in mn R-7 District'by the board of
mupervimorm~ which manufactured or mobile home permit shall
specify the location of such home on the premises and assure
compliance with h~alth and manitary requirements of the County.
The manufactured ur mobile home permit shall be valid for a
period not to ~xseed ~eve~ (7) year~. At the e~piration of the
ti~e specified on the manufactured or mobile home permlt~ an
application may be made for renewal of the manu£a¢~ured or
mobile home permit.
(2} Tha~ Section 21.1-1~4 of ~e Code of the County of
Cb~sterfi~ld, 197~, a~ amended, in amended and reenacted to read
8es. 21.1-124. Permitted uses--By right.
Th~ follewlng u~es ~hall be permitted by right in the A
District:
Farming, not including stock or dairy farming, but
including all buildings necessary to such use and the keeping,
storage, or operation cf any vehicle or machinery necessary to
(c) F~restry operations and sawmills together with the
incidental uses thereof.
(d) Grav~yard~.
(e) Kennel, p~i~ate.
(f) Pernanent manufactured or mobile homes.
That Section ~1.1-12~ of the Cod~ of the County of
as follows:
See. ~1.1-1~5. Uses permitted with certain restrictions.
The following uses shall be permitted i~ the A District ~ubject
to compliance with the following oandltian~ and c~her applloahle
standards of this chapter:
(a) Stock or dairy farms provided that the lot o~ pa~eel ha~
nat less than three (3] acres. If this restriction canno~ be
met, thas~ uses may be all,wed by special exception,
(4) That S~ction l~.1-1~8 of the Cod= of th= County of
C~esterfiel~, t97S, as a~ended, is a~ended am~ reenacted to read
us follow~:
~s¢. 21.1-12~. ~Deoial
The following uses may bm allowed by special exception, subject
to the provisions of section 21.1-14:
(a) Same a~ ~pecified for R-~ District.
(b) Temporary manufactured or mobil~ hom~n, lot a period not
exceed seven (7) years. At the expiration of the seven-year
period, application may b~ ~ade for renewal of the special
exception.
(o) Stock or dairy farms when the lot or parcel has less than
(5) That Section 21.1-230 of the Cod~of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended~ is amended and reenacted to ~ead
as follows:
$e¢, '2~,~-~, street frontage reuuire~--Resi~en=ial
a=ricultural.
(a) Unless otherwise specified and e×c~pt for farm buildings, no
10~ OUtSide a subdivision a~ defined in section 18.1-2 shall be
used in whole or in part for dwelling purposes, including
permanent manuSacture~ or mobile homes, unless such lot abutm
for at l~a~t f~fty (~0) feet upon a street as herein defined. No
lot or parcel of land abutn~ng the terminu~ of a public street
shall be deemed, by virtue cf such abutment, to have
principal frnntag~ on a publio street, unless such lot fronts
for at least thirty (3~) f~t on an apprOVed permanent
oul-do-~a0. A lot er parcel without street frontage may be used
for temporary dwelling purposes with a tempouary manufactured or
mobile home~ however, in considering application~
manufactured or mobile home permits and special exceptlon~, in
addition to other land uss considerations, due regard mhall be
given to whether the lot or parcel ab~ts for at least fifty (50)
feet upon a street as heraln defined.
{h) No perni~ for the erection, moving or conversion of any
building cna parcel outside a subdivision as defined in section
18,1-~ shall he issued unless the street~ hiq~way or road
adjoining the land on ~hich such building is tc De created,
moved or eon¥¢rted is-a par% of the state high~ay system,
primary or ~econdary, or such street, highway er road has been
improved to provide a satisfactory maan~ of ~ngre~ and
for the public. This provision shall not apply to farm buildings
or structures not designed for human habitation.
($) That Sesti0m 21.1-231 of the code of th% county of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amen~e~, is amended and foeman=ed ho read
a~ follew~:
~_e~_~]~3_-o_~9 ~%ain_~ildin~ on each residential or
a~rioul~nra~ leg.
Except in ~he cas~ of planned developments, every principal
detached residential structure, including a permanent
manufactured or mobile home, hereafter ereuted or structurally
altered shall be located em a lot~ and in no ca~ ~ha.ll ther~ be
mere than one (1) such building per lot unless otherwise
permitted in this chapter.
