14SN0508
CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay
August 27, 2014 BS
ADDENDUM
14SN0508
Centralia Station LLC
Bermuda Magisterial District
Ecoff Elementary, Salem Church Middle and Bird High School Attendance Zones
South line of Centralia Road, west of Chester Road
Within the vicinity of 4421 Centralia Road
REQUEST: Amendment of zoning (Case 93SN0147) relative to density and access in
Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7, R-9 and R-12) Districts, plus proffered
conditions on adjacent property zoned Residential (R-7).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single-family residential subdivision with a maximum of twenty-one (21) lots,
yielding a density of approximately 0.3 dwelling units per acre is planned.
recommendation for this case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ON AUGUST 19, 2014, THE COMMISSION DEFERRED CONSIDERATION OF THIS
REQUEST TO THEIR MAY 19, 2015 MEETING. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOARD TO DEFER THIS REQUEST TO THEIR REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING IN MAY, 2015.
______________________________________________________________________________
CASE HISTORY
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (9/17/13):
A new proffered condition was submitted, in an effort to address concerns expressed by
the Fire Department.
______________________________________________________________________________
Planning Commission Meeting (9/17/13):
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² °«¾´·½ »®ª·½»
Mr. Patton recused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was support present.
Dr. Wallin noted the proposal is closer to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
enhances the community; and reduces the impact on public facilities. Mr. Waller
expressed concerns relative to deletion of an emergency access; impacts on fire
protection due to planned use of individual wells; and the impact on capital facilities not
being addressed.
Dr. Wallin made a motion to recommend approval, which failed due to lack of a second.
On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission voted to forward the
case to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin and Waller.
ABSENT: Messrs. Gulley and Patton.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (9/20/13):
The County Attorney's Office advised that State law requires that a recommendation be
made by the Commission when it forwards a zoning case to the Board after public
hearing. Accordingly, the Commission's vote was ineffectual and the case, by law,
returns to the Commission's agenda for a recommendation.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (9/25/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (10/15/13):
to their December 17, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (10/15/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than October 21, 2013 for consideration at the
.
13):
î ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìßËÙîéóÞÑÍóßÜÜ
their regularly scheduled meeting in January 2014.
Staff (10/24/13):
scheduled January 2014 public hearing.
Staff (11/15/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/17/13):
to their January 21, 2014 public hearing.
Staff (12/17/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than December 23, 2013 for consideration at the
Staff (12/23/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Staff (12/23/13):
If the Planning Commission acts on this request on January 21, 2014, the case will be
considered by the Board of Supervisors on January 22, 2014.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/21/14):
Due to inclement weather, the Planning Commission meeting was postponed to January
23, 2014.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (1/22/14):
í ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìßËÙîéóÞÑÍóßÜÜ
their April 23, 2014 public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/23/14):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to April 15, 2014.
Staff (1/24/14):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than February 3
April 15, 2014 public hearing.
The applicant was also advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Staff (3/6/14):
To date, no new information has been received.
Applicant (3/12/14):
The deferral fee was paid.
Staff (3/26/14):
If the Planning Commission acts on this request on April 15, 2014, the case will be
considered by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2014.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/15/14):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to August 19, 2014.
Staff (4/16/14):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
August 19, 2014 public hearing.
The applicant was also advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
ì ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìßËÙîéóÞÑÍóßÜÜ
Applicant (8/19/14):
The deferral fee was paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (8/19/14):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to May 19, 2015.
Staff (8/20/14):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 9, 2015
May 19, 2015 public hearing.
