07-22-1987 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
July 22, 1987
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applegate
Mr. R. Garland Dodd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
Acting County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mrs. Doris DeHart
Legislative Coord.
Ms. Joan Dolezal,
Clerk to the Board
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Asst. Co. Admin.
Ms. Alice Heffner,
Youth Svcs. Coord.
Mr. Thomas Jacobson,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Dir. of Env. Eng.
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Services
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Richard Sale, Asst.
Co. Admin. for
Development
Mr. Russell Sink,
Airport Manager
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Dir. of Parks & Rec.
Chief Dennis Turlington
Fire Marshal
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Frederick Willis,
Dir. of Human
Resource Management
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Minister Leon L. Baker, Jr.
Chesterfield Church of Christ who gave the invocation.
of the
2. PLEDGE OF ;%T.LRGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America was recited.
Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the minutes of July 8, 1987, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
87-547
Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting.
4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Ramsey noted an article, published in a special issue of
"City and State" magazine, ranking Chesterfield County as 46th
of the top fifty (50) counties in the nation, regarding revenue
status. He stated five counties in Virginia were represented
in the top 50 selection, with Chesterfield ranking third in the
state. He noted one of the more significant aspects of the
article, reflective of the growing economy in the County, was
Chesterfield's ranking 17 in job growth between 1980-1986.
Mr. Ramsey stated Mr. Masden recently attended the annual
conference of the National Association of Counties held in
Indianapolis, Indiana, at which he received awards recognizing
achievements of the Economic Development Program, the County
Attorney's Legal Retrieval System, the Enhanced 9-1-1 System
and the News and Public Information Office. Mr. Ramsey
congratulated the respective department heads for the
accomplishments and commended them for a job well done.
5. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Mayes reported he attended a briefing, conducted by the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), regarding the
Route 36 Grade Separation Project. He stated the briefing was
well prepared and commended staff on their presentation. He
stated the final hearing is scheduled for July 30, 1987, to
which the Board members and Legislative delegation were invit-
ed.
Mrs. Girone stated the Water Resources Task Force is addressing
the minimum instream flow issue which is a major concern for
Virginia. She stated there has previously been no specific
project/issue brought forward for the General Assembly to
establish a policy on minimum instream flow; however, she felt
the Lake Genito and Crump Creek Projects could be the catalysts
to bring the State together on this issue. She stated other
significant, upcoming issues of concern are a water plan policy
for the State and water needs for the Newport News area.
0
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR
CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board added
Item ll.B.6., Route 288 From Route 360 to Route 10; added Item
ll.M., Appropriation of Funds for Cares, Inc.; deferred Item
ll.E., Intent of Board of Supervisors to Hold Executive Ses-
sions until August 12, 1987; and adopted the agenda, as amend-
ed. (It is noted additional information on Item ll.B.5.,
Status Report on the Route 288 Environmental Impact Study, was
distributed to the Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
7. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITION
There were no resolutions or special recognitions scheduled.
8. ~R. ARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULRD MATTERS OR CLAIMS
8.A. MR. LARRY DURBIN REGARDING ROUTE 288
Mr. Ramsey introduced Mr. Larry Durbin, Chairman of the North-
ern Chesterfield Neighborhood Coalition (NCNC), comprised of 22
subdivisions representing over 18,000 residents of the northern
portion of the County, who stated the Coalition is deeply con-
87-548
cerned with the eastern alternative for Route 288 currently
being studied by the Virginia Department of Highways and their
consultants, Harland Bartholomew and Associates. He conveyed
to the Board the Coalition's support of the western alternative
as currently recommended by the County and their willingness to
work on an ongoing basis with State and County officials to
assist in adopting the western alternative. He urged the Board
to do all possible to promote the western alternative.
Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation, on behalf of the Board, for
the Coalition's support and stated the Board of Supervisors is
on record, through the public hearing process and its land use
and transportation plan, in support of a westerly route for
Route 288. He stated all public statements, authorized to be
made by the Board in the name of the County, focus on a western
route as the preferred route. He stated the consultants,
Harland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc., will conduct public
meetings August 3-5, 1987, to hear citizens' comments/ideas on
the proposed routes. He added, as additional public hearings
are held, prior to VDOT's rendering a final decision, the
County is duty-bound to articulate its position on this matter.
He requested that Mr. Durbin's statement be forwarded to the
Virginia Department of Transportation and their consultants.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the Brandermill/Woodlake communities
were included in the Coalition. Mr. Durbin stated the Coali-
tion does not include Brandermill; however, they have recently
made their concerns known to the Coalition and the Brandermill
Association for Roads was contacted. He stated plans are in
progress for meetings to address their concerns regarding the
western route.
Mrs. Girone commended the citizens for the fine manner in which
they have worked together to become knowledgeable of this issue
and active in the process.
8.B. CLAIM OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA FOR DAMAGES TO AIR-
CRAFT
Mr. Micas stated the City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida has
presented a claim to the County for $14,324.10 for damages
sustained to an aircraft owned by that City that occurred while
the aircraft was being ferried from the County to Florida. He
stated the City is seeking restitution on the theory that Mr.
Russell Sink, the individual ferrying the aircraft, was operat-
ing as an agent of the County. He stated the arrangement, made
by Mr. Sink individually and strictly as a private matter;
therefore, staff recommends the claim be denied.
Mr. Robert Rourk, attorney for the claimant, briefly explained
the claim. He stated the City's position is that, due to the
negligence of the pilot, the aircraft was substantially damaged
while enroute to Florida and restitution should be made. He
stated if the City's request is not granted the City's only
recourse would be through the legal system.
Mr. Daniel stated the County Attorney advised the Board that
this is not a claim which can be honored in that it was a
private, individual contract for professional services.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
denied the claim of the City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, for
restitution, in the amount of $14,324.10, for damages sustained
to an aircraft owned by that City while it was enroute to that
City.
Vote: Unanimous
87-549
9. DEFERRED ITEMS
9 .A. APPOINTMENTS
9.A.1. ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appoin-
ted the following people to serve on the Economic Advisory
Council, whose appointments are effective immediately and are
at the pleasure of the Board:
Mr. H. E. Richeson
Mr. E. Bryson Powell
Mr. William Shockley
Mr. Charles W. Hundley
Mr. Gary W. Fenchuk
Mr. Keith F. McCrea
Dr. Edward Whitlow
Mr. Hugh A. Cline
Ms. Ann Anderson
Mr. Geoffrey H. Applegate
Vote: Unanimous
It was generally agreed that these individuals should be
contacted to verify their willingness to serve on this Council
prior to the mailing of appointment letters.
9.A.2. YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appointed Ms. Stacy Tan, representing the Midlothian Magister-
ial District, to serve on the Youth Services Commission, whose
term is effective immediately and will expire June 30, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
9.B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION
OF BERMUDA PLACE DRIVE WITHIN BERMUDA PLACE SUBDIVISION
Mr. Sale stated on July 8, 1987, a hearing was held to consider
the request of Mr. and Mrs. Larry Boder to vacate a portion of
Bermuda Place Drive in Bermuda Place Subdivision, which area is
adjacent to their lot, is unimproved and has been vacant since
1953. He stated Mr. John Smith, an adjacent property owner,
objected to the vacation stating that he intended to use the
right of way for access into his property. Mr. Sale stated the
Board continued the hearing to give the applicant and adjacent
property owner a chance to reach a compromise; however, as of
this meeting, the differences had not been resolved. He stated
staff recommends the request for the vacation be denied.
Mr. Smith stated the information, as presented at the previous
meeting, was inaccurate, he felt the County was negligent in
not requiring the developer to pave the road, and stated the
present County topography maps were inaccurate. Mr. Daniel
instructed staff to follow-up on the inaccuracies of the County
topographical maps, as described by Mr. Smith.
There was no one present representing Mr. and Mrs. Boder.
Mr. Dodd stated he had recommended deferral of this matter at
the previous meeting to allow those involved to reach a compro-
mise; however, it appears no further developments have trans-
pired in that respect.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
denied the request to vacate a portion of Bermuda Place Drive
within Bermuda Place Subdivision.
Vote: Unanimous
87-550
10. PUBLIC WEARINGS
10.A. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 19 OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS AND OTHER FOR-
HIRE VEHICLES
Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County
Code relating to the operation of taxicabs and other for-hire
vehicles. He stated, at the instigation of the Capital Region
Airport Commission, Henrico County began the process of revis-
ing its existing ordinance regulating taxicabs and other
for-hire vehicles and, since that time, there has been an
ongoing effort to create a uniform ordinance for all metropoli-
tan jurisdictions.
There was no one present to address the matter.
Mr. Applegate stated ground transportation services in the
metropolitan area are considered poor and efforts are underway
to improve these services. He stated this recommendation
should be accomplished to control the ground transportation
network for the jurisdictions serving the region.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 19
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978,
RELATING TO TAXICABS AND OTHER VEHICLES FOR HIRE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended and reenacted by amending Chapter 19 as
follows:
Sec. 19-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them
by this section:...
o o o
Taxicab stand. A stand designated for the sole use of
taxicabs in accordance with ordinances of the Board of Super-
visors.
Sec. 19-3. Inspection of vehicles..
Every public vehicle, taxicab or for-hire car operating
within the county shall be inspected by the chief of police or
some member of the police department designated by him at
regular intervals of twelve months, and at such other times as
the chief of police may, in his discretion, determine. If such
vehicle shall be found to be in an unsafe, unfit or unclean
condition, the owner thereof shall be notified by the chief of
police at once, and such vehicle shall not be operated there-
after until such defect has been remedied.
Sec. 19-5. Solicitation r.e.~ulated.
No person shall solicit patronage for any public vehicle,
taxicab or for-hire car by word, signal or otherwise on any
public street or public property in the county other than at
such stands as may be designated and assigned in accordance
with regulations of the board of supervisors or its designated
agents provided that this provision shall not be construed to
prevent a customer from hailing a for-hire car.
87-551
Sec. 19-6. Rates.
No public vehicle, taxicab or ~for-hire car shall be
operated on the streets of the county in which there is not
displayed at some conspicuous point inside of such vehicle, in
full view of the passenger or person hiring such vehicle, the
rates fixed, prescribed or established for the use of any such
vehicle. Such rates shall be fixed, prescribed or established
by the Board of Supervisors and shall be uniform and it shall
be unlawful for the owner or operator of any such vehicle to
charge a rate in excess of the rate so fixed, prescribed or
established or the rate posted or displayed as herein required.
Sec. 19-6.1 Same - Enumerated; special discount for
elderly passengers and visually handicapped passengers.
(a) The rates to be charged passengers by certificate
holders or drivers of taxicabs shall be as follows, and it
shall be unlawful for a certificate holder to permit or a
driver to make any greater or lesser charge for the transporta-
tion of passengers and baggage:
For the first one-fifth mile ............. $1.50
For each succeeding one-fifth mile ...... $0.30
For each one minute of waiting time ...... $0.30
Waiting time shall include the time consumed while the
taxicab is stopped or moving at a speed less than ten miles per
hour, and time consumed waiting for a passenger beginning five
minutes after the time of arrival at the place to which it has
been called and the time consumed while it is standing at the
direction of the passenger. Waiting time shall not include,
and no charge shall be made for, the time lost on account of
inefficiency of the taxicab, or its operation, or time consumed
by premature response to a call. No charge shall be made for
mileage while waiting time is being charged.
For each additional passenger over one..$0.30
Provided, that children six years of age or younger, when
accompanying a fare-paying passenger, shall not be deemed
additional passengers for the assessment of such additional
charges.
(b) For a trip originating between the hours of 9:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. of the day following, in addition to the charges
registered on the meter, a surcharge of fifty cents per trip
shall be added to compute the fare for such trip.
(c) The owner of any cab may, upon receipt of satisfac-
tory proof that a person is sixty years of age or older, which
proof may be presentation of a medicare card and satisfactory
proof of the identify of the holder of such card, or any other
proof that may be deemed satisfactory in lieu of such presen-
tation of a medicare card and proof of identity, issue to any
person sixty years of age or older, strip or a coupon book
entitling such person to transportation and services of the
value of five dollars for a consideration of four dollars and
twenty-five cents.
(d) The owner of any cab may, upon receipt of satisfac-
tory proof that a person is legally blind or visually handicap-
ped, which proof may be presentation of an identification card
issued by the American Foundation for the Blind, Inc. and
satisfactory proof that may be deemed satisfactory in lieu of
such presentation of an identification card issued by the
American Foundation for the Blind, Inc. and proof of identity,
issue to any person legally blind or visually handicapped,
scrip or a coupon entitling such person to transportation and
services of the value of five dollars for a consideration of
four dollars and twenty-five cents.