(7) That Section Rl.l-l~% of th~ Code of the Cowry of
chesterfield~ 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to read
as follows:
se=. 2Z.~-28Z, De~inltio~.
For the purpcse~ of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this section:
o o o
Building: Any structure, including a permanent manufactured or
for the support, ;hslter or enclosur~ of per~on~, animal;,
include a t~nt~ t~porary mobil~ hom~ or temp0raryr~a~ufa~tur~d
home. The word #buildimq" includes the word =structure".
Dwelling or Dwellin~ Unit: Any buildlng or portion thereof
providing c~mpl~te independent permanent facilities for living,
~leeping~ eating and ~anita%ion d~si~ned for or u~ed e~clu~iv~ly
a~ living quarters by one (1) fami%y,, but not includlng a tent,
cabin, t~avel trail~r~ or a room in a hotel or motel. A
manufactured or mobile home ~hall not be considered a dwelling
Or dwelling shit unless it is a permanent manufactured or mobile
home ms d~fin~d by this ordinance.
Mobile or ~a~afact~red ~ome ~ubdivi~iun: A subdivi~iom, ae
defined by shapter 18.1 of thi~ Code, whioh is de~i~ned solely
o o o
Permanent manufactured or mobile hone: Any manufactured er
mobile home which is permitted by right in the zoning district
in which it is located and f0~ which a manufactured er mobile
home permit or special exception i~ not required pursuant to
section 21.1-124.
mobile home which is not permitted by right in the zoning
dis~rict in which it is located and which is all.wed ~ur a
0 0 0
(8) That this ordinance shall become effective irmmediately upon
97SROX22
In ~ermuda Magisterial Diet=dot, ~HI~L=Y J. A~DP~YMO~DA. LINK
~eq~ested renewal cf Mobile Ho~e 9~mit 89SR0399 to park a
mobile home in a Residential (R-7} District. The ~ensi~y of
thi~ p~Oposal is uppro~i~t~ly 2.~ units per acre. The
of 7.0t or mor~ un,ts per acr~. Thi~ property fronts the south
llne of Drawls el=fl Roa~ o~9usite Old Plan=at,on Road and i~
better known a~ ~679 Drewry~ Bluff Road. Tax Map 67-3 (1)
Mr. Jmcobson presented a su~ary of Case 97SR0122 and stated
staff race--ends approval of the request for seven years,
subject to standard conditions! with an amendment to Condition
Number 4, which will allow the ¢ontinua~ion of the permanent
livinq space that has been added on tO this mobile home. He
noted the mobile home is located in an area designated by the
Jefferson Davis Cor~ido~ Plan for residential use.
Mrs. Shirley Link stated the reco~tmen~ation wa~ acceptable.
There was no opposition
On motion of Mr. ~cHala, seconded by ~r. ~arber, ~he Boar~
approved Case 9?aR0122 fe~ seven (?) yea~s, subject to the
followlng
1. The applicant shall be the owner and oooupant of the mobile
hom~.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a
mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for
rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be
permitted to ~e ~arked em an individual lot or parcel.
The mlnim~ lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard~
and other zoning requirmments of the applicable zoning
distrio% shall be oomplied with~ exoept that no mobile
home ~hall be located closer than twenty (2u) feet to any
existing residence.
4. ~o additional permanent-type living space, othe~ than the
existing mddition, may be added onto the mobile home. The
mobile home shell be skirted, but shall not be placed on a
p~manent foundation. U~e of the e~istin~ addition to the
mobile home may be continued during the renewal period;
however, such addition may net be enlarged,
reconstructed, ~ub~tiruted, Or ~t~et~ally altered.
5. Where publio (county) wate~ and/e~ uewe~ are uwuilable,
they shall be used.
5. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applioant
the ~uilding of~ioial. This shall De done ~riur te
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of th= above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the ~ebile ~ome Permit.