The applicant was also advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, August 27, 2014, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
ë ïìÍÒðëðèóîðïìßËÙîéóÞÑÍóßÜÜ
CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay
September 17, 2013 CPC
October 15, 2013 CPC
October 23, 2013 BS
December 17, 2013 CPC
January 21, 2014 CPC
January 22, 2014 BS
BS Time Remaining:
January 23, 2014 CPC
239 days
April 15, 2014 CPC
April 23, 2014 BS
August 19, 2014 CPC
August 27, 2014 BS
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
14SN0508
Centralia Station LLC
Bermuda Magisterial District
Ecoff Elementary, Salem Church Middle and Bird High SchoolAttendance Zones
South line of Centralia Road, west of Chester Road
Within the vicinity of 4421 Centralia Road
REQUEST:Amendment of zoning (Case 93SN0147) relative to density and accessin
Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7, R-9 and R-12) Districts, plus proffered
conditions on adjacent property zoned Residential (R-7).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single-family residential subdivision with a maximum of twenty-one (21) lots,
yielding a density of approximately 0.3 dwelling units per acreis planned.
(NOTE: IN ORDER FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST AT THEIR AUGUST 19 AND 27, 2014
MEETINGS, RESPECTIVELY, A $1,000.00 DEFERRAL FEE MUST BE PAID PRIOR
TO THE PUBLIC MEETING.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED TO HEAR THIS CASE AT THEIR
MEETING ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2014. STAFF WILL ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE
COMMISSION’S ACTION AFTER THEIR MEETING.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
A.While the proposalconforms to The Chester Plan, which suggests the property is
appropriate for Residential use (1 and 1.5 dwelling per acre or less), the
application doesnot mitigatethe impacts of this development on necessary capital
facilities, thereby not insuring adequate service levels are maintained and
protecting the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
B.The Transportation concerns relative to safe access and road improvements for
increased traffic have not been adequately addressed.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. Lots. A maximum of 21 lots shall be permitted. (P)
2. Access.There shall be no direct vehicular accessto Wellington Farms
Subdivision. (P)
3. Open Space. Any portion of the subject Property that abuts Wellington Farms
shall be maintained by the Centralia Station Homeowners Association as a sixty
foot (60') wide open space area and shall be kept in a natural state, except as may
be necessary for the location of utilities and landscape screening. (P)
4. Minimum dwelling size. All dwelling units shall have a minimum gross floor area
of 2,000 square feet. (P)
5. Foundations. Foundations of homes shall be constructed of brick, stone, stucco or
other finished materials. Unfinished cinder block or concrete foundations shall not
be permitted. (P)
6. Fire Protection.All homes shall be provided with residential fire sprinklers
installed in accordance with NFPA 13D or IPC P2904 requirements unless
alternative fire protection water supplies meeting the fire code are provided. (F)
(Note: With the approval of this case Proffered Conditions 23, 25, 26 and 27 of Case
93SN0147 would be deleted. All other conditions of approval of Case 93SN0147 would
remain in effect.)
2 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property is locatedon the south line of Centralia Road, the east line of
Centralia Station, west of Chester Road. Tax ID 786-660-5178.
Existing Zoning:
A, R-7, R-9 and R-12
Size:
73.3 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single-family residential or vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North – R-7 and A; Single-family residential and vacant
South – R-12 and R-9; Single-family residential and vacant
East – A with conditional use and C-2; Single-family residential, commercial and vacant
West – R-25, R-7 and A; Single-family residential and vacant
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
There is a sixteen (16) inch water line located along the north side of Centralia Road,
approximately fifty (50) feet from the request site. In March, 2014, the Board of
Supervisors adopted amendments to the County Code relative to use of public water for
new developments. The use of the public water systemnowis required by County Code.
Public Wastewater System:
There is a thirty (30) inch trunk sewer located along the south/southeastern boundary of
the request site. In March, 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the
County Code relative to use of public wastewater for new developments. The use of the
public wastewater system is now required by County Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL
This land area was thoroughly vetted from an environmental standpoint by virtue of the previous
tentative Case 08TS0264. The major reduction in proposed density should have a positive impact
environmentally.
3 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
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 Plan and 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 Planindicates that fire and
emergency medical service (EMS) calls increased by forty-four (44) percentfrom 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)percentwere fire-related. It is expected with the general aging of the
population that 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 Plan also
recommends the replacement/revitalization of four (4) existing stations.