87-552
Sec. 19-8. Nonpaying passengers.
No nonpaying passenger shall be transported with a paying
passenger in any public vehicle, taxicab or for-hire car,
except a police officer engaged in the performance of his duty
and unable to obtain other adequate means of transportation.
Sec. 19-9. Refusal of drivers to make trips.
No owner of any public vehicle, taxicab or for-hire car
shall refuse to transport any passenger to any part of the
county or to the City of Richmond or counties of Henrico and
Hanover for a trip originating in the county; however, no
driver shall be required to drive the vehicle operated by him
to any place which may be detrimental to such vehicle or which
would endanger any of the occupants thereof.
Sec. 19-13. Drivers to remain with vehicles.
The driver of any public vehicle, taxicab or for-hire car
shall remain in his vehicle or within five feet of same at all
times while such car is on the streets while under hire, except
while engaged in loading or unloading the baggage or other
property of passengers hiring the vehicle, or in the event of
an emergency.
Sec. 19-18. Marking of vehicles.
There shall be painted or printed on every public vehicle,
taxicab or for-hire car lettering clearly showing the name of
the owner thereof and indicating that such vehicle is a public
vehicle, taxicab or for-hire car; provided that the chief of
police, may, for good cause, exempt for-hire cars from the
marking requirements provided for by this section. The size,
content and character of such lettering and the position
thereof on each vehicle shall be specified by the chief of
police, and the failure of any owner to comply with such
specifications within ten days after being notified to do so by
the commissioner of the revenue chief of police shall consti-
tute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 19-19.1. Certificate holder to have telephone
listing.
Every owner holding a certificate of public convenience
shall provide and maintain at all times a listed telephone in
the name in which the certificate holder is doing for-hire
business,by which calls may be made for for-hire service, which
telephone listing, if the certificate holder operates five or
more for-hire cars, shall also appear in the classified tele-
phone directory.
Sec. 19-21. Public liability insurance--Required.
No owner shall be permitted to operate for hire any public
vehicle, taxicab or for-hire car within the county unless and
until such owner shall have secured and deposited with the
chief of police a policy of insurance against public liability
and property damage for each such vehicle so operated within
the county, issued by some solvent insurance company licensed
and duly authorized to execute such policy within the state and
to carry on business within the state. Such policy of
insurance shall contain a clause obligatin~'~he company issuing
the same to give ten days' written notice to the chief of
police before cancellation thereof.
Sec. 19-22.
insurance.
Same--Proof of financial ability, in lieu of
(a) Any owner referred to in the preceding section whose
net assets shall be not less than fifty thousand dollars, may
be permitted to carry his own liability insurance against
damages to persons or to property; provided, such owner can
87-553
reasonably satisfy the chief of police as to his permanent and
financial standing. Any such owner desiring to exempt himself
from the requirements of the preceding section shall make
application to the commissioner of the revenue for such exemp-
tion. The chief of police, upon being satisfied of the finan-
cial condition of such owner to pay such damages as would be
covered by the policy of insurance provided for in the preced-
ing section may, by written order, make such exemption, and may
issue a certificate thereof to such owner. The chief of police
may, from time to time, require further statements of the
financial ability of such owner and if, at any time, in the
opinion of the police chief, such owner shall appear no longer
to be able to pay the damages hereinbefore referred to, the
police chief shall revoke the order granting exemption and
notify the owner thereof. Thereafter, the police chief shall
suspend the certificate of public convenience and necessity
issued to such owner to operate such public vehicles, taxicabs
or for-hire cars within the county, until such owner shall have
complied with the provisions of the preceding section.
o o o
(c) No license for the business of operating public
vehicles, taxicabs or for-hire cars, and no certificate of
public convenience and necessity shall be issued by the
police chief unless and until the owner operating or proposing
to operate such public vehicles, taxicabs or for-hire cars
within the county shall have complied with the provisions of
this and the preceding section.
Sec. 19-25. Application - Certificate of public conven-
ience and necessity.
Any person desiring to operate public vehicles, taxicabs
or for-hire cars shall make application to the commissioner of
the revenue for a certificate of public convenience and necess-
ity, ...
o o o
In addition to any other fees prescribed elsewhere in this
code, each applicant for a certificate of public convenience
and necessity shall pay an initial application fee of twelve
dollars per vehicle listed in the certificate and upon each
annual request for renewal of such certificate shall pay the
same fee.
Sec. 19-26. Refusal of Certificate of Necessity.
Subject to the provisions of Section 19-38, the chief of
police shall refuse to issue a certificate of public conven-
ience and necessity to a person or entity who or which has
filed an application therefor under 'this chapter if, after
investigation, he finds any of the following:
(a) the applicant's vehicles do not meet the standards
set forth in Sections 19-3, 19-6, or 19--13;
(b) the applicant fails to meet the requirements of
Sections 19-19, 19-19.1, or 19-21;
(c) the applicant has been convicted, pleaded guilty to,
or pleaded nolo contendere within the past twelve months to
three or more violations of this chapter or of any other local
law in the Commonwealth governing the operation of taxicabs or
other for-hire cars or vehicles; or
(d) the applicant knowingly makes, or causes to be made,
either directly or indirectly, any false statement on his
application.
87-554
Sec. 19-27. Authority of chief of police to order certi-
ficate holders to operate additional vehicles.
If the chief of police shall determine, after investiga-
tion, although no application may have been made to him for any
certificate of public convenience and necessity, that public
convenience and necessity requires the operation of additional
public vehicles, taxicabs or for-hire cars within the county,
then the police chief shall give notice that applications for
additional certificates of convenience and necessity will be
received. Should not such applications be received, the police
chief may require the holder of the outstanding certificates,
or any one or more of them, to provide and to operate addition-
al public vehicles, taxicabs or for-hire cars within the
county. In the event that the holder of any such certificate
shall fail to do so, the police chief may revoke the certificate
of such holder theretofore issued. In the event of such
revocation the holder of any such certificate shall have the
same right to file with the county circuit court a petition to
review the action of the police chief as is provided in section
19-33.
Sec. 19-29. Substitution of vehicles or equipment.
(a) The holders of certificates of public convenience and
necessity may substitute new or other' vehicles in place of
vehicles that have become worn out or ...
o o o
(b) It shall be unlawful for a certificate holder to
place into service a for-hire vehicle which is more than five
model years old at the time it is placed into service; provid-
ed, however, that once properly placed in service a vehicle may
continue to be used as a for-hire vehicle indefinitely by the
same certificate holder if such vehicle otherwise meets the
requirements of this chapter and if the certificate under which
it is operated does not lapse, is renewed annually and is not
revoked.
Sec. 19-30. Renewal of certificates of veterans of armed
forces.
In the case of any person inducted into the armed forces
of the United States under the provisions of the Selective
Service and Training Act, who, at the time of his induction,
held a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued
to him under this article, the chief of police shall, upon the
application of such person filed after his discharge from the
armed forces, issue to such person a certificate of public
convenience and necessity for the operation of such number of
public vehicles, taxicabs or for-hire cars as he had in opera-
tion at the time of his induction into the armed forces and in
such case the provisions of section 19--25 shall not be appli-
cable.
Sec. 19-33. Same--Procedure; term..
No certificate of public convenience and necessity shall
be revoked or suspended by the chief of police unless or until
the owner has had at least five days' notice by registered mail
to the address shown on his certificate of the specific charges
against him and of the time and place of a hearing thereon.
The hearing shall be held by the police chief, the owner having
the right to present his own case or have counsel. After the
hearing, and within a reasonable time, the police chief shall
render a decision either revoking the certificate, suspending
it or dismissing the charges. In the event that the police
chief shall revoke or suspend any such certificate, the holder
thereof may, within ten days from the date of such action, file
with the circuit court of the county a petition, in writing, to
review the action of the police chief in so doing, and a copy
of the petition, in which shall be stated the time and place at
87-555
which the same will be presented, shall be served on the police
chief.
O O O
Sec. 19-35. Application - Information.
Application for a public vehicle driver's license shall be
made in writing to the chief of police of the county, and shall
show the following:
O O O
(m) The name and address of the owner of the for-hire
vehicle to be operated by applicant and. if different, the name
and address of the company for whom the applicant will be
driving.
O O O
Sec. 19-37. Revocation of permit.
Subject to the provisions of Section 19-21, the permit of
any driving of a for-hire car shall immediately become void and
shall be immediately surrendered upon the occurrence of any of
the following:
(a) the driver is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or
pleads nolo contendere to any felony;
(b) the driver is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or
pleads nolo contendere to any larceny, assault, battery, crime
of moral turpitude or illegal possession of controlled substan-
ces where such crime is other than a felony;
(c) the driver is convicted of, pleads guilty to or
pleads nolo contendere to operating a motor vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol or drugs;
(d) the driver is convicted of, pleads guilty to or
pleads nolo contendere within a twelve month period to three or
more moving violations under the motor vehicle laws of this
Commonwealth other than those involving operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
(e) the driver is convicted of, pleads guilty to or
pleads nolo contendere within a twelve month period to three or
more violations of this chapter or of any other local law in
this Commonwealth governing the operation of taxicabs or other
for-hire cars or vehicles.
(f) the chief of police finds, after investigation, that
the driver has made a charge above or below the rates prescrib-
ed by section 19-6.
(g) the chief of police finds, after investigation, that
the driver knowingly made, or caused to be made, either direct-
ly or indirectly, any false statement on his application for a
permit which was issued; or
(h) the chief of police finds, after investigation, that
the driver no longer possesses the physical or mental qualifi-
cations necessary to safely operate a vehicle.
Sec. 19-38. Procedure upon refusal or revocation of
certificate or permit.
If an application for a certificate of public convenience
and necessity or a driver's permit is refused, or if a certifi-
cate of public convenience and necessity or a driver's permit
is revoked, the chief of police shall notify in writing the
application or certificate or permit holder of such decision,
the reason therefor, and the right to a hearing if a request
87-556
therefor in writing is made to the chief of police within 10
days of the notice. If a request for a hearing is not made
within 10 days of notice, the decision of the chief of police
shall be final. The hearing shall be held by the chief of
police or his designee and the applicant or certificate or
permit holder shall have the right to present his own case or
have his counsel do so. After the hearing, and within a
reasonable time thereafter, the chief of police shall render
his decision. In the even that the chief of police shall
refuse to issue or shall revoke a certificate or permit after a
hearing the holder thereof may, within 10 days after the date
of such action, file with the circuit court of the county a
petition, in writing, to review the action of the chief of
police, with a copy of such petition to be served on the chief
of police. The filing of the petition by the circuit court
shall not postpone the effective date of the decision of the
chief of police except by order of the court.
Sec. 19-39. Exceptions.
The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, this chapter
shall not apply to vehicles listed in section 56-274 of the
Code of Virginia with the exception of those vehicles listed in
subsection (2) of such section, nor to funeral vehicles, nor to
common carriers of persons or property operating as public
carriers by authority of the state corporation commission or
under a franchise granted by the county. This chapter shall
not be construed to conflict with or be in derogation of any
additional rules and regulations adopted by the capital region
airport commission pursuant to its enabling authority for the
operation of for-hire vehicles.
Sec. 19-40. Reciprocity.
Upon a finding by the chief of police that the City of
Richmond and the County of Henrico has adopted an ordinance
containing provisions comparable to the county ordinance and
providing for reciprocity with the county, the vehicles for
which a person holds a current and valid certificate of public
necessity issued by the City of Richmond and the County of
Henrico and drivers who hold a current and valid permit issued
by the City of Richmond and the County of Henrico will be
deemed to have complied with the certificate and permit require-
ments of this chapter and shall be deemed to possess comparable
certificates or permits, as the case may be, issued by the
county while such city or county certificates or permits remain
in good standing, provided, that no certificate or permit
issued by the City of Richmond and the County of Henrico shall
be valid in the county where the holder of such certificate or
permit has applied for and been refused a permit or certificate
by the county, or has had such permit or certificate revoked by
the county under the provisions of the certificate by the
county.
Sec. 19-41.
operators.
Effect of chapter on existing owners and
Ail persons holding a certificate of public convenience
and necessity and/or a driver's permit from the county at the
time of adoption of this ordinance and desiring to continue
such certificate and/or permit in force must apply prior to the
expiration of their existing certificate and/or permit for a
new certificate and/or permit under the terms and conditions
set forth herein except as follows:
(a) if such an application is filed by a driver who has
held a valid driver's permit from the county continuously for a
period beginning at least six months prior to the effective
date of this chapter through the time of application hereunder
then such applicant shall be exempt from the provision of
section 19-36.