Vote:
In Midlothian Magisterial Distrio%, IBVIN¢ F, DRAPER re~uePted
renewal of Mobile Home Psrnit 89SN0275 to park a mobile home in
a Residential ~R-?) District. The density of this
designates the ~roperty far residential use. This property is
located approximately 16u feet off the west line of Tow=~ Light
Road from a point approximately 790 fee~ north e'f
and is batter known as 1410 Tower Light Road, Tax Map 15-7 (1]
Parcel ~l (sheet
aubjeot ~o standard conditions, ~e noted the mobile ho~e is
9E-~87
Mr. Irving F. Draper sta:ed the recem~endatien was acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Nr. Barber, ~eond~ by ~r~ McHale, the Board
approved Case 97SR0124 for seven (7) years, subject to the
following conditie~:
1. The applicant shall bet he owner and occupan~ of the m~bile
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a
mobile hone site, nor shall any nobile home be used for
rental property. Only one (1) ~obils home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual let or ~arcel.
The minimum lot ~i~e, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile
home ~hall be located alose~ than twenty (20) feet to any
existing residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but
shall ne~ be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (Ceunty) water and/or sawer ere available,
they shall be u~ed.
Upon being granted a ~obile ~ome P~r~it, the applie~Dt
~hall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of
the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation cf the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mebils Home Permit.
Vote;
96SN0279
In Clover Hill Magisterial Dist~iet~ ~HO~P;~ ~T Lk~R~OOD, L. ~.
requests4 re~nlng £rom Community Business (c-3) with
Conditional U~e Planned Devslopnent to Community Business (C-3}.
A shild day oars center is planned. However, with rl~s a~Dreval
of t~is request, Other C~3 usus could bc de¥~loped. The density
of such amendment will he controlled Dy zoniEg conditions or
property is appropriate for csmmunity mixed use. This request
lin~ of Hull Street Road, also fronting approximately 335 feet
~outheast quadrant cf the intersection of these coeds. TaE F~%p
39-12 (1) Parcel 60 (Sheet I4).
Planning Commission and staff resommends approval and acceptance
of one proffered condition. He noted ~he request confo~ns to
Mr. Matt Farris, representing the appli~aRt, state~ ~
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~n~e. Humphrey, tho Board
approved Case 96SN0279 and accepted the fei]owing proffered
condition:
No direct access shall be provided to'Route 360 or Watmeley
Boulevard.
Vote; Unanimou~
in Bermuda Magisterial Dietrich, ROBER~ 0. ~0HROM, JR, requested
rezoning frsm Agricultural (A) to Corporate Office (0-2) and
Community Business (C-3). A convenience center with automobile
wash and motor vehicle repair is planned. However, with
The density of s~eh amendment Will be controlled by zoning
~onditions or Ordinance standards. ~he comprehensive Plan
suggests that th~ property is appropriat~ for office and light
~ndus~rlel use and residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 units per
acr~. This request lies on 9.8 acres fronting approximately 500
feet mouth of Old Iron Bridge Road. Tax ~ap 96-1~ (1) Parcels
~ through 8 end Tux Map 114-1 (1) Parcel 7 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Jacobsen presented $ summary of Case 96SN02Sl and stated the
~lanning Commim~ion and mtaff recommends approval and acceptance
of %he proffered condltion~. ~e noted the request conforms to
the p~t~al. Area. Land Use and Transportation Plan.
There was no opposition present,
On motion of ~r. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Berber,
approved Case 96~N02~1 end accepted the following
conditions:
the Board
proffered
1. For any portion of %he property which drains ts G~eat
~ranch and which by-passes the lake located in the
Irombridge Development, development shall be designed to
store the two (2), ten (lc) end hundred (100) year post -
development condition and release thc two (2), tan (10) and
hun~re~ (~00) year pr~-dcvelopmen~ condition.
2. ~xcept for timbering a~proved by the virginia $ta~e
Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or
diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the property
until a land disturbance permit has b~n cbtalned from the
~nvironmenhal Engineering Department and the approved
deviee~ installed.
3. P~blic wate~ and Waste Water shall be used.
4. Transportation
A.
Prior to any mite plan approval, on~ hundred (100)
fee~ of right-of-way on the eas~ ~ide of Route
measured from the centerline o~ that part of Route 10,
immediately adjacent to the Property, shall be
dedicated, fr~e and unrestricted, to a~d for the
benefit of chesterfield county.
Direct access to Route l0 shall be limited to One
entranse/e~i~ lo¢~te~ towards %he northern property
line. The exact location of this acccs~ shall be
approved by ~he Transportation Department. Prior to
any site plan approval, an acoes~ easement acceptable
to th~ Transportation Department shall be recorded to
ensure shared use of this access with adja¢'ent
propert~ to th~ north and east.
