13SN0135
CASE MANAGER: Darla Orr
October 16, 2012CPC
December 10, 2012 CPC
March 19, 2013 CPC
May 21, 2013 CPC
July 16, 2013 CPC
August 20, 2013 CPC
September 18, 2013 BS
STAFF’S
BS Time Remaining:
REQUEST ANALYSIS
365 days
AND
RECOMMENDATION
13SN0135
(AMENDED)
Nash Road/Woodpecker Road, LLC
DaleMagisterial District
Gates Elementary; Matoaca Middle; and Matoaca High Schools Attendance Zones
Southeast line of Nash Road
REQUEST:(AMENDED) Amendment of zoning (Cases 10SN0205 and 05SN0229) to
modify the schedule for payment of a transportation contribution and to amend a
cash proffer to prevent the cash proffer payment from exceeding the Board of
Supervisors’ maximum acceptable cash proffer amount. Specifically, Proffered
Condition 1 of Case 10SN0205 would be modified to convert the periodic lump
sum transportation contributions to per dwelling unit cash proffer payments. In
addition, Proffered Condition 6 of Case 05SN0229 would be modified to prevent
the cash proffer payment from exceeding the Board of Supervisors’ maximum
cash proffer in place at the time the payment is made.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single-family residential development, known as Sundial Farmsat the
Highlands,is being developed. Based on the fifty (50) lots recorded in Section
One of this development, which yielded a density of approximately 0.45dwelling
units per acre, it is anticipated that the overall development will yield a maximum
of approximately 206dwelling units.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
AYES: MESSRS. WALLIN,GULLEY AND WALLER.
NAYS: MESSRS. BROWN ANDPATTON.
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² °«¾´·½ »®ª·½»
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendapprovalfor the following reasons:
A.The proposed proffer maintains full allocation of the payments to road
improvements as with Case 10SN0205,and will continue to provide flexibility in
the use of the funds to provide needed road improvements.
B.The proposed proffer provides the ability for the proffer payments to be escalated
while Case 10SN0205 did not provide the ability for the lump sum payments to be
escalated.Also, the proposed proffer prevents the payments from exceeding the
Board’s maximum cash proffer in place at the time the payment is made.
C.The proposed amendment to Case 05SN0229 leaves the cash proffer amount
unchanged (currently at $16,814 per dwelling unit). The proposed amendment
prevents the per unit cash proffer payment from exceeding the Board’s maximum
cash proffer in place at the time the payment is made.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS. CONDITION(S)
NOTED “STAFF” ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
Zoning Application Chesterfield Nash Road/WoodpeckerRoad, LLC for an amendment to a
previous zoning case on Chesterfield County Tax ID’s 764-651-8397 and 9675; 764-652-2073,
3652, 5794, 5945, 7128 and 9038; 764-653-7161 and 9082; 764-654-7731; 765-651-1286 and
8282; 765-652-0116; 765-653-0570, 2660, 3491, 4805 and 8964; 766-652-5669; 766-653-0613;
768-654-0842 and 769-652-7448 as set forth herein below.
The Applicant hereby amends condition #1 of Case No. 10SN0205 to read as follows:
rd
(STAFF)1.Beginning with the 43building permit for dwelling unitson
GPIN 768-654-0842, the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s)
shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the
issuance of a building permit for infrastructure improvements
within the service district for the property; provided however that
for the period through June 30, 2017, the applicant, sub-divider, or
assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield,
immediately after completion of the final inspection:
A.$9,522 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2014; or
B.If paid after June 30, 2014, $9,522 per dwelling unit
adjusted annually in accordance with the cash proffer
policy.
î ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
C.At the time of payment for a specific dwelling unit(s), the
applicant shall pay to the County the lesser of:
1.the amount calculated in accordance with the
foregoing paragraphs, or
2,the amount established as the maximum cash
proffer in place in the County’s then-current cash
proffer policy.