Based on twenty-one (21) dwelling units, this request will generate approximately six (6)
calls for fire and emergency medical service each year. The applicant has not addressed
the impact on fire and EMS due to the absence of cash proffers.
The Centralia Fire Station, Company Number 17, currently provides fire protection and
emergency medical service.There is no mechanism for providing timely fire protection
water supplies in the absence of public water in this fire district. Due to changes to the
County Code, this project now requires connection to public water. Fire and EMS would
not support a request for exception to this requirement. If this applicant decides to seek
exception to this requirement, Proffered Condition 6 requiring the use of private fire
sprinkler systems in each dwelling, should remain.
Whenthe 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.
4 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
Schools:
21
Residential Yield:
Student Yield
From Functional % of
Membership, No. of
SchoolNameResidential Capacity, Capacity,
9-30-13Trailers **
Development 2013-142013-14
*
Elementary:Ecoff472686184%
Middle:Salem Church28531,08978%
High:Bird31,8432,02091%5
Total9
Projected Membership and Capacity Trends Over Time ***
Projected % of Projected % of Projected % of
SchoolNameMembership, Capacity, Membership, Capacity, Membership, Capacity,
9-30-14 2013-149-30-15 2013-149-30-20 2013-14
Elementary:Ecoff 73485% 73185% 72985%
Middle:Salem Church 85478% 84978% 86579%
High:Bird 1,88393%1,89094% 1,84891%
NOTE: * The Student Yield is based on the FY2014 Cash Proffer Methodology as provided by the Chesterfield County Finance
Department.
NOTE: ** If a school is less than 90% of capacity and has trailers, those trailers are not identified in the staff report.
Student Membership is based on membership as of 09-30-13.
School Capacity is based on the 2013-14 Space Utilization Study.
*** DISCLAIMER: Please note that Projected Membership AND Functional Capacity are updated on an ANNUAL
BASIS and are based on the September 30 membership for a given year and the Space Utilization Study Report which is
conducted every year. The Space Utilization Study is a report that is conducted annually whereby Planning staff conducts a
site visit of every school in the county and the Principal reviews his or her floor plan and identifies the use of every
classroom. From that information a report is prepared that calculates the Functional Capacity of that school. The school
system needs to know how each of their facilities is utilized for funding and space allocation purposes. Again, it is important
to note that these numbers change every year.
After review of this request, the proposed rezoning case will have a minimal impact on
the aforementioned schools involved. The projected student membership and capacity
trends at this time indicate a slight increase in membership at the elementary and
secondary levels by 2020.However, over time this case, combined with other tentative
residential developments,infill developments and other zoning cases in the area, will
5 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
continue to push these schools to capacity. Therefore, the aforementioned units should be
subject to full cash proffers, to mitigate the impact that this proposed development would
have on schools.
Libraries:
Development in this area of the County would likely impact either the Chester Library or
a proposed new library in the vicinity of Kingsdale,Chester and Hopkins Roads. The
Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for this new facility torelieve current and future
demand on the existing Chester Library.
The applicant has not offered measures to address the impacts of this development on
library facilities.
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies 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 Plan also identifies the
need for urban parks within mixed use developments to compliment and provide linkages
to the County’s park system. The Planidentifies the need for linear parks & trails 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 offered measures to address the impacts of this development on
parks and recreation facilities.
County Department of Transportation:
The applicant is requesting deletion of several proffered conditions for development of
the property that the Transportation Department cannot support.
In 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Countywide Thoroughfare Plan. Included in
the Plan was a proposed major arterial (“Hopkins Road Extended”) extending from Old
Lane, across Centralia Road, through part of the property and continuing south of Iron
Bridge Road (Route 10).