9/25/96
c. Direst access =o Ironbridge Boulevard shall be limited
to on~ (l) entranse/exit. The exact locatlon of this
eccess shall be approved by the Transportatiom
D. To proviso an a~sguate roadway sy~=om at the time of
complete development, the Developer shall be
responsible for the following:
1. Construction of an additional lane of pavement
(i.e., third through lane) along the w~tbound
lane of Route lO for entire property frontage.
2. Construction of additional pavement along the
westbound lanes at the approved access to
provide a separate right turn lane; if warranted
based on Transportation DePartment standards.
3. Construction c~ additional pavement along
Ironbridge Boulevard at this approved access to
provide left- and right-turn lanes if warranted
unrestricted, of any additioDal right-of-way (or
easements) required for the improvements
Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan £0r
Proffered Condition 4. D., shall be
Construction Site
A. Any self service motor vehicle wash shall be set back
a ~inimum of 2~O £eot fram the ultimate right-of-way
B. The entrance/exit to any bay doors associated with any
motor vehicle repair business shall be generally
C. Any ~otor vehicle wash (~utomatic or self service),
bs constructed of brick and/or split face hlock and a
materials and colors shall be approved by the Planning
Department a% the t~me of sits plan review.
Alternative similar materials and roof treatment may
~e approved by the Planning Co~aission thrn~gh sits
mhall have compatible architsat~ral style, material
and colors to be approved by the Planning Department
at the time of site plan review.
The following use~ shall not be permitted:
A. Occult $cience~ s~ch ~s p~l~ reader~, a~trologer~,
fortune tellers, tea leaf readers, prophets etc.
B. Cocktail lounges and nitm clubs
D. ~i~uor storem
and rolling papers.
9/~5/96
96~590
Variances from setback requirements of the Zoninq ordinance
along Route 10 shall not be sought.
vote: Unanimous
965N0283
In ~idlothlan Maqisterial District, ~uNDOLP~ C. Pd%IN; requested
rezening £rom Residential (R-15) ~U Neighborhood Business (c-2)
The applicant has prs~ere~ to restrict uses to those permitted
in the Neighborhood office (O-1) District plus printing shops
that utilize only copying, duplicating and/or presses. The
density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standard~. The comprehensive Plan
suggests that the property is appropriate for office use. This
request lies on 0,4 acres ~newn as 2735 Buford Road, Tax Map
10-2 (3) Don Air Heights, Dlock B~ Lot 2 (Sheet 3).
]6r. Jacobean presented a summary of Case 96SN0283 and stated the
Planning Commission end staff recommends approval and acceptance
o~ on~ proffered condition. ~e noted the request conforms to
the Ban Air Community Plan.
M~. Randolph C. Raise stated the recommendation was acceptable.
There was ne opposition present.
Un mu~ion of M~. Barber, seconded by M~. War~en, the Board
approved Cas~ 96SN0283 and accepted the following proffered
cendlticn:
The u~ea permitted ehall be limited to these permitted in
the Neighborhood office (0-1) District plum printing shopm
that utilize only copying, duplicating and/or presses.
votm: Unanimous
In ~ermuda Magisterial District, DE~_N TED ~ATRIC~ requested
rezonlng E=o~ Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12). A single
family residential mu~division with a minimum lot mize of
square feet is planned. Residential u~e of up to 3.65 units per
acre im permitted in a Residential (R-12) District. The
applicant has agreed to limit development to a maximum of 116
lots, yielding a density of approximately ~ units per acre.
This request li~s on 48.5 acres lying a= the northern terminus
of Iron Brid9~ Boulevard a~d also lying appro×imat~ly
off the western terminus of Deep Forest Road. Tax Map 96-14 (t
Parcel 1 (Sheet ~1).