Provided further, however, if the County is compelled by a final non-
appealable court order to return the $400,000 previously paid for the 2012
payment obligation per Case 10SN0205, then the payments referenced
above shall begin with the first building permit or the first final inspection,
as applicable.If at the time of such final non-appealable court order the
County has already released any of the first forty-two building permits or
final inspections for these dwelling units, then the applicant, sub-divider or
assignee shall reimburse the County $9,522 per dwelling unit, adjusted
annually in accordance with the cash proffer policy, for all such dwelling
units.
The payments shall be used for road improvements within Traffic Shed 17
or for road improvements that provide relief to that Traffic Shed, as
determined by the Transportation Department. (B)
The Applicant hereby amends condition #6 of Case No. 05SN0229 to read as follows:
(STAFF)2.Cash Proffer.
A.Except as otherwise provided herein, for each single family
residential dwelling unit developed, the applicant,
subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay $11,500.00 per unit to
the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, for infrastructure improvements within the
service district for the Property if paid prior to July 1, 2005;
provided however that for the period through June 30,
2017, the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay
the following to the County of Chesterfield, immediately
after completion of the final inspection. Thereafter, such
payment shall be the amount approved by the Board of
Supervisors not to exceed $11,500.00 per unit as adjusted
upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index between July 1, 2004 and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30,
2005. The per dwelling unitcash proffer amount shall be
prorated among schools, roads, libraries, fire stations, and
í ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
parks and recreation facilities by the County’s Department
of Budget and Management.
B.Cash proffers shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as
otherwise permitted by law.
C.At the time of payment for a specific dwelling unit(s), the
applicant shall pay to the County the lesser of:
1.the amount calculated in accordance with the
foregoing paragraphs, or
2.the amount established as the maximum cash
proffer in place in the County’s then-current cash
proffer policy.(B)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property is locatedon the southeast line of Nash Road, northeast of Eastfair
Drive. Tax IDs 764-651-8397 and 9675, 764-652-2073, 3652, 5794, 5945, 7128 and 9038,
764-653-7161 and 9082, 764-654-7731, 765-651-1286 and 8282, 765-652-0116, 765-653-
0570, 2660, 3491, 4805 and 8964, 766-652-5669, 766-653-0613, 768-654-0842 and 769-
652-7448.
Existing Zoning:
R-40
Size:
396.5acres
Existing Land Use:
Residential or vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North–A; Single-family residential or vacant
South–R-25; Single-family residential or vacant
East –A and I-2; Industrial (landfill) or vacant
West –A and R-25; Single-family residential or vacant
ì ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
UTILITIESAND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations and transportation facilities in this area is
identified in the County's adopted Public Facilities Plan,Thoroughfare Planand Capital
Improvement Programand further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of
this request analysis.
Fire Service:
ThePublic Facilities Plan, as part of the Comprehensive Plan, indicates that fire and
emergency medical service (EMS) calls increased by forty-four (44) percent from 2001 to
2011, significantly faster than the County’s population increase of seventeen (17)
percent. Of the total incidents in 2011, nearly seventy-six (76) percent were medical
emergencies and twenty-four (24) percent were fire-related. It is expected that with the
general aging of the population,medical emergency incidents will increase faster than the
rate of population growth over time. Five (5) new fire/rescue stations are recommended
for construction by 2022 in the Plan. In addition to the five (5) new stations, the Planalso
recommends the replacement/revitalization of four (4) existing stations.
Based on 206 dwelling units, the development will generate approximately fifty-nine (59)
calls for fire and emergency medical service (EMS)each year. The applicant has not
addressed the impact to Fire and EMS.
The Airport Fire Station, Company Number 15, currently provides fire protection and
EMS. When the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed
for fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review
process.
Schools:
The proposed development would yield approximately 206 units.Based on the Cash
Proffer methodology, this development would yield 101 new students (Elementary: 43,
Middle: 25, High: 33). Currently, this site lies in the Gates Elementary School zone:
capacity -898, enrollment -733; Matoaca Middle School zone: capacity -1,438,
enrollment -1,122; and Matoaca High School zone: capacity -1,524, enrollment -1,837.