In February 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved rezoning of the property (Case
93SN0147). With that zoning approval, the Board accepted proffered conditions that,
among other things: 1) established a maximum density of 135 dwelling units; 2) required
construction of Hopkins Road Extended from Centralia Road through part of the
property; and 3) required construction of left and right turn lanes along Centralia Road at
its intersection with Hopkins Road Extended. The specific alignment of Hopkins Road
Extended and its intersection with Centralia Road was also proffered with that zoning
case.
6 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
In July 2005 with the adoption of The Chester Plan, the extension of Hopkins Road was
completely removed from the Thoroughfare Plan.
In April 2009, the Planning Commission approved a tentative subdivision plat (Centralia
Station Subdivision - Case 08TS0264) for the property and several residentially zoned
parcels along the south side of Centralia Road. The approved tentative plat consists of
ninety-nine (99) lots, and as required by zoning shows a new public road along the same
alignment as the previously planned Hopkins Road Extended from Centralia Road to
serve the development.
The applicant is now requesting deletion of several proffered conditions, and has
proffered a maximum density of twenty-one (21)lots (Proffered Condition 1). Based on
single-family trip rates, development of the property could generate approximately 250
average daily trips. These vehicles will be initially distributed along Centralia Road,
which had a 2009 traffic count of 10,732 vehicles per day. This section of Centralia Road
is at capacity (Level of Service E) for the volume of traffic it carries.
The applicant has requested to delete proffered conditions relative to the construction of
the new public road (previously named “Hopkins Road Extended”) and all turn lanes
along Centralia Road. The applicant plans to access the proposed development onto
Centralia Road via Centralia Station. Without the construction of the new public road,
approximately nineteen (19) acres of undeveloped property [about six (6) acres currently
zoned Agricultural (A) and 13 acres zoned Residential (R-7)] could also potentially be
developed and access Centralia Station. Assuming 2.0 units per acre for the undeveloped
property would result in an additional thirty-eight (38)units accessing Centralia Station.
Considering the requested twenty-one (21)units on the property, it could total a potential
of fifty-nine (59) units accessing Centralia Station. Based on single-family trip rates,
development of fifty-nine (59)units could generate approximately 650 average daily
trips.
Eastbound traffic during peak periods along Centralia Road routinely stores beyond the
CSX railroad tracks because of the high volume of traffic traveling through the signalized
intersection of Centralia Road and Chester Road. The intersection of Centralia Station
onto Centralia Road is located approximately 350 feet from the railroad tracks. This
distance does not provide adequate separation to serve as access for the undeveloped
property in the area south of Centralia Road, which includes the proposed development.
Vehicles waiting to turn left from Centralia Road onto Centralia Station, especially when
turn lanes are not provided, could cause vehicles to back-up across the railroad tracks and
possibly into the Centralia Road/Chester Road intersection.
The current proffered conditions would require the new public road to be constructed
approximately 700 feet from the CSX railroad tracks, with left and right turn lanes along
Centralia Road. These required improvements would provide a much safer access for
development of the property.
The proposed Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor project between Richmond,
VA to Charlotte, NC, will utilize the CSX tracks adjacent to the property. The Draft Tier
7 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
II Environmental Impact Statement included preliminary designs for grade-separated
crossings along the railroad corridor. The preliminary design for this project proposes
construction of a bridge structure for Centralia Road that would span over the CSX
railroad and over Chester Road. A copy of the Centralia Road Subdivision tentative plat
was submitted as information for the SEHSR preliminary design, and it was determined
that the intersection of the new public road and Centralia Road could be accommodated
with that project. Staff has not forwarded information on this rezoning request to the
SEHSR group to evaluate the impact of the Centralia Road grade-separated design on the
Centralia Station intersection. Construction of the SEHSR project is dependent on
funding, and therefore a definite schedule has not been established.
The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. Area roads need to be
improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic generated by this
development. The applicant has not proffered to contribute cash, in accordance with the
Board of Supervisors’ Policy, towards mitigating the traffic impact of the development.
As previously stated, the Transportation Department cannot support the request.