~. William Paola, Assistant Director cf the Planning
Department, presented a summary of Case 96SN0105 an~ stated that
there has been a general range Of concerns from citizens about
the impact this project nay have on their health, mafety, end
welfare. He further stated that the Plannin~ commission
recommends denial because of concerns about the overall impact
the nu~tber of homes on this property will have on the public
facilities that serve immediate neighborhoods; concerns about
the transition cf 10~ and ~e~es sizes; concerns ~hat ~ere may
be direct i~pacts on mo~a surrounding neigb_borhoodm from this
project; ~nd ooncerns about the limited access being available
nhcrt-te~ for ~e project,
Les Saund~rs, Es~ire, representing the applicant, stated that
the density of thi~ property is less than =he property =0 the
north and less than Arbor Landing. ~e' further stated that
Autu~ Oaks, which has well and septic, is the O~iy
property with less density t~an this request. He stated that
the applicant has agr~e~ to ~e public water and ~ewer; that he
has proffered that the density of the property will be nc
greater than two units ~sr aura; that the applicant has reduced
the d~n~ity of the property a~ low a~ possible; that the s~uare
foctagas in the proffered conditions were taken directly from
the Arbor Landing Subdivision restrictive covenants and are th~
same rsquirements in that Subdivision. He further stated that
the applicant proposed the proffer condition that would reduce
the property density to 2.o dwelling units. He expressed
concerns relative to staff recommendation being denial based on
t~e reason t~at tho p~offered conditions dc net address the
impact of thi~ d~v~Iopm~nt on necessary capital facilities,
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
stated that he would lik~ to know if the reason for denial is
because the applicant is not paying cash proffers. ~e further
five years; that the applicant has fsregone hi~ right-of-way out
to Deopforest Road in an effort to accommodate the concerns of
Autu~Oak; that %he applicant is aware that the propo~y
be developed until Irenbridge Boulevard is constructed. When
aske~, he stated that Ironbridg¢ Boulevard i~ th~ only access
· planned for Ironbrldqo Boulevard.
The~e wa~ oppositi0~ pr~ent.
Mr. Miller Fountain, a residen~ of ~_rber Landing Sulxli¥i~ion,
stated that h~'is opposed t~ the request; ~at he is
L~nding Subdivision is zoned R-15; and that he had originally
and architectural control co~ittaa that protects ~he
within '~bor Landing, a process or avenue to voice their
areu. Ee recognized seven residents of Arbor Landing who were
Mr. ~ilt O~le, a resident of Autu~ duke Subdivision, stated
~at he is speaking on behalf of him wife and neighbors.
and e~pr~ms~d concerns r~lative to the negative impact ~him
remo~ces. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Mm. G~nn Byer, a resident of Autumn Oaks Subdivision, mtated
S~ivision; ~at Autumn Oak~ has large lots and large homes;
that ~h~y ~ose an area zoned R-25 to construct ~heir home in a
secluded setting; and that they chom~ Autumn Oakm mpeclfically
because of the small number ~f lots in th~ Subdivision mhd the
limit=d acc~mm to traffic. She further stated that they are
Su~ivision; that ~ey feel the proposed d~velopment does not
Arbor ~nding. She further stated that they feel the proposed
r~=st is not cum~mtible with the uurrounding co~unlty. She
stated that she has also b~en asked to speak on behalf of the
about ~e negative impact the proposed deu~lop~ent w~lt have on
and recreatlom, and libraries. ~he recognized twelve
representing th~ Autumn oaks ~omao~ers A==cciatlon, who WOrd
96-5~
denied because area residents do not want in;il! areas to be
developed. He further stated that he feels in;ill isnues need
to he addressed and that most vacant land will be developed
sooner or later.
Mr. saunders ststed that the proffers in thio zoning case
require an architootural committee -- the ~ame as ArDor Lan~ing
9ubdlvislen. He requested area residents to give this
neighborhood the same chance as given to Arbor Landing and that
nice homes will be built on these
Nr. McHale stated that in addition to listening to the public
hearing this evening, he read the transcript of the Planning
Commission's p~bliC hearing toga=ding the request. He further
stated that of a~l the input that has been expressed, he cannot
vote uguinst the recommendation of the Planning C~mmission and
staff. He £urther stated that he feels that are some real
compatibility issues as it r~lates to th~ proposed development
meeting thc highest standards oX area neighborhoods, front yard
and becky=rd setbacks, minimum and average lot sizes, and
~ompatibility of thi~ development with the Comnrehen~ive Plan
jest because ~he density ufa proposal ~=velopment falls within
mean the development is compatible and that the Plan' al~o
~ddresses how a fully developed area impacts public facilitles.