The enrollment is based on October 1, 2012 membership and the capacity is as of the
2012-2013 school year.
The proposed development will have a substantial impact on the aforementioned schools
involved, especially at the elementary and high school levels.The elementary and
secondary school students generated by the proposal would continue to push enrollment
ë ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
near and beyond capacity at each school.There are currently three(3) trailers at Matoaca
Middleand three (3) trailers at Matoaca High School.
Over time this case, combined with other tentative residential developments, infill
developments and zoning cases in the area, will continue to push elementary and
secondary schools beyond their capacity.Therefore, the aforementioned units should be
subject to full Cash Proffers, to mitigate the impact that this proposed development would
have on schools. The applicant has not fully addressed the impact of this development on
schools.
Libraries:
Residential development in this area of the County would most likely impact the Central
Library, but could also impact the Chester Library or the Ettrick-Matoaca Library.The
Public Facilities Planidentifies a need to expand the Central and Ettrick-Matoaca
Libraries and to provide an additional library in the Chester service area.The request fails
to address the impacts of this development on library facilities.
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Planidentifies the need for three (3) regional parks totaling 600
acres, ten (10) community parks totaling 790 acres, nine (9) neighborhood parks totaling
180 acres, and three (3) water-based special purpose parks. The Planalso identifies the
need for urban parks within mixed usedevelopments to compliment and provide linkages
to the County’s park system. The Planidentifies the need for linear parks andtrails and
resource-based special purpose parks [historical, cultural and environmental] and makes
suggestions for their locations. The Planalso addresses the need to expand existing park
sites to meet level of service standards. The Planalso identifies the need to improve
access to blueways through the acquisition of easements and properties. Co-location with
schools and other compatible public facilities is desired. The applicant has not fully
addressed the impact of this development on Parks and Recreation facilities.
County Department of Transportation:
In November 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning (Case 04SN0182) of
approximately 438 acres to allow a residential (R-40) development; Sundial Farms. As
part of that approval, the Board accepted several transportation related proffers. Proffered
Condition 3.e of Case 04SN0182 includes a requirement for the developer at time of
recordation of the initial subdivision section to contribute to the county for area road
improvements $400,000 or $9,522 for each recorded lot, whichever yields the higher
payment amount. The proffer also requires the developer to continueto provide annual
payments of $400,000, regardless of development activity on the property, until the total
annual payments reach $2,000,000.
Subsequent to that approval, the Board of Supervisors approved residential rezoning of
an adjacent 20-acre parcel, and accepted a proffered condition (Proffered Condition 6 of
ê ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Case 05SN0229) that requires cash proffer payment ($11,500 per lot adjusted by Board
of Supervisors’ approved increases based on Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index).
The 20-acre parcel has been incorporated into the Sundial Development.
In April 2008, the developer recorded the first subdivision section that consisted of fifty
(50) lots (Sundial Farms Section One), and paid the initial $400,000 payment and an
additional $76,100 because ofthe number of recorded lots. In April 2009, the developer
did not pay the second $400,000 payment. In April 2010, the Board of Supervisors
approved a request (Case 10SN0205) to defer the second payments until June 30, 2012.
The developer has provided the second payment.
The applicant is now requesting relief of the lump sum payment requirement on the
remaining undeveloped lots/parcels that were included in Case 04SN0182. The applicant
has proffered to contribute cash for each dwelling unit (Proffered Condition 1).
Additional information is available in the Fiscal Impact on Capital Facilitiessection of
this report.
Virginia Department of Transportation(VDOT):
VDOT has no comment on this request.
Fiscal Impacton Capital Facilities:
Per Dwelling
Unit
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units1561.00
Population Increase408.722.62
Number of New Students
Elementary32.920.21
Middle17.780.11
High23.870.15
Total74.570.48
Net Cost For Schools$ 1,473,420 $ 9,445
Net Cost for Parks$ 194,532 $ 1,247
Net Cost for Libraries$ 50,388 $ 323
Net Cost For Fire Stations$ 110,604 $ 709
Average Net Cost Roads$ 1,250,964 $ 8,019
Total Net Cost$ 3,079,908 $ 19,743
*Based on an estimated maximum yield of approximately 156 lots which excludes the already
recorded fifty (50) lots. The actual number of units and corresponding impact may vary.
This proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has calculated the
fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, roads, parks, libraries and fire stations at
é ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
$19,743 per unit. The applicant has been advised that a maximum proffer of $18,966per unit
would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed development.
Case 04SN0182 was approved with the requirement to pay $2,000,000 in a series of annual
payments of either $400,000 or in the amount of $9,522 per unit times the number of lots being
recorded with a subdivision plat. The approved condition (Proffered Condition 3.e.) requires the
payment of what would be the larger of these two (2) figures in a year’s time. After the
recordation of more than 210 lots on theproperty, the applicant is required to pay $9,522 per
dwelling unit for transportation improvements. This case included the option for payments to be
reduced if the applicant makes certain road improvements mutually agreed upon by the applicant
and the Transportation Department.
With the approval of Case 10SN0205 in April 2010, Proffered Condition 3.e. of Case 04SN0182
was amended to remedy a delinquency in a $400,000 payment of a transportation contribution
and to modify the payment schedule to extend the payment due date by two (2) years, to June 30,
2012. The requirements of Case 04SN0182 to pay a series of annual payments or an amount per
unit times the number of lots being recorded with a subdivision plat (with the option to reduce
payments for road construction), as well as the per unit payment for more than 210 lots, were not
changed.
The applicant has remedied a previous delinquent transportation contribution of $400,000. In
October 2012, the applicant posted with the County an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount
of $400,000 to ensure compliance with the transportation proffer. The County has received and
deposited the $400,000 payment as of March 2013 and agreed not to expend the funds prior to
July 1, 2013. The requirement to make a paymentof $400,000 that was due on June 30, 2012,
was satisfied. The conditions of zoning proffered by the applicant and approved by the Board of
Supervisors require an additional payment of $400,000 on June 30, 2013. The applicant is
delinquent in making that payment.
To remedy that delinquency, this request includes a cash proffer that converts the periodic lump
sum transportation contributions in Case 10SN0205, including the $400,000 unpaid amount that
rd
was due June 30, 2013, to per dwelling unit cash proffer payments beginning with the 43
rd
building permit. The proffer is styled requiring payments to begin with the 43building permit
since the County has received payments in an amount that satisfies the requirement for ninety-
two (92) dwelling units (fifty (50) lots recorded with Section 1, and forty-two (42) additional
lots).
In the amendment to Case 10SN0205, the proposed cash proffer of $9,522 per dwelling unit is
entirely dedicated to transportation improvements within Traffic Shed 17 or for road
improvements that provide relief to Traffic Shed 17, as determined by the County’s
Transportation Department. Furthermore, the applicant has amended the proffer so that the cash
proffer payments will be escalated in future years in accordance with the Board of Supervisor’s
Cash Proffer Policy. The previous proffer did not provide the ability for the lump sum payments
to be escalated. The proposed per dwelling unit cash proffer also prevents the payment from
exceeding the Board’s maximum cash proffer in place at the time the payment is made, a concept
discussed by the Board of Supervisors in a previous work session.
è ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff has reviewed the proposed proffer and finds it acceptable as it 1) maintains the full
allocation of the payments to road improvements; 2) continues to provide the County with
flexibility in the use of the funds to provide needed road improvements; and 3) includes an
escalation provision for the payments.
The proposed amendment to Case 05SN0229 leaves the cash proffer unchanged (currently at
$16,814 per dwelling unit –applied to schools, roads, parks, libraries and fire stations) except for
the revision that prevents the per unit cash proffer payment from exceeding the Board’s
maximum cash proffer in place at the time the payment is made. Staff finds this amendment
acceptable.
The applicant has not fully addressed the impacts of this development on schools, roads, parks,
fire stations and libraries. The Cash Proffer Policy allows the County to assess the impact of all
dwelling units in previously approved zoning cases that come back before the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors using the calculated capital facility costs in effect at the
time the case is reconsidered. It is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer of $18,966 for
each dwelling unit.