87-557
(b) if such an application is filed by a certificate
holder who has operated a vehicle under a certificate of public
convenience and necessity issued by the county continuously for
a period beginning at least six months prior to the effective
date of this chapter through the time of application hereunder
and such vehicle was during such operation more than five model
years old then such vehicle is exempted from the age restric-
tions of section 19-29(b) if such vehicle otherwise meets the
requirements of this chapter.
Sec. 19-42.
and regulations.
Authority of Chief of Police to make rules
The chief of police is authorized and empowered to make
such rules and regulations concerning the operation of for-hire
vehicles as are necessary and are not in conflict with this
chapter for the purpose of administering, executing and making
effective the provisions of this chapter, which rules and
regulations so promulgated may include requirements for the
provisions of such safety devices and procedures as the chief
of policy may deem necessary for the safety for-hire passengers
and operations; additional disciplinary rules, sanctions and
procedures as may be necessary and proper; and appropriate
rules governing the dress, hygiene and general appearance of
taxicab drivers.
Ayes: Unanimous
10.B. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER
12 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO LICENSES
Mr. Hammer stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 12 of the County Code relating to licenses. He stated
the sites peddlers and itinerant merchants choose often en-
croach on the right-of-way of highways, are a public safety
hazard, cause disruption in traffic flow and do not complement
the uses permitted for adjacent property under applicable
zoning; therefore, amendment of the ordinance would increase
the general business license tax rates for peddlers and itine-
rant merchants and provide better control and regulation of
these businesses.
Mr. Daniel entered into the record a letter from Mr. Jeff Smith
of the Retail Merchants Association which indicated their
support of this ordinance.
Mr. Bill Barker, Director of Member Affairs for the Retail
Merchants Association of Greater Richmond, briefly explained
the impact of peddlers and itinerant merchants on the business-
es of established, fixed-location merchants. He stated approv-
al of this ordinance would make the situation more equitable
for fixed-location merchants and urged the Board to act favor-
ablly. He stated, in addition, Henrico County requires that
peddlers and itinerant merchants not only obtain a license but
also that they identify to the Planning Department specifically
their planned site locations and that those locations be
regulated and located within an area zoned B-3 or Industrial.
He stated the Board may wish to consider this aspect of 'regula-
ting such merchants and incorporate it in the ordinance.
Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board that his sister is employed
by the Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond;
however, under the general rules of applicability of law, he
did not feel there was a conflict and he intended to vote on
this issue.
There was general discussion regarding those persons who would
be classified as exempt sellers (i.e., farm and nursery pro-
ducts, non-profit organizations, etc.); competition between
itinerant merchants and established merchants; enforcement
87-558
procedures and appropriate methods for regulating such activi-
ties especially on weekends; reduced fees; increase in fees for
peddlers and itinerant merchants and the effective date; hours
of operation; amending the ordinance to include that the
special rates be applicable to peddlers of wood; etc.
Mrs. Girone requested that planning staff present to the Board
a recommendation regarding a planning process whereby these
types of situations would have to go through a process for
approval before they could be established anywhere. She
requested this issue be included with the Overlay District
because these incidents occur on the major corridors and the
Overlay District requirements would come into play.
It was generally agreed it would be appropriate to accelerate
the effective date of the ordinance to August 1, 1987 which
would make this ordinance adopted on an emergency basis; that
sellers of wood be included in the exempt classification; and
that peddlers and itinerant merchants be required to coordinate
site locations through the Planning Department in accordance
with the "Overlay District" but so as not to interfer with the
approval process of the Overlay District Ordinance.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
adopted the following ordinance on an emergency basis and set
the date of September 9, 1987, at 7:00 p.m., for a public
hearing:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 12
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
1978, RELATING TO LICENSES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Chapter 12, Articles I, XIII, and XIV of the
Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is
amended and reenacted by repealing, amending and adding the
following Sections:
Article I. In General
Section 12-1.1 Exemption from license tax.
Every person engaged in a business, .occupation or profes-
sion otherwise taxable pursuant to this chapter shall be exempt
from the duty to apply for a business license or pay such
license tax if the gross receipts for such business, occupation
or profession do not exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00)
during the taxable year. This exemption shall apply only to
any business, occupation or profession which would, but for
this exemption, pay a license tax the amount of which would
depend upon its gross receipts or purchases.
O O O
Article XIII, Merchants
Division 4. Itinerant and Transient Merchants
Section 12 - 137 Itinerant Merchants - Defined.
Any person who engages in, does or transacts any temporary
or transient business in the county or traveling from place to
place in the sale of goods, wares and merchandise and who for
the purpose of carrying on such business, hires, leases, uses
or occupies any building or structure, motor vehicle, tent,
car, boat or public room or any part thereof, including rooms
in hotels, lodging houses or houses of private entertainment,
or in any public road in the county, for a period of less than
one year, for the exhibition of or sale of such goods, wares or
merchandise, except goods, wares and merchandise received from
bankruptcy sales, trustee sales, railroad wrecks, fire sales,
87-559
slaughter sales or sales of like character or designation, and
stock received from expositions and fairs, whether such person
associates temporarily with another merchant or engages in such
temporary or transient business in connection with or as a part
of the business or in the name of another merchant or not,
shall be deemed an itinerant merchant. No person shall be
deemed an itinerant merchant solely because such person exhi-
bits or otherwise displays goods or services or information
concerning goods or services if such person does not contract
to sell, or offer to contract to sell, such goods or services
at said temporary location.
Section 12-138 Same - License required; amount of tax.
Every itinerant merchant who is not expressly exempt from
tax under the provisions of this Division 4 shall obtain a
license for the privilege of doing business in the county and
shall pay a license tax of the applicable amount set forth
below:
(a) Unless otherwise provided in some other section of
this code, the license tax for each itinerant merchant, other
than those described in subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and
(f) shall be five-hundred dollars for each location used during
the tax year.
(b) No license tax shall be imposed on any itinerant
merchant who sells or offers for sale in person or by his
employees only the following items or any of them if such items
were grown or produced by him or by his employees and were not
purchased by them for sale: ice, wood, charcoal, meats, milk,
butter, eggs, poultry, game, vegetables, fruits or other family
supplies of a perishable nature or farm, domestic or nursery
products.
(c) A license tax of fifty dollars for each location used
during the tax year shall be imposed on any itinerant merchant
who sells or offers for sale in person or by his employees only
the following items or any of them if such items were not grown
or produced by him or by his employees: meats, milk, butter,
eggs, poultry, fish, oysters, seafood, game, vegetables, fruits
or other edible family supplies of a perishable nature.
(d) An itinerant merchant whose activities are conducted
solely for charitable purposes and who is not paid for his
services shall not be required to pay any license tax under
this Division 4.
(e) A license tax of fifty dollars for each location used
during the tax year shall be imposed on an itinerant merchant
whose activities are conducted as part of an event conducted or
sponsored by any department of the County government.
(f) A license tax of fifty dollars for each location used
during the tax year shall be imposed on any itinerant merchant
who sells or offers for sale Christmas trees or Christmas
greens not grown or produced by him.
o o o
Section 12-140 Same - Hours of sale of certain merchandise
No itinerant merchant shall sell, between April 1 and
September 30, both inclusive, between the hours of 7:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m., nor between October 1 and March 31, both inclu-
sive, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. any jewelry,
diamond or other precious stone, watch, clock, gold or silver-
ware, gold or silver-plated ware, rugs, curtains, carpets,
tapestries, statuary, porcelains, chinaware, pictures, paint-
ings, bric-a-brac or articles of virtu. This section shall not
apply to any flea market or craft show licensed under Section
12-39.1 of this code.
o o o
87-560
Article XIV. - Peddlers
Section 12-144 "Peddler" defined.
Any person who carries from place to place any goods,
wares or merchandise and offers to sell or barter the same, or
actually sells or barters the same, and at the time of such
sale or exposure for sale delivers, or offers to deliver, the
goods, wares or merchandise to the buyer is a "peddler". Any
delivery on the day of sale shall be construed as a delivery at
the time of sale. For the purposes of this Article XIV,
bartering or offering to barter goods, wares or merchandise
shall be deemed to be a form of selling or offering to sell
goods, wares or merchandise.
Section 12-145.
exceptions.
Amount of tax for peddlers generally;
Every peddler who is not expressly exempt from tax under
the provisions of this Article XIV shall obtain a license for
the privilege of doing business in the County and shall pay a
license tax of the applicable amount set forth below:
(a) Unless otherwise provided in some other section of
this Code, the license tax for each peddler other than those
described in subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)
shall be $500 for the tax year.
(b) Any person who sells or offers to sell goods, wares,
or merchandise to licensed dealers, other than at a definite
place of business operated by the seller, and at the time of
such sale or exposure for sale delivers, or offers to deliver,
the goods, wares or merchandise to the buyer is a "peddler at
wholesale". Any delivery on the day of sale shall be construed
as a delivery at the time of sale. Each peddler at wholesale
shall pay a license tax for the tax year; the license tax rate
for each peddler at wholesale shall be the same as the license
tax rate applicable to a wholesale merchant selling similar
goods, wares or merchandise at one definite place of business.
(c) No license tax shall be imposed on any peddler who
sells or offers for sale in person or by his employees only the
following items or any of them if such items were grown or
produced by him or by his employees and were not purchased by
them for sale: ice, wood, charcoal, meats, milk, butter, eggs,
poultry, game, vegetables, fruits or other family supplies of a
perishable nature or farm, domestic or nursery products.
(d) A license tax of twenty-five dollars for the tax year
shall be imposed on any peddler who sells or offers for sale in
person or by his employees the following items or any of them
if such items were not grown or produced by him or by his
employees: meats, milk, butter, eggs, poultry, fish, oysters,
seafood, game, vegetables, fruit or other edible family sup-
plies of a perishable nature.
(e) A license tax of twenty-five dollars for the tax year
shall be imposed on any peddler who sells or offers for sale
only Christmas trees or Christmas greens not grown or produced
by him.
(f) A peddler whose activities are conducted solely for
charitable purposes and who is not paid for his services shall
not be required to pay any license tax under this Article XIV.
(g) A license tax of twenty-five dollars for the tax year
shall be imposed on any peddler whose activities are conducted
as part of an event conducted or sponsored by any department of
the County government.
(h) A peddler who sells fire wood for home consumption
shall not be required to pay any license tax under this Article
XIV.
87-561
Section 12-146. Amount of tax for peddlers of home-grown
agricultural products and for peddlers of groceries generally.
Repealed.
Section 12-147. Seafood peddlers. Repealed.
Section 12-148.
ers. Repealed.
Peddling to licensed dealers or retail-
Section 12-149. Tags.
Every person who is licensed as a peddler and has paid the
tax required under this Article XIV shall be provided a license
tin or tag which shall be affixed to the person of the peddler
or, if the peddler obtains a license per vehicle, then to the
vehicle used by the peddler.
0 0 0
Section 12-150.1. Applicability of tax to each person
conducting activities of a peddler.
The license tax imposed under this Article XIV shall be
imposed upon each person and each agent of a corporation,
association, or other entity who conducts the activities of a
peddler; except that peddlers who peddle from and in close
proximity to any vehicle and who all peddle the same type of
goods, wares or merchandise may obtain a peddler license, which
shall list the names of said peddlers, for each vehicle
rather than for each peddler peddling from and in close prox-
imity to such vehicle and the license tax for such license
shall be the amount of tax that would otherwise have been
charged to each of said peddlers.
(2) That the following sections shall be effective immed-
iately upon adoption of this ordinance: Chapter 12, Article I,
Section 12-1.1; Chapter 12, Article XIII, Division 4, Section
12-137 and 12-140; and Chapter 12, Article XIV, Section 12-144.
(3) That the following sections shall be effective August
1, 1987: Chapter 12, Article XIII, Division 4, Sections 12-138;
and Chapter 12, Article XIV, Sections 12-145, 12-146, 12-147,
12-148, 12-149 and 12-150.1.
Vote: Unanimous
The Board requested that the Planning staff bring back a
recommendation regarding a planning process whereby peddlers
and itinerant merchants would have to go through a process for
approval prior to their establishment within the County.
10.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE I, SECTION
14.1-1 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ADOPTION OF STATE LAW DEALING
WITH MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSES
Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Article I,
Section 14.1-1 of the County Code relating to adoption of state
law dealing with motor vehicle offenses. He stated adoption of
the proposed amendment will incorporate all existing motor
vehicle laws of the State of Virginia, currently in effect,
into the ~punty Code and local police officers can continue to
issue summonses citing local Code sections.