Virginia Department of Transportation(VDOT):
VDOT notes that the Department approved a ninety-nine (99)lot tentative subdivision
plan/street layout submitted under Case 08TS0264 in March 2009. That approval noted
State acceptance of the subdivision roadways under the 2005 Subdivision Street
Requirements, SSR’s. A reduction in lots to 21 (as proffered) necessitates the need for a
revised tentative submittal, which triggers acceptance of the subdivision roadways for
maintenance to comply with the provisions of the current acceptance regulations-
Subdivision Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR’s) (24VAC30-92) and associated
Road Design Manual Appendices.Included in those provisions are meeting connectivity
(two external connections to a publically maintained street or one connection and the
provision for a stub out to an adjacent developable parcel) and pedestrian
accommodations (street ADT dependent). The street layout/public roads shall be
designed pursuant to those regulations/standards.
Access to the site via the existing state route of Centralia Station Road (Route 2005)
requires the issuance of a land use permit for construction of that connection. Permit
issuance is further contingent on construction plan approval of the connection designed in
accordance with Department standards. Any offsite improvements beyond that
connection, such as to existing Centralia Station Road or at the connection to Centralia
Road(Route 145), including turn lanes, are outside the authority of the Department and
are at the discretion of Chesterfield County.
Should access to the site be through a new public road/public connection to Centralia
Road, as originally proffered, then that connection is subject to compliance with
Department standards, including compliance with Access Management Regulation
(24VAC30-73) spacing between existing intersections and compliance withthe
construction of turn lanes as warranted. The public road is further subject to compliance
with the aforementioned SSAR’s and Road Design Manual.
8 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
Per Dwelling
Unit
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units21* 1.00
Population Increase56.12 2.67
Number of New Students
Elementary4.42 0.21
Middle2.40 0.11
High3.21 0.15
Total 10.03 0.48
Net Cost For Schools$ 198,345 $ 9,445
Net Cost for Parks$ 26,187 $ 1,247
Net Cost for Libraries$ 6,783 $ 323
Net Cost For Fire Stations $ 14,889 $ 709
Average Net Cost Roads$ 168,399 $ 8,019
Total Net Cost $ 414,603 $ 19,743
*Based on Proffered Condition 1 of case 14SN0508. The actual number of dwelling units and
corresponding impact may vary.
The original Zoning Case 93SN0147 was approved in February 1994. Condition 23 of
93SN0147 proffered a residential density of 135 dwelling units. The original case did not include
cash proffers. In this rezoning request, the applicant has requested to delete this condition and to
proffer a maximum density of twenty-one (21) units. The applicant has not offeredcash to
address the impacts of these units on capital facilities.
As noted, this proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has
calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, parks, libraries, fire stations
and roads as $19,743 per unit.
The current 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.
The applicant has not addressed the development’s impact on capital facilities, and consequently
the County’s ability to provide adequate facilities to its citizens will be adversely impacted.
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 the proffers as
presented.
9 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of The Chester Plan, which
suggests the property is appropriate for Residential use (1 and 1.5 dwelling per acre or
less).
Area Development Trends:
Area properties to the north are zoned Residential (R-7) and Agricultural (A) and are
occupied by single-family residential uses on acreage parcels or are vacant. Properties to
the south and west are zoned Residential (R-25, R-12, R-9 and R-7) and Agricultural (A)
and are occupied by single-family residential uses in the Dense Wood Hill and
Wellington Farms Subdivisions and on acreage parcels or remain vacant. Property to the
east is zoned Agricultural (A) with conditional use planned development approval and
Neighborhood Business (C-2) and is occupied by Seaboard Coastline Railroad right-of-
wayor is vacant. It is anticipated single-family residential development will continue in
this area, as suggested by the Plan.
Zoning History:
On January 26, 1983, the Board of Supervisors approved Residential (R-12 and R-9)
zoning on property which included most of the subject property (Case 81SN0097). A
single-family residential subdivision was planned to be developed on the property.