The Planning Commission and the Board can evaluate this case by measuring the proffered
conditions against this case’s current cash proffer for lump sum and per dwelling unit payments;
under this approach, staff believes the applicant hasproffered a fair proposal.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this
request, may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request that may
justify acceptance of proffers as offered forthis case.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plandesignates the request property as aResidential Agricultural area
wherea combination of agricultural uses and residential uses at a maximum density of 0.5
dwellings per acreare appropriate.
AreaDevelopment Trends:
Properties adjacent to the north and generally west of the request property are zoned
Agricultural (A) and are occupied by largelot single-family residential uses.Properties to
the south are zoned Residential (R-25) and are occupiedby single-family residential use
within the Highlands Subdivision.Properties to the east are zoned Agricultural and
Heavy Industrial (I-3) and are occupied by industrial uses (landfill) or are vacant.It is
anticipated that largerlot residential development will continue in the area generally
north, south and west of the request property,as recommended by the Plan.
Zoning/Subdivision History:
On November 23, 2004 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by
the Planning Commission, approved rezoning (Case 04SN0184) of 438 acres (of which
ç ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
the request property is a part) from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) subject to
conditions pertaining to an on-site dam, timbering limitation; trails/open space along
Swift Creek, restrictive covenants, a prohibition of manufactured homes, certain
transportation improvements; and an agreement to pay a transportation contribution.The
transportation contribution is an agreement by the developer to pay $2,000,000in a series
of annual payments of either $400,000 or in the amount of $9,522 per unit times the
number of lots being recorded with a subdivision plat (Proffered Condition 3.e. of Case
04SN0184).The approved condition requires the payment of what would be the larger of
these two(2)figuresin a year’s time. The proffered condition also offers that, after the
recordation of more than 210 lots on the property, the applicant would pay $9,522 per
dwelling unit for transportation improvements.With amutual agreement between the
Transportation Departmentand the developer, the proffered condition would allow a
credit for road improvements towards these payments.
OnMay 25, 2005 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the
Planning Commission, approved rezoning (Case 05SN0229)ontwenty (20) acres of the
request property from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) subject to the same
conditions as Case 04SN0184, except that instead of a transportation contribution,
Proffered Condition 6 offered a cash payment of $11,500per dwelling unit to defray the
developments impacts on capital facilities.
On August 27, 2007 the Planning Department approved an amendment to the tentative
subdivision plan (05TS0332) for Sundial Farms.The tentative plan was approved for 240
lots on properties zoned with Case 04SN0184 and 05SN0229.
On April8,2008 Section One of the Sundial Farms subdivision was recorded with fifty
(50) lots on 110 acres, yielding a density of approximately 0.45 dwelling units per acre.
OnApril 28, 2010 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the
Planning Commission, approved amendment (Case 10SN0205) to zoning Case
04SN0182 to grant relief of a delinquency in payment of a transportation contribution
and to extend the payment due date.This approval was granted subject to a proffered
condition that extended the payment date two (2) years to June 30, 2012; excluded
recordedlots that are transferred to third-party purchasers between the time of approval
and the next payment due date;required a cash payment at the time of building permit for
lots in excess of 160;and,continued the option for road improvements, if agreed upon by
the Transportation Department and the developer, to offset the impact on transportation
capital facilities.
OnAugust 7, 2013the Board of Zoning Appeals,deferredconsiderationof Case
13AN0139at the request of the applicant,to their November 6, 2013 meeting. This case
was filed by the applicant’s representativeon September 21, 2012, to appeal the
determination that Touchstone Development, LLC is in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance due to failure to pay the required fees as specified by Proffered Condition 1 of
Case 10SN0205.The applicant’s representative identified the basis of the appeal to be
(summarized here generally): the State code requirement regarding when Cash Proffers
ïð ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
are collected; the unreasonableness of the proffer given the current housing crisis and
economic downturn; and, the County’sinability to deny building permits for non-
payment of proffered transportation contributions.