No one came forward to address this matter.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted
the following ordinance:
87-562
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14.1-1
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, 1978,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ADOPTION OF STATE LAW DEALING
WITH MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Chesterfield, Virginia:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended by amending the following section:
Sec. 14.1-1 Adoption of state lawo
Pursuant to the authority of section 46.1-188 of the Code
of Virginia, as amended, all of the provisions and requirements
of the laws of the state contained in Title 46.1 and Article 2
of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force
on July 1, 1987, except those provisions and requirements the
violation of which constitutes a felony, and except those
provisions and requirements which by their very nature can have
no application to or within the county, are hereby adopted and
incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable
within the county. References to "highways of the state"
contained in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted
shall be deemed to refer to the streets, highways and other
public ways within the county. Such provisions and require-
ments are hereby adopted, mutatis mutandis, and made a part of
this chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and
it shall be unlawful for any person, within the county, to
violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any provision
of Title 46.1 or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the
Code of Virginia which is adopted by 'this section; provided,
that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of
any provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty
imposed for a similar offense under Title 46.1 or Article 2 of
Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
11. NEW BUSINESS
ll.A. CONSIDER CONTINUATION OF FIVE FORKS TRAFFIC CONTROI.
Mr. Ramsey stated Board approval is requested for an appropria-
tion, in the amount of $30,000 from the General Fund Contin-
gency Account to the Police Department FY87-88 budget, to
continue the Five Forks intersection traffic control with
off-duty police officers. He stated staff recommends that the
traffic control be terminated because the Police Department
budget does not include funding to continue the traffic con-
trol, the officers currently direct traffic for only about one
hour of the two hours on each shift, there have been many
complaints from businesses and citizens about the congestion
created on Courthouse Road, and there are other equally serious
intersections in the County for which the County is not provid-
ing this service.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the service should be continued to
protect those people who have to enter or cross Courthouse Road
under the existing adverse conditions.
When asked, Chief Pittman stated if the Board were to increase
the Police Department budget by $30,000 he would utilize the
appropriation elsewhere.
Mr. Applegate stated a subdivision/shopping center development
is planned at the intersection of Newbys Bridge and Belmont
Roads and inquired if the construction of Route 288 would
increase the traffic problem at the intersection. Mr.
McCracken stated the plan for development at this location has
anticipated the construction of Route 288 and took into consid-
eration appropriate accesses for the proposed development;
87-563
nevertheless, the project would increase traffic congestion at
the intersection. He stated traffic volumes at the Five Forks
intersection at present are less than that ordinarily experi-
enced when schools are in session and traffic moves through the
area fairly well. He stated when Route 288 construction is
completed the traffic volumes at this intersection will be
better distributed but if the proposed development begins
before Route 288 is constructed the situation will be worse.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the Board has a responsibility to
ensure that area residents and/or other citizens traveling
through this intersection should not have to endure long
periods of waiting or endanger their well-being to either
access or exit this intersection.
Mr. Dodd stated he' had not initially supported funding this
project and, although he had observed the reduced activity in
the area, the effort had been initiated and he felt it should
be continued. He stated he would support continuation of the
service provided it were to begin September 1, 1987, with
increased traffic due to the opening of schools.
Mr. Daniel stated he had also observed the reduced activity in
the area but realized it would again increase with the begin-
ning of the upcoming school term. He stated there are many
other difficult situations in the County for which the County
is not providing this service and if left to the discretion of
the Police Chief he had stated he would use an appropriation of
$30,000 for matters he considered more urgent than the traffic
control at this intersection. He stated he would prefer to
defer this issue until the fall, continue the observations and
at that time render a decision as to the continuation of this
service.
Mr. Mayes stated the concerns of a large group of citizens, who
met at an area church, precipitated the action which brought
this issue to the attention of the Board for consideration to
provide the traffic control service and, in view of the circum-
stances at that intersection, he felt the service should be
continued.
Mrs. Girone stated there are several intersections in other
areas of the County that are just as serious as this one and
need attention and, if such services are to be continued,
consideration should be given to a comprehensive plan for
providing and funding these services for other areas.
Mr. Applegate stated he would prefer to defer the matter until
the next meeting until he had an opportunity to further study
the construction of the intersection.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
deferred consideration of the Five Forks traffic control
request until August 12, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
There was further discussion of the cost of staffing the
traffic control and the possibility of a shortage in the Police
Department's budget due to the funding of this service for the
extended period of time which shortage could be funded from
either the Matoaca District Three Cent Road Fund or the
proposed $30,000 appropriation, if approved.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it was resolved
that funding of the Five Forks traffic control with off-duty
police officers would continue on an emergency basis until
August 12, 1987, with funding from the Police Department's
FY87-88 budget which is estimated to be $2,200-2,400 per month.
Vote: Unanimous
87-564
Mrs. Girone commended Chief Pittman and the force on the fine
job being done particularly along Route 147 where there is
considerable construction and inquired if the overtime funding
for this activity was anticipated in the department's FY87-88
budget. Chief Pittman stated the contractor is bearing this
expense.
ll.B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
ll.B.1. APPROPRIATION OF BERMUDA DISTRICT THREE CENT ROAD
FUNDS FOR VIRGINIA HISTORICAL HIGHWAY MARKERS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appro-
priated $2,500 from the Bermuda District Three Cent Road Fund
for the installation of three (3) Virginia Historical highway
markers along Route 1/301 to replace the original markers that
were vandalized.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B.2. APPROPRIATION OF BERMUDA DISTRICT THREE CENT ROAD
FUNDS FOR PLACEMENT OF STONE ON RAMONA AVENUE AND
MAYWOOD STREET
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appro-
priated $1,000 from the Bermuda District Three Cent Road Fund
for the placement of stone on Ramona Avenue between Melba
Street and Maywood Street and on Maywood Street between Ramona
Avenue and Seminole Avenue.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B.3. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER ARTERIAL CORRIDOR
OVERLAY DISTRICT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
set the date of August 12, 1987, at 7:00 p.m., for a public
hearing to consider the proposed Arterial Corridor Overlay
District.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B.4. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF
PARCEL IN AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO MR. PAUL
PEDERSEN AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTINGENT SALES
CONTRACT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute a contingent sales contract for the sale of 2.5 + acres
in the Airport Industrial Park on Whitepine Road at $45,~00 per
acre and set the date of August 26, 1987, at 9:00 a.m., for a
public hearing to consider the said conveyance to Mr. Paul
Pedersen.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B.5. STATUS REPORT ON THE ROUTE 288 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STUDY
Mr. John McCracken presented a status report on the Route 288
Environmental Impact Study, highlighting details relative to
background information, possible corridors, alternative corri-
dors, planned public informational meetings, completion dates
for the preliminary engineering report and the 1988 draft
environment impact study, etc.
Discussion and questions ensued relative to the possible
87-565
corridors, the County's position on a western route for the
extension of Route 288 and its proposed alignment, preservation
of the right-of-way to connect this extension with the John
Rolfe Parkway in Henrico County, etc.
ll.B.6. ROUTE 288 FROM ROUTE 360 TO ROUTE 10
Mr. Daniel stated information had been brought to his attention
indicating the Interstate-295 connector had been removed from
the highway plan due to a lack of Federal funding and that
funding for Interstate-295 had been delayed for as much as two
years. He stated, if such action were to transpire, Federal
legislation allows for tolls to be extended on 1-95 until the
completion of 1-295, with specific state legislation passed to
identify the projects which, including Route 288, were to be
funded by toll extensions; present information indicates there
is no current funding available at this time to address con-
struction of the Five Forks and Route 10 interchanges in
conjunction with the construction of Route 288 and this resolu-
tion requests that the tolls that would be continued during
that additional two year period be earmarked for Route 288 and,
in particular, for the two unfunded interchanges (Five Forks
and Route 10) which would make the project constructed to the
standards which were intended.
Mr. Dodd concurred with Mr. Daniel and noted that the County
was not consulted/informed when the tolls were removed from the
southern end of 1-95.
Mr. Daniel commented that Mr. Mayes would be attending the
opening of Temple Avenue, which was included in the 1983
legislative packet with the request for the construction of
Route 288, and would not be present at the zoning session.
Mr. Applegate stated discussions with VDOT have indicated that
1-295 will be completed from Route 10 to 1-64 and toll
collections will automatically be extended until 1-295 is
completed. Mr. Daniel stated legislation may automatically
extend the tolls; however, he felt additional legislation would
be necessary to extend the tolls beyond the established dates
and that the revenue needs to be designated for Route 288.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the General Assembly enacted legislation in 1983
which allowed toll collections to continue on the Richmond-
Petersburg Turnpike until 1-295 is completed and opened to
traffic; and
WHEREAS, this legislation authorized the allocation of
these revenues to the Parham Road-Chippenham Parkway Connector,
Route 288 between the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike and Route
360, Temple Avenue Extension, Bells Road-Belt Boulevard and
Leigh Street Extension; and
WHEREAS, the federal funds the Commonwealth of Virginia
will receive for the construction of 1-295 are less than
previously anticipated; and
WHEREAS, this reduction in funding will delay the comple-
tion of 1-295; and
WHEREAS, additional revenue will be collected on the
Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike as a result of the delay; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Chesterfield County overwhelming-
ly approved a $30 million bond referendum for the construction
of Route 288 from Route 360 to Route 10; and
WHEREAS, interchanges are needed at the Five Forks and
Route 10 intersections to safely and efficiently accommodate
traffic at those locations; and
87-566
WHEREAS, the expansion of the proposed interchange at 1-95
and Route 288 is needed to accommodate future development of
the property east of 1-95.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Super-
visors of Chesterfield County hereby requests the Governor,
General Assembly and the Virginia Department of Transportation
to study the feasibility of extending toll collections on the
Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike with the revenues designated for
the completion and expansion of the interchanges on Route 288
in Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.C. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.C.1. AMENDMENT TO FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT FOR SOUTHSIDE
SPEEDWAY
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approv-
ed an amendment to the Fireworks Display Permit for Interna-
tional Sports, Inc. to hold a fireworks display at Southside
Speedway on September 4, 1987, provided that a new certificate
of insurance, in the amount of $1 million naming the County as
an additional insured, is provided and all other conditions of
the permit remain in effect.
Vote: Unanimous
11.C.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of North Otterdale Road and Wylderose Drive,
Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and oh motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that North Otterdale Road and
Wylderose Drive, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are
established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, North Otterdale Road, beginning at the
intersection with existing Midlothian Turnpike, U.S. Route 60
and going northerly 0.13 mile to end in a dead end; and Wylde-
rose Drive, beginning at the intersection with existing Midlo-
thian Turnpike, U.S. Route 60, and going northerly 0.13 mile to
end in a dead end.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
These roads serve the adjacent commercial property.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation, a 60'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
These roads are recorded as follows:
Plat Book 52, Page 3, January 15, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
87-567
examination of Wicklow Loop in Bexley Cosmopolitan Phase II,
Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Wicklow Loop in Bexley
Cosmopolitan Phase II, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby
is established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Wicklow Loop, beginning at the intersection
with existing Broadstone Road, State Route 2682, and going
northeasterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with itself, then
continuing easterly 0.07 mile, then turning and continuing
westerly 0.07 mile to intersect with itself.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
This road serves 17 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
variable width 40' to 50' right-of-way for this road.
This section of Bexley Cosmopolitan is recorded as follows:
Phase II. Plat Book 40, Page 47, January 8, 1982.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Birkdale Lane, Rams Court and Rams Circle in
Bexley Cosmopolitan Phases III and IV, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Birkdale Lane, Rams Court and
Rams Circle in Bexley Cosmopolitan Phases III and IV, Clover
Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public
roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Birkdale Lane, beginning at the intersection
with existing Rams Crossing, State Route 3516, and going
southeasterly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Rams Court,
beginning at the intersection with existing Rams Crossing,
State Route 3516, and going southerly 0.05 mile to the inter-
section with Rams Circle, then continuing southerly 0.03 mile
to end in a cul-de-sac; and Rams Circle, beginning at the
intersection with Rams Court and going westerly 0.03 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
These roads serve 24 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
These sections of Bexley Cosmopolitan are recorded as follows:
Phase III. Plat Book 43, Page 86, August 25, 1983.