H~ further orated that he feels the proposed zoning
classification i~ an i~ue; that R-12 toning is not compatible
with surrounding neighborhoods; and that the applicant is not
proffering any minimum lot sizes in excess of 12,00 square feet,
except for lot~ adjacent to Autumn Oaks. He further stated that
many concerns could be addressed if the applicant complied with
sizes on the eastern boundaries, minimum house sizes of
s~are feet throughout the property, average house sizes of
2,200 square feet, minimum house sizes of a little over 3,000
square feet adjacent to Autumn Oaks and a little over
a~jacent to Arbor Landing. He stated that he cannot disregard
t~e emergency access issue and expressed concerns relative tc
there only being one access to the 9reposed neighborhood. He
further stated even with the proposed bend referendum in place,
difficult for emergency vehicles. He stated he understands the
are some of the reasons tha~ cause him ~o move to ~eny the
approved ha ~eals consideration should be given to R-I$ zoning;
proffering Of R-25 yard a~d ~etback limit~; 25,000 ~quare foot
~2,~00 mquarm fm~t; minimum homm miz~m of ~,000 mquar~ foot and
average home a~zes of 2,200 square feet; and minimum house sizes
of S,024 square feet adjacent to Autumn Oaks and minimum house
size~ of 2,118 adjacent to Arbor Land. He stated that he also
feels that the access issue, educational iooues, and of;site
addressed in order for the request te ba
Fnf. McHale then m~de a motion, seconded by Mr, ~arber, for the
96-593
In ~idlethian ~agi~terial District, £OLTD~Y ~I~NS, INC. (ALLEN
TW~DT) ~eqneeted Cond{tlonal Uee Planned Development to permit
a ~econd freestanding sign in a Community Busime~
District. The density of ouch amendment will be centrolled hy
zoning conditions or Ordinance ~tandard=. The Comprehensive
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for regional ~i×ed
ns~. ~his request li~ on ~.~ acre~ known a~ ll000 and 11004
Midlothien Turnpike. Tax Map 17-6 (1} Parcel 29 and Tax--ap 17-
le (1) ~aroel ~o {~heet 8).
that staff recommends denial because the request prope1'ty
currently has a freestanding sign with a ne~oo~for~i~g area in
that approval of this request could ~n=ourag~ oth~r
to ~eek ~imilar ~xception~ to th~ Zoning Ordinance and wo~ld
l~ad to si~ proliferation along th~ corridor. ~e fu~er
=he imposition of a third ConditioD, which would limi= this sign
business. He stated t~at w~en and if tAe applicant would cease
property was originally owned by CP Dean, who sold the rear
provided that a slgn could be placed beneath the existing CP
the applicant ha~ only tried to identify hi~ bu~ine~ %o
never any application to protect the applicant' s ~iqn and
applicant 'was permitted out of any right to have a sign.
~ign, wh~e it originally had a 102 square foot
Mr. Allen ~edt, representing Holiday signs, Incorporated,
stated that in October, ~99~ he was contacte~ by ~esler Sign
assist in refurbishing the CP Dean into a Lay-Z-Bey sign and was
a p~rmit b~fore hi~ sign went down; that he then verified wi~
through the s~te plan review pro~e~ he ~ealiz~d the fifteen
yard setback was not going to be met. Ke state~ that he ~n
applied for a ~ar~ance f~r the ~ideymrd ~etback to th~ BcaTd of
further stated th~= he was th~n told by Planning ~taff that ~e
sign was not going to worR and t~at, at that time, ha could only
apply for ~ C~D. He stated %hat he feels County Pla~ing staff
staff. He further ~tat~d he f~ the r~qu~% i~ a
advertisement along Midlothian Turnpike; that the applicant
mmtback; and the= the fifty square foot si~n will ~ visible
from Midlothian Turnpike, hopefully bring tn new business,
provide a ~ervioe to existing customers.