Architecture:
Both Case 04SN0182 and 05SN0229 were approved with proffered conditions that
require restrictive covenants to be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of any
subdivision plat which subjects said lots to all thecovenants, conditions and restrictions
currently in effect in all sections of the Highlands development.These covenants include
design guidelines for homes.It is important to note that the County will ensure that these
covenants are recorded but will not be responsible for their enforcement.Once the
covenants are recorded they can be changed. The applicant has notproffered additional
architectural standards.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment to Case 10SN0205 maintains the full allocation of the cash proffer
payments to road improvements; continues to provide the County with flexibility in the use of
the funds to provide needed road improvements; and includes an escalation provision for the
payments. (Proffered Condition)
The proposed amendment to Case 05SN0229 leaves the cash proffer unchanged (currently at
$16,814 per dwelling unit) except that the proposed proffer prevents the per unit payment from
exceeding the Board’s maximum cash proffer in place at the time the payment is made.
(Proffered Condition)
Given these considerations,approval of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (10/16/12):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their December 10, 2012
public hearing.The applicant did not consent to the deferral.
Staff (10/17/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than October 22, 2012 for consideration at the
Commission’s December 10, 2012 public hearing.
ïï ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (11/7/12):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/10/12):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their March 19, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (12/11/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than January 7, 2013 for consideration at the Commission’s
March 19, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (2/21/13):
To date, no new or revised information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/19/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their May 21, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (3/20/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 25, 2013 for consideration at the Commission’s
May 21, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (4/26/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/21/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their July 16, 2013 public hearing.
ïî ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Staff (5/22/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
shouldbe submitted no later than May 28, 2013 for consideration at the Commission’s
July 16, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (6/17/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Applicant (7/8, 7/15 and 7/16/13):
Revisions to the proffered condition weresubmitted and, on July 16, 2013,the applicant
amended the zoning application to request approval of an amendment to Proffered
Condition 6 of Case 05SN0229 rather than deleting the proffer as originally requested.
Planning Commission Meeting (7/16/13):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their August 20, 2013 public
hearing.
Staff (7/17/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than July 22, 2013 for consideration at the Commission’s
August 20, 2013 public hearing.
Applicant (8/7/13and 8/15/13):
Revisions to the proffered condition were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (8/20/13):
The applicant’s representative accepted staff’s recommendation,but did not accept the
Planning Commission’s recommendation.
In response to Commission’s questions about the value of different payment schedules
(lump sum vs. per unit payments)and guidance from the Cash Proffer Policy and Board
of Supervisors,Alan Carmody, Budget Director, stated that the Board has not revised the
policy relative to lump sum paymentsand the current policy allows for flexibility in
ïí ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
consideration of each case. He stated that he views this case as a proposal to convert a
method of payment and the escalation clause enhances the conversion of payment from
lump sum to per unit. He responded that there may be a difference in value of a lump
sum payment verses per lot payments over time and that specific information on that
differencecould be provided.
In response to questions regarding the Transportation Department’s support for removing
the lump sum payment requirement, John McCracken, Director of the Transportation
Department, offered a history of the case as it related to the extension of Nash Road out
to Route 10. He stated he felt per lot payments were appropriate now and that
Transportation still supports the extension of Nash Road, as shown on the Thoroughfare
Plan.
Dr. Wallin expressed concerns that the proffered conditions do not fully address the
impacts on facilities other than roads.
Dr. Brown and Mr. Patton explained that they felt like the current proposal offers a fair
compromise. Dr. Brown added that he believes the escalation offered with the payments
off-sets the difference in value of a lump sum payment and a per lot amount.
Amotion made by Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Patton, to recommend approval of the
request, and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 through 4, failed. (AYES:
Messrs. Brown and Patton,NAYS: Messrs. Wallin, Gulley and Waller)
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission recommended
denial.
AYES: Messrs. Wallin, Gulley and Waller.