Phase IV. Plat Book 44, Page 76, December 8, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
87-568
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Eagle Run Lane, Eagle Run Court, Llama Lane and
Ewes Court in Bexley Cosmopolitan Phases V and VI, Clover Hill
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Eagle Run Lane, Eagle Run
Court, Llama Lane and Ewes Court in Bexley Cosmopolitan Phases
V and VI, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are estab-
lished as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Eagle Run Lane, beginning at the intersection
with existing Rams Crossing, State Route 3516, and going
southerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Eagle Run Court,
then continuing southerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac;
Eagle Run Court, beginning at the intersection with Eagle Run
Lane, and going easterly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac;
Llama Lane, beginning at the intersection with existing Rams
Crossing, State Route 3516, and going northerly 0.03 mile to
the intersection with Ewes Court, then continuing northerly
0.02 mile to tie into proposed Llama Lane, Phase VII of Bexley
Cosmopolitan; and Ewes Court, beginning at the intersection
with Llama Lane, and going westerly 0.10 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
These roads serve 30 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
These sections of Bexley Cosmopolitan are recorded as follows:
Phase V. Plat Book 50, Page 47, August 16, 1985.
Phase VI. Plat Book 52, Page 45, March 13, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Nott Lane and Oldbern Road in Courthouse Woods,
Section 2, Dale District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Nott Lane and Oldbern Road in
Courthouse Woods, Section 2, Dale District, be and they hereby
are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Nott Lane, beginning where State Maintenance
ends, existing Nott Lane, and running southerly 0.09 mile to
the intersection with Oldbern Road, then continuing southerly
0.04 mile to the intersection with Centralia Road, State Route
145; and Oldbern Road, beginning at the intersection with Nott
Lane and running easterly 0.02 mile to end in a dead end.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
These roads serve 17 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
87-569
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Courthouse Woods is recorded as follows:
Section 2. Plat Book 51, Page 98, January 7, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Goldenbrook Drive in Spring Run, Section C,
Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Goldenbrook Drive in Spring
Run, Section C, Matoaca District, be and it hereby is esta-
blished as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Goldenbrook Drive, beginning where State
Maintenance ends, existing Goldenbrook Drive, State Route 3175,
and running southerly 0.22 mile to end in a temporary turn-
around.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
This road serves 14 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for this road.
This section of Spring Run is recorded as follows:
Section C. Plat Book 51, Page 21, October 9, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
11.C.3. LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH DALE RURITAN CLUB TO REPRODUCE
COUNTY FLAG
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approv-
ed and authorized the Acting County Administrator to enter into
a license agreement with the Dale Ruritan Club to reproduce and
market, for a period of two (2) years, the official Chester-
field County flag, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
11.C.4. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHALS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board ap-
pointed Lieutenant Paul W. Mauger and Sergeant Raymond J. Burr
as Assistant Fire Marshals, pursuant to Section 27-36 of the
Code of Virqinia, effective immediately.
Vote: Unanimous
11.C.5. AMENDMENT TO MUSIC FESTIVAL PERMIT FOR VIRGINIA AFFI-
LIATE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TO PREVENT BLIND-
NESS AND HOLIDAY INN
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approv-
ed an amendment to the Music Festival Permit for the Virginia
87-570
Affiliate of the National Association to Prevent Blindness and
Holiday Inn to change the hours to "5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m." and
to add the following dates: August 28, September 4, September
11, September 25, October 2 and October 9, 1987; provided that
a certificate of insurance indicating coverage for these dates
is provided, as the original certificate indicates coverage
only for the original dates granted; and provided all other
requirements of the previous permit remain unchanged.
Vote: Unanimous
11.C.6. AWARD CONTRACTS FOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT
TERMINAL RENOVATION, PARKING LOT EXPANSION AND RE-
FUELING STATION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approv-
ed and authorized the Acting County Administrator to execute
any necessary documents/contracts with the lowest responsible
bidders, in amounts not to exceed appropriated funds, the total
amount being $347,600, for the Airport Terminal renovation,
parking lot expansion and refueling station, with the County
appropriation of $150,000 being used as the County match for
these projects. It is noted any portion of the $150,000 County
appropriation not needed as matching funds would be returned to
the Industrial Park Reserve Account.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D. APPOINTMENTS - CONTOUR
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board nomi-
nated Mrs. Marie Beach and Mr. Robert Brittle to serve on the
Metropolitan Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau (CONTOUR),
whose formal appointments will be made at the August 12, 1987,
meeting.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS
ll.F.1. AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA-
TION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILITIES AT INTERSECTION OF
HOPKINS AND CENTRALIA ROADS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation for adjustment of utilities at the intersection of
Hopkins and Centralia Roads; and appropriated funding, in the
amount of $62,695, from the Capital Improvement Budget, Miscel-
laneous Highway Projects, for this project.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.2. REPORTS
Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the Acting County Admin-
istrator.
ll.G. REPORTS
Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with a status repgrt on the
General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road
Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease
Purchases and School Literary Loans.
87-571
ll.H. BRIEFING ON AMENDMENT TO THE VIRGINIA CONFLICT OF
INTEREST ACT
Mr. Micas presented a summary of amendments to the Virginia
Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act, highlighting the
effective dates, disclosure forms, etc., and explaining the
changes affecting those persons required to file said forms.
ll.I. TOUR OF CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
The Board recessed at 11:30 a.m. to tour the Circuit Court
Clerk's office operation and automated systems.
ll.J. LUNCH - BELLA ITALIA RESTAURANT
The Board travelled to Bella Italia Restaurant for lunch.
Reconvening:
Mr. Daniel reconvened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. (ESDT).
ll.M. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR CARES, INC.
Mr. Daniel stated, in view of Mr. Mayes' absence, he felt it
appropriate to defer consideration of Item ll.M., Appropriation
of Funds for Cares, Inc. until the next meeting.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
deferred consideration of Item ll.M., Appropriation of Funds
for Cares, Inc., until August 12, 1987.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
ll.K. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOME PERMITS
87SRlll
In Dale Magisterial District, CHARLES AND JUDY ALSPAUGH reques-
ted renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84SR125 to park a mobile home
on property fronting the northwest line of South Beulah Road at
Bellbluff Drive, and better known as 6680 South Beulah Road.
Tax Map 67-1 (1) Parcel 33 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Jacobson stated staff recommended approval of this request
subject to standard conditions.
Mr. Charles Alspaugh was present to represent the request.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request for seven (7) years, subject to the
following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the
mobile home.
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 be parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile
87-572
home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added
onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but
shall not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available,
they shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant
shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of
the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S112
In Dale Magisterial District, P. MICHELLE FLANAGAN AND JAMES
WILLS requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on
property fronting the north line of Walmsley Boulevard, approx-
imately 300 feet west of Lancers Boulevard, and better known as
6712 Walmsley Boulevard. Tax Map 40-7 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Jacobson stated staff recommended denial of this request as
there are no mobile homes located within one-half mile of this
property and the request appears to be out of character with
the neighborhood at the present time.
Ms. Bille Stroud, aunt of the applicants, was present to
represent the request.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Daniel stated the request to locate a mobile home in this
area is inappropriate at this time because the area is designa-
ted by the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan for
medium density residential use; development in this area has
begun which gives the neighborhood a stable, residential
character; and there are presently no mobile homes in the area.
He further stated the neighborhood is developing into a commer-
cial and single/multifamily residential neighborhood with
commercial development to the west and it is not the Board's
policy to approve mobile home requests for an urbanized corri-
dor in which no mobile homes currently exist.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board denied
the request of P. Michelle Flanagan and James Wills for a
mobile home permit (87S112).
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
ll.L. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
87S032
In Dale Magisterial District, EAST COAST OIL CORPORATION
requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Community Business
(B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 2.0 acre
parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the west line of Iron
Bridge Road, approximately 100 feet south of Cogbill Road, also
fronting approximately 90 feet on Cogbill Road, and located
southwest of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 52-14
(1) Parcel 5 and Part of Parcels 6 and 7 (Sheet 15).
87-573
There was no opposition present.
There was lengthy discussion relative to the proposed use,
comparison of the criteria for this project with the Southport
and/or Gulf Stream developments; whether or not there would be
sufficient water and sewer services to accommodate the develop-
ment and how these utilities would be provided to the site; the
roadway network and proposed improvements; access of Genito
Road traffic to Route 288; the elimination of truck terminals
and drive-in establishments as proposed uses; whether or not
satellite dishes would be visible from within the site to Route
288 traffic; the necessity for requiring pedestrian walkways
and whether or not such walkways should be a developer option,
etc.
There was further discussion regarding the condition requiring
a conceptual pedestrian walkway plan for the entire develop-
ment, the pros and cons of implementing such a plan, rewording
of the condition, etc. Mrs. Girone expressed concern as to the
necessity for requiring a network of pedestrian sidewalks. She
stated she felt the ultimate use of sidewalks in such projects
may not be practical or effective in providing a method of
pedestrian transportation, that the installation would be
expensive and time-consuming, and that implementation should be
a developer option, not a requirement. Mr. Daniel stated he
interpreted the condition as being flexible. Mr. Willey stated
the applicant did not object to submitting an overall pedes-
trian walkway plan at schematic plan review; however, the
developer would prefer to determine when and where the instal-
lation of a walkway or pathway is feasible and would serve as
an amenity. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the intent of the
condition was to give the Planning Commission the authority and
flexibility, when needed, to make a determination as to the need
for pedestrian walkways; however, after further discussion, it
was determined to eliminate the condition.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved Case 87S016, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by Draper-Aden Associates, Inc., dated November 24,
1986, and the Textual Statement submitted with the appli-
cation shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
Upon submission of a comprehensive sign package, the
Planning Commission may modify the requirements of the
Light Industrial (M-l) District relative to signs (i.e.,
may be either more or less restrictive) to the extent that
the sign package addresses concerns relative to sign
lighting and colors, sign compatibility with architectural
styles, and that sign proliferation is not encouraged.
(p)
(Note: This Condition supersedes Condition 3 of the
Textual Statement.)
Special treatment shall be provided for any rooftops
visible from Powhite Parkway. Such special treatment
shall ensure that any heating, ventilating and air condi-
tioning equipment located on rooftops are screened and/or
incorporated into the building design. (P)
(Note: This Condition is in addition to Condition 10 of
the Textual Statement.)
A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the east
property line where adjacent to residentially or agricul-
turally zoned property. No buildings, parking or other
facilities shall be permitted within this buffer. Public
roads and utilities may be permitted through these buffers
upon approval by the Planning Commission at the time of
schematic plan review. At the time of schematic plan
review for each individual parcel or lot, which abuts the
87-576
Gasoline pumps and the associated canopy shall be set back
fifty (50) feet from the ultimate right of way of Route
10. (BS)
The northermost access to Route 10 shall be an entrance
only and shall be marked ENTRANCE; the southernmost access
shall be an exit only and shall be marked EXIT. (BS)
A six (6) foot tall wooden stockade fence shall be instal-
led along the west and south property lines adjacent to
residentially zoned property, as shown on the Master Plan.
(BS)
In addition to the uses allowed in the Community Business
(B-2) District, a motor vehicle wash facility shall be
allowed, as shown on the Master Plan. (BS)
A landscaped area shall be provided along the Route 10
frontage, located between the entrance and exit, as shown
on the Master Plan. In conjunction with this landscaping,
parking space size may be reduced to 185.5 square feet.
Minimum parking space width shall be 9.5 feet and minimum
length shall be 18 feet. (BS)
Ail exterior lights shall be arranged and installed so as
not to project into any adjoining residential parcel.
(ss)
10.
Driveways and parking areas shall be paved with concrete,
bituminous concrete, or other similar material. Concrete
curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of
all driveways and parking areas, as shown on the Master
Plan. (BS)
11.
No building facade will consist of architectural materials
inferior in quality, appearance, or detail to any other
facade of the same building. The building shall be of the
general design as shown on the photographs submitted with
the application. (BS)
12. Ail utility lines shall be installed underground. (BS)
13. Ail outdoor storage areas and trash dumpsters shall be
screened. (BS)
14.
The car wash operation shall not be put into operation
until such time as public sewer is available to the site.
(ms)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S016
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WILLIAM B. DUVAL AND GENE
H. DUVAL requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light
Industrial (M-l) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a
188 acre parcel fronting approximately 450 feet on the north
line of Genito Road, across from Warbro Road. Tax Map 48-3 (1)
Parcel 1 (Sheet 13).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of this request, subject to the certain conditions and
acceptance of the applicant's proffered conditions.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicants, presented
a brief summary of the proposed request highlighting details of
the plan and conditions, the requested use exceptions, aesthe-
tics, compatibility with existing and future development, etc.
He stated the applicants plan an upscale, high quality develop-
ment which will be an asset to the community.
87-575
There was no opposition present.
There was lengthy discussion relative to the proposed use,
comparison of the criteria for this project with the Southport
and/or Gulf Stream developments; whether or not there would be
sufficient water and sewer services to accommodate the develop-
ment and how these utilities would be provided to the site; the
roadway network and proposed improvements; access of Genito
Road traffic to Route 288; the elimination of truck terminals
and drive-in establishments as proposed uses; whether or not
satellite dishes would be visible from within the site to Route
288 traffic; the necessity for requiring pedestrian walkways
and whether or not such walkways should be a developer option,
etc.