~6--594
wm. Herin Adamz, owner cf Heaven and Earth Book Store, abated
that h9 purchased the property fram CP Dean and that he had a
sign pla~ed in front Df his b~ine~ in accordance with county
regulations. He further stated that when CP Dean sol~ the
building to La-z-Boy, he oontacted La-z-Boy approximately 20
times about the sign. · ~e:stated after completion c~ the La-=-
Boy building 'he received a call from Healer sign Company who
told him the County is allowing him ts have his own freestanding
sign. He further stated that at that time, he contacted the
sign company and began the prsceus to get the sign. Be further
~tated that ~hertly thereafter his sign was taken down. He
Planning Co~isslon because he will have ts get p~rmi~£on from
the landowner to have a temporary sign. He further stated ~hat
he does not feel the landowner will give him thi~ permi~nion a~
he may coon have a lawcuit against the landowner. He stated his
businee$ is ~uffering a~ e result of thio issue and that he has
only tri~d to follow tho proper process in ~etting the sign.
M~. George Beadles stated that he supports approval of the
· request to allow the applicant bo have a fifty foot freestanding
When asked! Mr. Parkinson presented an overview of the La-z-Bey
eign; sta~ed that the applicant is an innocent ~arty wh~ has no
sign for hi~ business; amd requested the Board ~o ~upport a
fifty foot sign for the applicant.
When asked, Mr. Jacobsen stated there was some mieinformation in
t~e beginning, however, it was baaed on where t~i~ b~ilding is
located. He further stated that the problem is that the
location of the zign could not be on Midlothian .T~rnpike and
would have to he near the book store.
Fur. Barber stated that the easy answer would be ~a--z-Bcy sharing
the bottom half of the ~iqn~ however! he believa~ there i~ a
legal regress in doing that which could take several yeare to ca
complete. He stated in ~he meantime t~ere is a small business
that ie functioning without any type of advertisement. ~e
stated that he feels the County hue erdinuncee in place in which
responeibility to small business o~ners to fo~ter their growth.
When asked, Mr. Par~i~su~ stated thu~ La-z-Boy would suppor~ a
the applicant being granted a permanent sign.
There was brief discussion relative to whether La-z-Boy would
support a temporary sign.
Wm. Barber crated that he feelz th~ applicant chould be granted
a freestanding sign, but in the event that th~ applicant no
longer own~ th~ buzine~c, the ~ig~ world be removed.
~Lr, Jacobsen stated =hat if the Board wishes to approve the
request, staff recommends the Board approve Conditions ~umber 1
and 2, ~hich requires that the second freestanding sign conformc
to the requirement of no more than fifteen feet in height and
fifty square feet and as long as there is a second freestanding
project si~n located on the project, individual buildings may
not have other freestanding signs. He stated the Board could
modify Condition ~3 to state that this conditional planned
developmen~ shall be granted to and for Heaven and Eart~
exclusively and shall be net ~ransferrable nor run with the land
end that if Heaven and Earth ceases to opuratu the site th=
second frees=ending sign will De removed.
~r. ~arber e~ated he will so,port the request with Conditions
N~mber 1 an 2 by staff and #3 condition as modified by staff.
F~r. Warren seconded the motion.
9t~5196
96-595
When asked, M~. Adams stored he understands the motion.
Mr. Barber stated that in the event of resale of the b~ildi~q,
he would encourage that the legal re~ourse Qf La-z-Boy may be
pursued and that at that point in time when the business is
eel~, ~here would be an opportunity to incorporate a sign into
the La--Boy sign.
~r. KcHale stated he will support the motion because he f=~l~ in
this particular circumstance the applicant needs assistance
howevsr~ he feels approval of this request may set a precedent,
when asked, Mr. Micas sta~ed staff will look into ~eveloping an
ordinance to assist in guarding against this type of event.
Mr. Daniel called for the vote on the motion made by Mr. Barber,
seconded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to approve Case
~ubje~t to the following condltion~:
1. The second freestanding sign shall conform to all
requirements cf the Zoning Ordinance for f~eeetandinq
identifying projects.
~. A~ long a~ there i~ a ~econd freemtandlng project sign
located on the property, individual buildings shall not be
pu{~mitt~d other fr~tanding ~ign~ which are permitted by
the Zoning Ordinance. (P)
3. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be'grante~
to and for ~av~n and ~arth e×clu~vely and shall not be
transferrable nor run with the land. Further~ if Heaven
the second freestanding sign ~hall be removed Within thirty
(30) days of the date that ~eaven and Earth ceases
operation.
(NOTES: A. This si~n is in addition to other signs
Currently p~rmitted on the property.
S. Zxcapt as provided herein, all 0thor siqns
are subject to the requirements of the Sign
ordinance.)