NAYS: Messrs. Brownand Patton.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, September 18, 2013beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
ïì ïíÍÒðïíëóÍÛÐïèóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
EXISTING CONDITIONS OF ZONING CASES 10SN0205 & 05SN0229
Case 10SN0205
The following condition shall apply to all properties:
1.The Applicant hereby amends Proffered Condition
3e as follows:
Transportation Contribution. The Applicant, its
successor,or its assigns (the “Applicant”) has
recorded one subdivision plat and paid $476,100
(the “Previously Paid Amount”) to Chesterfield
County. In addition, the Applicant shall pay to
Chesterfield County either: 1) prior to June 30,
2012, the sum of $400,000 and every twelve months
from the date of that payment thereafter shall
pay $400,000, until all the lots on the Property
have been recorded or until these cumulative
payments equal to $1,523,900,whichever occurs
first; or 2) prior to issuance of the initial
building permit within each recorded subdivision
section, the sum of $9,522, multiplied by the
number of lots in that subdivision section. The
Applicant shall pay the one of these two options
that provides a greater dollar amount to
Chesterfield County each year. In no event shall
the total amount paid excluding the Previously
Paid Amount by the Applicant be less than
$1,523,900; however, the total amount paid
excluding the Previously Paid Amount shall not
exceed $1,523,900 until after the recordation of
the 160th lot (the “Number of Lots”) on the
Property, which excludes the already recorded
fifty (50) lots. After the recordation of the
Number of Lots on the Property, the Applicant
shall only pay the sum of $9,522 prior to the
issuance of each building permit thereafter. The
payments shall be used for road improvements
within Traffic Shed 17 or for road improvements
that provide relief to that Traffic Shed, as
determined by the Transportation Department. The
payments could be used towards road improvements
such as the reconstruction of Nash Road or an
extension of Nash Road from Beach Road to Iron
Bridge Road (Route 10).
This condition shall not apply to recorded lots
on the Property that are transferred to third-
party purchasers prior to the due date of any
payment as set forth above; provided however that
such third party purchaser(s) shall not be an
owner or contract purchaser of any remaining
undeveloped portion of the Property.
If, upon the mutual agreement of the
Transportation Department and theApplicant, the
Applicant constructs an extension of Nash Road
from Beach Road to Iron Bridge Road (Route 10),
then the Applicant shall receive a reduction in
the payments as set forth above in Proffered
Condition 3(e). The reduction shall be equal to
thecosts, as approved by the Transportation
Department, to the Applicant in providing such
road improvements. For the purposes of this
proffer, the costs shall include, but not be
limited to, the cost of right-of-way acquisition,
engineering costs, costs of relocating utilities
and actual costs of construction (including
labor, materials, and overhead) (“Work”). Before
any Work is performed, the Applicant shall
receive prior written approval by the
Transportation Department for any reduction(s) in
payment(s).The Applicant agrees that H.374, Acts
of Assembly 2010, Chap.549, is not applicable to
this proffer because this cash proffer is based
on a per-lot standard.
Ayes:Gecker, Holland, Jaeckle, Warren, and Durfee.
Nays:None.
Case 05SN0229
6.Cash Proffer.
a.Except as otherwise provided herein, for each single
family residential dwelling unit developed, the
applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay
$11,500.00 per unit to the County of Chesterfield,
prior to the time of issuance of a building permit,
for infrastructure improvements within the service
district for the Property if paid prior to July 1,
2005. Thereafter, such payment shall be the amount
approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$11,500.00 per unit as adjusted upward by any increase
in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between
July 1, 2004 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which
the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2005. The
per dwelling unit cash proffer amount shall be
prorated among schools, roads, libraries, fire
stations, and parks and recreation facilities by the
County’s Department of Budget and Management.
b.If any of the cash proffers are not expended for the
purposes designated by the Capital Improvement Program
within fifteen (15) years from the date of payment,
they shall be returned in full to the payor. Should
Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time
during the life of the development that are applicable
to the Property, the amount paid in cash proffers
shall be in lieu of or creditedtoward, but not in
addition to, any impact fees in a manner as determined
by the County. (B&M)
Ayes: Barber, King, Humphrey and Miller.
Nays: None.
Absent: Warren.