There was further discussion regarding the condition requiring
a conceptual pedestrian walkway plan for the entire develop-
ment, the pros and cons of implementing such a plan, rewording
of the condition, etc. Mrs. Girone expressed concern as to the
necessity for requiring a network of pedestrian sidewalks. She
stated she felt the ultimate use of sidewalks in such projects
may not be practical or effective in providing a method of
pedestrian transportation, that the installation would be
expensive and time-consuming, and that implementation should be
a developer option, not a requirement. Mr. Daniel stated he
interpreted the condition as being flexible. Mr. Willey stated
the applicant did not object to submitting an overall pedes-
trian walkway plan at schematic plan review; however, the
developer would prefer to determine when and where the instal-
lation of a walkway or pathway is feasible and would serve as
an amenity. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the intent of the
condition was to give the Planning Commission the authority and
flexibility, when needed, to make a determination as to the need
for pedestrian walkways; however, after further discussion, it
was determined to eliminate the condition.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved Case 87S016, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by Draper-Aden Associates, Inc., dated November 24,
1986, and the Textual Statement submitted with the appli-
cation shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
Upon submission of a comprehensive sign package, the
Planning Commission may modify the requirements of the
Light Industrial (M-l) District relative to signs (i.e.,
may be either more or less restrictive) to the extent that
the sign package addresses concerns relative to sign
lighting and colors, sign compatibility with architectural
styles, and that sign proliferation is not encouraged.
(p)
(Note: This Condition supersedes Condition 3 of the
Textual Statement.)
Special treatment shall be provided for any rooftops
visible from Powhite Parkway. Such special treatment
shall ensure that any heating, ventilating and air condi-
tioning equipment located on rooftops are screened and/or
incorporated into the building design. (P)
(Note: This Condition is in addition to Condition 10 of
the Textual Statement.)
A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the east
property line where adjacent to residentially or agricul-
turally zoned property. No buildings, parking or other
facilities shall be permitted within this buffer. Public
roads and utilities may be permitted through these buffers
upon approval by the Planning Commission at the time of
schematic plan review. At the time of schematic plan
review for each individual parcel or lot, which abuts the
87-576
10.
buffer, a conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission for approval. This condition
may be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of
schematic plan review if adjacent property has been zoned
for a similar use or if it is determined that adequate
buffering can be accomplished in a lesser width. (P)
The following landscaping plans shall be submitted:
(a)
A conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction
with schematic plan review for each site. The
conceptual landscaping plan shall include the general
location of existing vegetation to be retained, the
location of proposed vegetative screening and buffers
and extent of planting in parking lots and other
internal site areas.
(b)
A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval within
ninety (90) days after rough clearing and grading of
each site. In cases where substantial completion of
rough grading is not complete at the date of this
submission, an appropriate extension may be granted
by the Planning Department. (P)
(Note: This Condition is in addition to Condition 2
of the Textual Statement.)
Ail site lighting, including parking lot and roadway
standards, sign lighting, walkway lighting and accent
lighting, shall be of such design and/or location so that
the light source is substantially shielded from view and
glare is minimized. Lighting within any site that unnec-
essarily illuminates or substantially interferes with the
use and enjoyment of any other site, particularly any
future residential districts which may abut this develop-
ment, shall be prohibited. (P)
Uses permitted shall include all uses listed in the Textu-
al Statement with the exception of drive-in establishments
and truck terminals. Further, outside storage shall be
permitted subject to the conditions stated herein. All
General Industrial (M-2) uses shall be located between the
western property line and the eighty (80) foot right of
way and west of the northernmost lake. (P)
Ail public and private roads, driveways, loading areas,
and parking areas shall be paved with concrete, bituminous
concrete, or other similar material. Surface treated
parking areas and drives shall be prohibited. Concrete
curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of
all paved areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to
interfere with pedestrian traffic. (P&EE)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Condition 5 of
the Textual Statement.)
Sites shall be designed and buildings shall be oriented so
that loading areas are not visible from residential or
agriculturally zoned properties or from any public right
of way. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Conditions 5 of
the Textual Statement.)
Ail utility lines such as electric, telephone, CATV, or
other similar lines shall be installed underground. This
requirement shall apply to lines serving individual sites
as well as to utility lines necessary within the project.
All junction and access boxes shall be screened with
appropriate landscaping. All utility pad fixtures and
meters shall be shown on the site plan. The necessity for
87-577
utility connections, meter boxes, etc., shall be recog-
nized and integrated with the architectural elements of
the site plan. (P)
11.
At the time of schematic plan review for any parcel or
lot, outside storage may be permitted by the Planning
Commission if sufficient documentation is submitted which
verifies that the storage area will be screened from view
of public roads and residentially or agriculturally zoned
property. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Condition 7 of
the Textual Statement.)
12.
The permitted commercial uses shall be designed and locat-
ed in such a manner that architecture and site layout do
not project the appearance of typical strip development.
Architectural renderings/elevations shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. (P)
13.
Public water and sewer shall be used. Detailed informa-
tion relative to the square footage and anticipated waste-
water flows for all intended uses shall be submitted to
the Utility Department prior to design of required sewer
extensions. Improvements shall be made, as deemed neces-
sary by the Utility Department, to provide adequate sewer
capacity for this proposed development. (U)
14. Ail development taking place in the land area draining to
the east shall be directed to storm water detention facil-
ities. Improvements and/or detention facilities shall be
based on the most restrictive hydraulic conditions. (EE)
15.
The plans shall include downstream drainage studies on the
existing drainage swales on the east. The study shall
extend through South Ridge Road. (EE)
16.
The developer shall provide an accurate account of the
drainage situation showing existing drainage and the
impact this project will have on the site and surrounding
area. The developer shall submit an overall storm water
management plan to Engineering and VDOT providing for on-
and off-site drainage facilities. The plan shall be
approved by the Engineering Department and VDOT, and all
necessary easements shall be obtained prior to any vege-
tative disturbance. The approved off-site plan may have
to be implemented prior to clearing.
ao
The plan shall provide for an overall storm water
management program to the degree that all off-site
concerns have been addressed and resolved prior to
the schematic approval of any individual sites.
be
The plan shall include details for the repair,
upgrading, and/or design of the existing on-site
lake, as deemed necessary by the Environmental
Engineering Department. The plan shall provide for a
storm water detention facility on all drainage
courses feeding into the existing lake on adjacent
property to the east (Tax Map 48-3 (1) Parcel 2).
(EE)
17.
Prior to the release of any building permits, public road
rights of way and easements shall be recorded. (EE)
18.
Schematic and site plans shall delineate those portions of
the project which will remain wooded. Clarification on
whether these areas will remain as open space or conveyed
to individual site developers shall be provided. (EE)
19. Disturbance for the purposes of development on slopes
87-578
greater than 15% shall be allowed only upon approval by
the Environmental Engineering Department. (EE)
20.
Approval of the Master Plan does not imply that the County
gives final approval of any particular road sections. (T)
21.
The proposed project roads shall be built to VDOT stan-
dards and the proposed rights of way dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T)
22.
Road construction plans for public roads shall be submit-
ted to, and approved by, VDOT, Environmental Engineering,
and the Transportation Department. (T)
23.
Stub roads shall be provided to adjacent properties to the
east and west. This condition may be modified by the
Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan approv-
al. (T)
24.
The development shall be limited to uses and square foot-
ages which generate no more than 2,244 a.m. peak hour
trips and 1,892 p.m. peak hour trips, as determined by the
Transportation Department. This condition may be modified
by the Transportation Department at the time of schematic
plan review. (T)
And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condi-
tions:
Specific roadway improvements set forth in these con-
ditions will be accomplished by the time of full site
development and will be constructed in accordance with a
phasing plan which may be submitted to the Transportation
Department for approval in conjunction with Phase I con-
struction plans. A phasing plan, with supporting traffic
analysis, based upon the projections set forth in the
traffic impact study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associ-
ates dated January 27, 1987, with supplement dated May 11,
1987, will be submitted to the Transportation Department
prior to schematic plan review. If requested, the Devel-
oper will provide the Transportation Department with addi-
tional traffic studies upon completion of each phase of
construction. Roadway improvements shall be increased or
decreased by the Developer as required by the Transporta-
tion Department if the additional studies indicate that
traffic generation rates and distributions differ mate-
rially from the original WSA study as a sole result of the
Project. If satisfactory improvements cannot be provided,
the Planning Commission may reduce the permissible
densities to the extent that acceptable levels of service
are provided as determined by the Transportation Depart-
ment.
To provide for an adequate area roadway system at the time
of complete development of this project, the Developer
will be responsible for the following:
(a)
A four lane extension of Warbro Road into the Pro-
ject.
(b)
An additional lane of pavement along the north line
of Genito Road from the Project's eastern property
line to a point approximately 500 feet west of the
center line of Warbro Road. An additional lane of
pavement along the south line of Genito Road from the
Project's eastern line to approximately 500 feet west
of the center line of Warbro Road.
(c)
A free flow right turn lane from westbound Genito
Road onto the Warbro Road extension.
(d)
Dual left turn lanes from eastbound Genito Road onto
the Warbro Road extension.
87-579
(e)
Dual left turn lanes from the Warbro Road extension
onto eastbound Genito Road.
(f)
A free flow right turn lane from the Warbro Road
extension onto westbound Genito Road.
(g)
Provide one-half of the cost of signalization at the
Genito Road/Warbro Road intersection, if warranted
within 5 years after the last final occupancy permit
is issued.
Developer shall dedicate, or cause to have dedicated, a
strip of right-of-way along Genito Road which results in a
45 foot right-of-way width from existing road centerline
for the Project's entire frontage along Genito Road plus
all dedication necessary to complete the proffered im-
provements.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S028 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, GEORGE E. DAVIDSON, JR.,
requested a Conditional Use to permit office warehouses and
associated uses on a 4.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 600
feet on the east line of Hull Street Road, approximately 6,950
feet southwest of Skinquarter Road. Tax Map 87 (1) Parcel 12
(Sheet 27).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of this request, subject to certain conditions; however, the
applicant has requested a thirty (30) day deferral.
Mr. Richard Hawkins, representing the applicant, stated a
thirty (30) day deferral is desired. Mr. Dodd inquired if a
thirty (30) day deferral would be sufficient. Mr. Hawkins
stated he had discussed the matter with Mr. Mayes and it was
felt a thirty (30) day deferral would be sufficient.
There was no opposition to the request for a deferral.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
deferred consideration of Case 87S028 until August 26, 1987.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S037
In Dale Magisterial District, WADDILL REAL ESTATE requested
rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Residential Multi-Family
(R-MF) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 6.8 acre
parcel fronting approximately 400 feet on the west line of
Belmont Road, approximately 150 feet north of Stella Road. Tax
Map 40-12 (1) Parcel 3 and Tax Map 41-9 (1) Parcel 11 (Sheet
15).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended denial
of this request based on the fact that the proposed commercial
uses are inconsistent with the Central Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan.
Mr. Poole presented a brief summary of the request, highlight-
ing the proposed use, the requested use and bulk exceptions,
compatibility and impact on the adjacent single and multifamily
residential areas, signage, lighting, architectural style,
landscaping, etc.
Mr. Dodd stated it had come to his attention that Waddill Real
Estate was the applicant, not the agent, for this case. He
87-580
disclosed to the Board that he is involved in another business
matter with this company, declared a potential conflict of
interest, pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of
Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. George Emerson stated that, subsequent to the Planning
Commission's recommendation of denial, the partners involved in
this case canvassed the adjacent neighborhoods in an effort to
resolve residents' concerns; however, they encountered diffi-
culty in contacting many of the residents. He stated they are
in the process of arranging a meeting with area residents and
requested a thirty day deferral to discuss their concerns.
Mr. Cervany, an area property owner, voiced opposition to the
request because he felt additional multifamily complexes would
further depreciate the value of the existing single family
development. He stated many area residents are unable to
attend the Board meetings and are unaware of the ramifications
of this case. He stated a deferral is requested to provide the
opportunity for the applicant, area residents and staff to meet
to discuss/resolve concerns.
Mr. Daniel instructed staff to arrange a meeting with the
applicant and area residents to discuss concerns.
Mr. Rupert Ferguson, the property owner's son, voiced opposi-
tion to the deferral request as the case has been ongoing since
April and has already been deferred several times, with no
apparent progress. He stated the applicants have not previous-
ly discussed the proposed project with them to ascertain their
concerns and he did not feel there should be further deferrals.
Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Ferguson would support the thirty
(30) day deferral provided the request would not be deferred
any further after that period had elapsed and that a decision
would be rendered on the request at the August 26 meeting. Mr.
Ferguson stated, under those circumstances, he would not object
to the deferral.
Mr. Daniel instructed staff to arrange a meeting with area
residents and the applicants within the next three (3) weeks
and, subsequently, advise him of the results of that meeting so
a decision on the case could be rendered at the August 26,
1987, Board meeting.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
deferred consideration of Case 87S037 until August 26, 1987.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
87S045
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GENITO FOREST ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O)
of 7.1 acres, and to Community Business (B-2) of 7.4 acres,
plus Conditional Use Planned Development on the entire 14.5
acre parcel fronting approximately 395 feet on the north line
of Hull Street Road, also fronting approximately 1,000 feet on
Cedaroak Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 49-10 (1) Parcels 2 and 3
(Sheet 14).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of the request, subject to certain conditions, in addition
to the addendum, which conditions included denial of a theater
use of the property, denial of direct access to Hull Street
Road, and limiting access to Cedaroak Road to a single point
aligning with Hasty Lane. He stated subsequent to the Planning
87-581
Commission's recommendation the
thirty (30) day deferral.
applicant has requested a
There was opposition present to the deferral.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicant, presented a
summary of the request. He stated the theater developer is a
large, nationwide corporation that intends to construct a high
quality development which will not have an adverse impact on
the adjacent residential neighborhood. He stated the applicant
is requesting the following modifications to several recommend-
ed conditions:
Condition 1: Substitute July 6, 1987, as opposed to February
20, 1987, as the date of the Master Plan;
Condition 2: Insert the following: The sign package may
include an identification sign for Genito Forest Subdivi-
sion "which shall be paid for and maintained by the
developer, and shall be in addition to the signs permitted
by the requirements of the respective zoning classifica-
tion and/or the Planning Commission.";
Condition 6: Eliminate the last sentence;
Condition 8(c): Strike out line 5 and insert the following:
"an 8 foot wooden fence located approximately 10 feet from
the development, or such fence as may be" ..... ; and
At the end of the paragraph, add:
"In the event that the 8 foot wooden fence referred to
above is damaged by vandalism or the like, the developer
shall install an 8 foot chain link fence on the develop-
ment side of the fence. The 100 foot buffer strip shall
be posted.";
Condition 8 (d):
Delete entire condition;
Condition ll(a): Line 1, delete: "except theaters";
Condition 12:
Add: (e) parking for theater";
Condition 18:
Delete entire condition;
Condition 20: Substitute: "The storm drainage design for
this project shall convey the developed, paved
portions either to the 30 inch culvert under Cedaroak
Road or to the existing paved ditch to the west on
the Paragon Project, utilizing on-site retention at
the 30 inch pipe location and limiting downstream
improvements to rip rap approximately 110 feet from
Cedaroak Road once the County acquires the easements.
The buffer areas which drain naturally off of the
site onto the adjoining properties to the east will
continue to drain that way. The overall drainage
plan for this project will generally follow that as
set forth in a report entitled "Proposed Genito
Forest Business Center - Preliminary Drainage Analy-
sis'', dated May 12, 1987, by Jordan Consulting
Engineers, P.C. The off-site drainage from the
developed residential area and buffer area to the
north (Pine Mist Road area) will be conveyed through
the site to the existing 24 inch pipe at the rear of
Lot 6, Block B (Wood Thrust Court)";
New Condition 21:
theater;
No X-rated movies shall be shown at the
New Condition 22: Developer shall provide to the Planning
Commission, at the time of schematic plan review, a study
report from a sound engineer certifying that the sound
level from the proposed parking lot, adjacent to the 100
87-582
foot buffer area and fence, will be no greater than an
office or office/warehouse use on the same property."
Discussion ensued relative to the proposed uses for the site;
direct access from Hull Street Road; shared access with Genito
Crossing Shopping Center; single access or no access to Cedar-
oak Road; the impact of the development on the adjacent single
family residential neighborhood; increased traffic volumes;
pedestrian and vehicular short-cutting through the Genito
Forest Subdivision; the intensity and timing of the traffic;
loitering by people waiting to either enter or exit the movie
theater; potential safety hazards to neighborhood children
generated by approving a theater use for this site; the type of
movies to be shown; the hours of operation; signage; aesthe-
tics; influence of the theater on the neighborhood environment;
lighting; landscaping; responsibility of the developer; etc.
Ms. Donna Dollings stated she opposed approval of this request
because it would adversely impact the residential neighborhood,
generate more intense volumes of traffic and further add to the
Hull Street traffic congestion, generate cut-through pedestrian
and vehicular traffic, intrude into the evening, night-time and
weekend leisure time of area residents, increase noise levels,
etc. She requested the Board consider approval of the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
Ms. Ruth Finnegan voiced concerns relative to the adverse
influence the theater would have on the neighborhood and the
clientele it would attract, increased pedestrian and vehicular
traffic through the residential neighborhood and that such
traffic would pose a threat to their childrens' safety/welfare.
She stated she did not oppose movie theaters per se, however,
she did not feel it proper to construct them in residential
areas. She requested that the Board consider approval of the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Richard McDorman stated he opposed the proposed theater use
for the site, however, he felt it would be unfair not to
consider a thirty day deferral to allow the developer to meet
with area residents to resolve their concerns.
Mr. Dale Gipe stated he initially opposed the proposal, how-
ever, he now felt it would be an asset to the neighborhood. He
stated he felt the developer's concessions were substantial and
concerns relative to traffic, noise, landscaping, lighting,
safety, etc., had been addressed and met. He stated there were
some area residents in favor of the request and felt the
theater would be a good neighbor.
There was further discussion relative to the access plan for
this site. Mr. McCracken stated he did not envision that
staff's recommended access plan would result in any additional
traffic being distributed through the residential neighborhood.
Mr. Jacobson noted the applicant's suggested condition relative
to noise attenuation was not discussed during the Planning
Commission meeting. He stated the issue requires further study
and research and was, in part, the reason for requesting the
proposed thirty (30) day deferral.
Mr. Applegate stated he felt the proposed use was appropriate
and concerns, as discussed, would be addressed through the
conditions of zoning, as amended.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved Case 87S045, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by "The Wilson-Moreth Partnership," dated July 6,
1987, shall be considered the Master Plan. (BS)
Signs. Prior to erection of any signs, a complete sign
package, to include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc.,
87-583
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approv-
al. Signs shall comply with the requirements of the
respective zoning classification, unless modified by the
Planning Commission through schematic plan approval. The
sign package may include an identification sign for Genito
Forest Subdivision which shall be paid for, and maintained
by, the developer and shall be in addition to the signs
permitted by the requirements of the respective zoning
classification and/or the Planning Commission. (BS)
Utility lines underground. Ail utility lines such as
electric, telephone, CATV, or other similar lines shall be
installed underground. This requirement shall apply to
lines serving individual sites as well as to utility lines
necessary within the project. All junction and access
boxes shall be screened with appropriate landscaping. All
utility pad fixtures and meters shall be shown on the site
plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes,
etc., shall be recognized and integrated with the archi-
tectural elements of the site plan. (P)
Loadinq areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings
shall be oriented so as to minimize the visibility of
loading areas from adjacent residential property to the
north or public rights of way. (P)
Driveways and parking areas. Driveways and parking areas
shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or
other similar material. Surface treated parking areas and
drives shall be prohibited. Concrete curb and gutter
shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways
and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not
to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (P&EE)
Exterior lighting. Ail exterior lights shall be arranged
and installed so that the direct or reflected illumination
does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured
at the lot line of adjoining Residential (R'12) property
or public rights of way. Lighting standards shall be of a
directional type capable of shielding light source from
direct view. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department in conjunction with final site plan
review. (BS)
Architectural treatment. The architectural treatment of
the buildings shall be such that no building facade
(whether front, side, or rear) consists of architectural
materials inferior in quality, appearance, or detail to
any other facade of the building. No portion of the
building constructed of unadorned cinder block or corruga-
ted and/or sheet metal shall be visible from any adjoining
property, or public right of way. Mechanical equipment,
whether ground-level or rooftop, shall be shielded and
screened from public view and designed to be perceived as
an integral part of the building. Within the Office
Business (0) tract, buildings adjacent to residential
zoning shall not exceed a height of two (2) stories. All
other buildings shall not exceed a height of three (3)
stories. Detailed renderings depicting these requirements
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval
in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P)
Buffers and setbacks:
(a)
A five (5) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot
building setback requirement along Cedaroak Road
shall be granted. Within the twenty-five (25) foot
setback, landscaping shall be installed so as to
effectively break up the expanses of buildings as
viewed from the adjacent residential property along
Cedaroak Road. With the exception of landscaping,
and utilities which run generally perpendicular
through this setback, there shall be no other facili-
87-584
ties or other improvements within this setback. The
facades of buildings adjacent to Cedaroak Road shall
incorporate architectural features that break up the
appearance of large expanses of monotonous wall space
(i.e., broken rooflines, false windows and doors,
etc.).
(b)
A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50)
foot parking setback requirement along Route 360
shall be granted. Within the twenty-five (25) foot
setback along Route 360, a three (3) to four (4) foot
high undulating berm shall be installed. This berm
shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs.
(c)
A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northwest and northeast boundary of the Office
Business (O) tract, adjacent to residential zoning.
In conjunction with the first phase of development
(i.e., the 0 or B-2 tract, whichever occurs first),
an eight (8) foot high chain link fence with wooden
slats shall be installed within the buffer a minimum
of ninety (90) feet from the property line. The
fence shall be placed to maintain as much existing
natural vegetation as possible and, at the same time,
minimize the view of the fence fr~om both the adjacent
property, as well as from this project. Existing
vegetation shall be supplemented with additional
landscaping sufficient to screen this development
from adjacent residential properties.
Buffer widths shall be exclusive of utility ease-
ments, except for utility easements which run gen-
erally perpendicular through the buffer. Except as
noted herein, other than signs as permitted by
zoning, there shall be no other facilities permitted
within the buffers.
A conceptual landscaping plan depicting these re-
quirements shall be submitted to the Planning Commis-
sion for approval in conjunction with schematic plan
review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department for approval within
ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. (BS)
Any parking area shall have at least twenty (20) square
feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each re-
quired landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 100
square feet and have a minimum dimension of at least ten
(10) feet. With the provision of this landscaping,
parking space size may be reduced to 171.0 square feet.
Minimum width shall be 9.5 feet; minimum length shall be
eighteen (18) feet. The primary landscaping material used
in parking areas shall be trees which provide shade or are
capable of providing shade at maturity. Each required
landscaped area shall include at least one (1) small tree.
The total number of trees shall not be less than one (1)
for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of required
interior landscaped area. The remaining area shall be
landscaped with shrubs and other vegetative material to
compliment the tree landscaping. Landscaping areas shall
be reasonably dispersed throughout, located so as to
divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area
designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as
required landscaped area. A conceptual landscaping plan
depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan
depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site
plan review. (P)
10. Schematic plans shall be submitted for approval for entire
87-585
tracts (i.e., for the entire B-2 tract and/or for the
entire 0 tract). (P)
11.
Uses permitted within the Community Business (B-2) tract
shall be as follows:
(a) Ail B-1 and B-2 uses.
(b)
Drive-in establishments, when located within 200 feet
of Route 360. (BS)
12.
Uses permitted within the Office Business (0) tract shall
be as follows:
(a) Ail 0 uses.
(b)
Office/warehouses when the warehouse area does not
exceed 10,000 square feet, when there is no dock side
loading, and when the warehouse portion of any unit
does not face any residential property.
(c)
Mini-warehouses when the exterior walls of all
buildings are veneered in brick and when the quality,
style, and scale of development is similar to that
exemplified by the mini-warehouse development located
at the intersection of Huguenot and Robious Roads
(Tax Map 8-16 (1) Parcel 6 and Tax Map 9-13 (1)
Parcel 32).
(d) One (1) nursery school.
(e) Parking for theatre. (BS)
13. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
14.
Prior to the issuance to an occupancy permit, additional
pavement, curb, and gutter shall be constructed along Hull
Street Road for the entire property frontage. (T)
15. Additional pavement, curb, and gutter shall be constructed
along Cedaroak Road from Hull Street Road north, as deemed
necessary by the Transportation Department. (T)
16.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, thirty (30)
feet of right of way, measured from centerline of Cedaroak
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chester-
field, free and unrestricted. (T)
17.