Unanimous
Vote:
97~N0115
In ~idlothian Magisterial District, THB CHBG~BR~B~D ~OUI¥1'Y
~0~.~ O~ ~UP~RVZSORS requested Conditional Ua~ Planned
D=velopment to permit two (~) additional freestanding signs for
an existing church facility, to allow one (1) of these signs to
have a translucent sign field and to allow s setback ezception
for one (i) freestandin~ sign slung choctaw Road, The density
of such amendment will be controlled by ~oning conditions or
Ordinance standards. Tho Cemprehensiv~ Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for public/semi-public use nad for
medium density residential use. This request lies 'in a
Residential (R-15) District os 12.1 acres known as 2531 Buford
Road. Tax Map 10-5 (2) Ben Air Plat, Block 54, Lot 100 (Sheet
which s=rucuure some u~anges in the ori~inal conditions.
Mr. Barber stated that the proffered conditions are numerous and
are a reeult of the willingness of the Church to be a good
neighbor and the willingness of the Planning
specifically, M~. William Shumake, in dealing with the i~ue.
addressed any concerns that were ea-pre~ed. He stated he
supperts approval of the request with the proffered mmndltiene
and the two addendume.
Mr. Barber then made a ~otion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr.
Warren~ ~or the Board to approved Case 97SNO115 subject tc the
following condition:
t, The following £reest~nding signs shall be permitted to
identify the church:
1. One (1) free,tending ~ign alon~ Buford Road. This
sign shall conform to Zoning ordinance requirement~
for ~n~ identifying churohe~.
One (1) freesEan~in~ sign alonq c~0ctaw ROad, having
~all be restricted t0 the sign that currently
on ~ ~octaw Road frontag~ in its present location.
At ~uch t~ma that th~ ~ign i~ ~o~ed, it shall no~
Z. One (1) freestanding sign along Forest ~ill Avenu~
havin~ a maxim~ area of fifty (5G) ~a~ feet.
bottom of the signfi~ld shall not exce~ a height of
one (1) foot above grade. T~ ~ign shall have
Foremt Hill AVenue; ~hall b~ ~t back a minimum of
fiftmmn (lS) ~e~t from the ultimate r~ght of way for
Forest Hill Avenue; and ~hall not be illuminate~
betwee~ ~ hou=~ of 10:o0 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Except
am mtated, this sign shall conform to Zoning Ordinance
(c~c)
4- The free-tending sign along Forest ~iI1 Avenue shall
only be allowmd DrovidaO tr~e~ having a caliper of 2.5
inches or greater are maintaln~d within the r~quir~d
m~bamk along the ~%ir~ pro~r~y frontage along
Forest ~ill Avenue unle~m removal im approved by the
Planning Co~immion. Provided, howevers'the removal
of dead or diseased trees shall b~ permitt~ if
approved by the Director of Planning. In addition,
this sign shall be located ~lQng Forest Hill Avsnum
memmured from a poi~t betwee~ 240 feet and 260 feet
from the ultlmate right of way of Choctaw
(MOTES: A. ~e Zoning Ordinance pe~its one
free,tending sign On the property to
identify uses; therefore, t~is
condition will allow two
a~tional freestanding signs, for
~otul of ~r~e (~] freestanding siqns
to identify uses on the ~roperty.
~. ~xcepg for interchangeable co~y aream
which may be translucent, the
signfiel~ of in~ernally ligh=ed
freestanding ~igns must have opaque
C. Except as provided herein, the~e
the Zoninq Ordinance for such signs.
Zn addition to these signs, buildln~
mounted and directional sign~ are
permitted subject to the ~equirement~
of the zoning ordinance.)
vote: Unanimoua
On m~tion of Mr. ~c~ale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
suspended its rules at thin time and amended the a~enda to allow
the Board to ~nd the mlnutem of September 11, 1996 at this
time.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. ~arber, aeoended by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved the ~i~t~s of septe~be~ 11~ 1996~ a~ a~ended.
Vote: Unanimous
lS. ~DJOURNMENT
On mo~ien of Mr. Barber, ~econded by Mr. Warren, the ~e~rd
adjourned at 9:00 p.m. until October 9, 1996 at 3:00 p.m.
Vot~: Unanimous
County
9/25/96