Access to the Office Business (O) tract shall be via the
adjacent Office Business (0) tract to the west, and/or the
Community Business (B-2) tract to the south and/or south-
west. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning
Commission may modify this requirement, to permit access
to Cedaroak Road from the Office Business (O) tract, if
documentation is provided to indicate that such access
shall not adversely affect adjacent residential develop-
ment. (p)
18.
An ingress only shall be permitted directly from Hull
Street Road. Another ingress and all egress shall be
permitted to the shared driveway on adjacent property to
the west. (BS)
19.
The developer shall provide an accurate account of the
drainage situation showing existing drainage and the
impact this development will have on the site and sur-
rounding area. The developer shall submit an overall
storm water management and site construction plan to
Environmental Engineering and the VDOT providing for
on-site and off-site drainage facilities in accordance
with the Environmental Engineering section of the "Request
Analysis and Recommendation." The plans shall be approved
by the Environmental Engineering Department and VDOT, and
87-586
all necessary easements shall be obtained prior to any
vegetative disturbance. The approved off-site plan may
have to be implemented prior to clearing. (EE)
20.
The storm drainage design for this project shall convey
the developed, paved portions either to the thirty (30)
inch culvert under Cedaroak Road or to the existing paved
ditch to the west on the Paragon Project, utilizing
on-site retention at the thirty (30) inch pipe location
and limiting downstream improvements to rip rap approx-
imately 110 feet from Cedaroak Road once the County
acquires the easements. The buffer areas which drain
naturally off of the site onto the adjoining properties to
the east, will continue to drain that way. The overall
drainage plan for this project will generally follow that
as set forth in a report entitled "Proposed Genito Forest
Business Center - Preliminary Drainage Analysis," dated
May 12, 1987, by Jordan Consulting Engineers, P.C. The
off-site drainage from the developed residential area and
buffer area to the north (Pinemist Road area) will be
conveyed through the site to the existing twenty-four (24)
inch pipe at the rear of Lot 6, Block B (Woodthrush
Court). (BS)
21.
The owner/developer shall notify the adjacent property
owners of the entire tract (i.e., Tax Map 49-10 (1)
Parcels 2 and 3) of the time and date of the Planning
Commission's consideration of any schematic plan review.
(cpc)
(Note: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval or
building permits, schematic plans must be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval.)
And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condi-
tions:
1. No X-rated movies shall be shown at the theatre. (BS)
Developer shall provide to the Planning Commission, at the
time of schematic plan review, a study report from a sound
engineer certifying that the sound level from the proposed
parking lot adjacent to the 100 foot buffer area and fence
will be no greater than an office use on the same pro-
perty. (BS)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S051
In Bermuda Magisterial District, SUPERIOR SIGN PRODUCTIONS
requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development
(Case 85S117) relative to signs. This request lies in a Conve-
nience Business (B-l) District on a 1.9 acre parcel fronting
approximately 439 feet on the south line of West Hundred Road,
also fronting approximately 757 feet on Old Bermuda Hundred
Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of these roads. Tax Map 117-12 (3) Midway Farms, Lots 1, 2, 3,
4, and 4b (Sheet 33).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended denial
of the request for a five (5) foot exception to the thirteen
(13) foot height limitation for signs in the "Special Sign
District" and exception to the requirement that signfields be
opaque. He stated, however, the Planning Commission recommend-
ed approval of a two (2) foot exception to the thirteen (13)
foot height limitation for signs in the "Special Sign Dis-
trict'', subject to a single condition.
Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., representing the applicant, stated the
Planning Commission's recommendation was acceptable.
87-587
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
denied the request for a five (5) foot exception to the thir-
teen (13) foot height limitation for signs in the "Special Sign
District" and an exception to the requirement that signfields
be opaque.
Further, the Board approved a two (2) foot exception to the
thirteen (13) foot height limitation for signs in the "Special
Sign District", subject to the following condition:
Signs shall comply with the requirements of Special Sign
Districts for shopping centers in a Convenience Business
(B-l) District, except that the freestanding sign may have
a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet and shall be located
near the easternmost entrance/exit. (CPC)
(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 15 of Case
85S117.)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S055
In Midlothian Magisterial District, MERIDIAN NURSING CENTERS,
INC. requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit
a nursing home in a Residential (R-7) District on a 4.5 acre
parcel fronting approximately 345 feet on the northeast line of
Old Buckingham Road, approximately 530 feet northwest of
Alverser Drive. Tax Map 16-8 (1) Parcels 1 and 3 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended denial
of this request because it felt the proposed use did not
conform to the designated use (office) in the Northern Area
Land Use and Transportation Plan and that the proposed use
would be out of character with area development trends and
would not be appropriate in such close proximity to the sur-
rounding residential neighborhood. He stated the applicant has
requested a deferral to the Board of Supervisor's December 9,
1987, meeting.
A representative for the applicant stated a deferral to the
Board's December 9, 1987, meeting was desired.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
deferred consideration of Case 87S055 to 2:00 p.m. on December
9, 1987.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S065
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, B. HANCEL BONDS requested
amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S016)
to permit an automobile lubrication center in a Community
Business (B-2) District on a 0.5 acre parcel fronting approxi-
mately 350 feet on the west line of Genito Road, approximately
350 feet north of Hull Street Road. Tax Map 49-9 (1) Part of
Parcel 18 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. B. Hancel Bonds stated the recommended conditions were
acceptable.
87-588
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved Case 87S065, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by Wilkins and Watkins, Inc., dated March 18, 1987,
shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 1 of Case
84S016 (Amended) for the request parcel.)
There shall be no outside storage of inoperative vehicles.
(p)
The use permitted shall be confined to the lubrication of
vehicles only. The repair of vehicles shall not be
permitted. (P)
Prior to erection of any signs, a complete sign package,
to include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc., shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Signs
shall comply with the requirements of the respective
zoning classification, unless modified by the Planning
Commission through schematic plan approval. (P)
(Note: The freestanding sign depicted on the Master Plan
must be set back at least fifteen (15) feet from the
ultimate right of way for Genito Road.)
Within the parking setback along Genito Road, landscaping
shall be installed to minimize the view of parking and
driveway areas from Genito Road. A conceptual landscaping
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading.
(p)
A utility easement shall be dedicated to and for the
County of Chesterfield for the purpose of extending public
water from Genito Road to the property west of the request
site. The exact location of this easement shall be de-
termined by the Utilities Department in conjunction with
site plan review. (P)
(Note: Prior to issuance of a building permit or final
site plan approval, schematic plans must be submitted to
the Planning Commission for approval.)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S067
In Dale Magisterial District, S. AND J. ENTERPRISES requested
rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Agricultural (A) with
Conditional Use to permit office/warehouses on a 0.25 acre
parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the east line of
Goodes Bridge Road, approximately 290 feet north of Walmsley
Boulevard. Tax Map 40-2 (1) Part of Parcel 30 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Sam Waldren stated the recommended conditions were accept-
able.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
87-589
approved Case 87S067, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan titled
"Proposed Addition to 2701 Olde Goodes Bridge Road," dated
February 26, 1987, shall be considered the plan. (P)
A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
eastern boundary of the subject property. A double row of
evergreen trees and shrubs, having an initial height of
five (5) feet, shall be installed. Along the western edge
of the buffer, a wall or solid board fence not less than
eight (8) feet in height shall be installed. (P)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance will also require that all
driveways and parking areas be screened from view of the
adjacent Residential (R-7) property to the north.)
Uses permitted shall be limited to business or profession-
al offices, general contractor's offices, and warehouses.
(p)
4. There shall be no outside storage. (P)
The proposed addition shall have the same architectural
style as the existing office/warehouses. The building
shall be designed such that offices front Goodes Bridge
Road· (P)
6. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of any new driveways and parking areas. (EE)
The conditions stated herein notwithstanding, the bulk
requirements of the Convenience Business (B-l) District
shall be applicable. (P)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that all dumpsters
be screened.)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S068
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES II
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12).
A single family residential subdivision is planned. This
request lies on a 12.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 50
feet on the south line of West Providence Road, approximately
1,450 feet southwest of Loch Braemar Drive. Tax Map 38-12 (1)
Part of Parcel 16 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of the request and acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Mr. Ashby Stinson stated the recommendation was acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved Case 87S068 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
Ail lots shall average no less than 19,000 square feet
with a minimum of 12,000 square feet.
2. Total density shall not exceed 2.0 lots per acre.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87-590
87S069
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BUILDERS SQUARE, INC.
requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit outside
storage in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 0.04 acre
parcel lying approximately 700 feet off the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, measured from a point approximately 750
feet east of Granite Spring Road. Tax Map 19-10 (1) Part of
Parcel 1 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of this request, subject to certain conditions.
No one was present to represent the request.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved Case 87S069, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submit-
ted with the application shall be considered the Master
Plan for the outdoor storage area. The outdoor storage
area shall be confined to the area located between the two
(2) existing structures, provided sufficient area, as
approved by Fire Prevention, is reserved to accommodate
emergency vehicle access. (P)
The outdoor storage area shall be screened from view of
adjacent property to the north and south. Within fifteen
(15) days of the approval of this request, a screening
plan, depicting the method of screening, shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department for approval. The required
screening shall be installed within thirty (30) days of
approval of the plan by the Planning Department. (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan. (P)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S073
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, TRICITY INSULATION, INC.
requested amendment to Conditional Use (Case 74S124) to permit
a warehouse addition in an Agricultural (A) District on a 3.1
acre parcel fronting approximately 185 feet on the east line of
Turner Road, approximately 470 feet north of Cloverleaf Drive.
Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 15 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Michael Magalis, representing the applicant, stated the
recommended conditions were acceptable.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the request conformed to the designa-
ted uses as outlined in the Turner Road Corridor Land Use and
Transportation Plan. Mr. Jacobson stated this request is for
expansion of an existing use and it did conform to the Plan.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved Case 87S073, subject to the following conditions:
The plan submitted with the application shall be con-
sidered the conceptual plan for the proposed warehouse
addition. (P)
(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 1 of Case
74S124.)
87-591
Prior to release of a building permit, all materials
and/or debris shall be enclosed within the existing build-
ing or within dumpsters or removed from the site. (P)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance and conditions of approval
for Case 74S124 prohibit outside storage at this site. In
addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires that dumpsters be
screened.)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87S075
In Matoaca Magisterial District, WILLIAM B. DUVAL AND GENE H.
DUVAL requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential
(R-12). A single family residential subdivision is planned.
This request lies on a 323.3 acre parcel fronting approximately
5,454 feet on the west line of Bailey Bridge Road, also front-
ing approximately 3,813 feet on North Spring Run Road, and
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these
roads. Tax Map 76 (1) Parcels 39 and 40 and Tax Map 91 (1)
Parcel 41 (Sheets 20 and 29).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approv-
al of rezoning to Residential (R-15) for a depth of 700 feet
from Bailey Bridge Road and to Residential (R-12) for the
remainder of the property, subject to a single condition. He
stated however, since the Planning Commission's recommendation,
staff met with the Matoaca Magisterial District Supervisor and
the applicants and the applicants submitted proffered condi-
tions which address the transition development in this area
from the smaller lots to the north and west to the larger
lots along Bailey Bridge Road as well as minimum square foot-
ages of house sizes.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicants, stated the
recommended condition was acceptable and requested the Board
accept the applicant's proffered condition.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved rezoning to Residential R-12, subject to the following
condition:
A fifty (50) foot building setback line and buffer, exclusive
of utility easements, shall be provided on lots adjacent to
Bailey Bridge Road and Spring Run Road. The area within this
buffer shall be planted and/or left in its natural state if
there is sufficient vegetation to provide adequate screening.
Prior to recordation of subdivision plats, the developer shall
flag this buffer for inspection by the Planning Department.
If sufficient vegetation does not exist, a landscaping plan
shall be approved by the Planning Department and a bond posted
to cover the cost of implementing the plan, prior to recorda-
tion of subdivision plats. This building setback line and
buffer shall be noted on final check and record plats. The
Planning Commission may modify this condition at the time of
tentative subdivision review to allow for access break(s).
(P&T)
And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condi-
tion:
The following minimum square footage shall govern house sizes:
One story (ranch style)
One and one-half story
Two story
1,550 gross square feet
1,700 gross square feet
1,800 gross square feet
Also all lots which back up to both Spring Run and Bailey
87-592
Bridge Roads shall conform to R-15 bulk regulations.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
12. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adjourned at 4:22 p.m. (EDST) until 9:00 a.m. on August 12,
1987, for an Executive Session to discuss personnel matters,
pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Mayes.
87-593
Chairman