On February 23, 1994the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from
the Planning Commission, granted conditional use approval to permit outdoor
recreational facilities on a portion of the subject property and on adjacent property east of
the railroad right-of-way (Case 93SN0147). A commercial outdoor recreational complex,
to include a golf course, clubhouse, driving range, miniature golf, batting cages, pro shop
and accessory facilities were planned. However, a single-family residential subdivision of
up to 135 lots could also be developed on the subject portion of that request, as was
allowed by the underlying zoning and Proffered Condition 23 of Case 93SN0147.
Density and House Sizes:
The applicant has agreed to limit development to a maximum of twenty-one (21) lots
(Proffered Condition 1), yielding a density of approximately 0.3 dwelling unitsper acre.
This represents a 114 lot reduction from what is currently allowed.
Access:
To address concerns from property owners in the Wellington Farms development the
applicant has agreed to prohibit direct vehicular access from the subject property to
Wellington Farms (Proffered Condition 2). It should be notedthatan emergency access
easement has been recorded over what was previously known as Fox Chappel Road in
Wellington Farms Subdivision, which stubbed into the subject property. Fox Chappel
10 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
Road was vacated by the Board of Supervisors on April 14, 2011 and recorded as open
space and dedicated as drainage, utility and emergency access easementsto the County.
Open Space:
To address concerns of residents of Wellington Farms Subdivision relative to visual
separation between developments, the applicant has agreedto provide a minimum sixty
(60) feet of open space along any portion of the subject property that abuts Wellington
Farms (Proffered Condition 3). The provisions of the proffer require the open space to be
kept in a “…natural state, except as may be necessary for the location of utilities and
landscape screening.” This is not specific as to the treatment of the open space and leaves
it open for interpretation. This proffer should specify treatment of the open space specific
to vegetation to be retained and/or planted.
Architectural Treatment:
The minimum house size offered is 2,000 square feet (Proffered Condition 4), where
there previously was no minimum. In response to concerns expressed by area property
owners about the possibility of the appearance of unfinished cinder block or concrete
foundations, the applicant has offered a proffer that foundations of home would be
constructed of brick, stone, stucco or other finished materials (Proffered Condition 5).
The applicant should clarify what is meant by “other finished materials”, so as to avoid
any confusion during the plans and permit review processes.
CONCLUSIONS
While the proposal conforms to The Chester Plan, which suggests the property is appropriate for
Residential use (1 and 1.5 dwelling per acre or less), the application does not mitigate the
impacts of this development on necessary capital facilities, thereby not insuring adequate service
levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
In addition,Transportation concerns have not been adequately addressed relative to safe access
and road improvements for increased traffic.
Given these considerations, denialof this request is recommended.
______________________________________________________________________________
CASE HISTORY
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (9/17/13):
A new proffered condition was submitted, in an effort to address concerns expressed by
the Fire Department.
______________________________________________________________________________
11 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
Planning Commission Meeting (9/17/13):
Mr. Patton recused himself from the meeting due to a potential conflictof interest.
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was support present.
Dr. Wallin noted the proposal is closer to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
enhances the community; and reduces the impact on public facilities. Mr. Waller
expressed concerns relative to deletion ofan emergency access; impacts onfire
protection due to planned use of individual wells; and the impact on capital facilities not
being addressed.
Dr. Wallin made a motion to recommend approval, which failed due tolack of a second.
On motion of Dr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission voted to forward the
case to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Wallin and Waller.
ABSENT: Messrs. Gulley and Patton.
Staff (9/20/13):
The County Attorney's Office advisedthat State law requires that a recommendation be
made by the Commission when it forwards a zoning case to the Board after public
hearing. Accordingly, the Commission's vote was ineffectual and the case, by law,
returns to the Commission's agenda for a recommendation.
Staff (9/25/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (10/15/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their December 17, 2013 public hearing.
Staff (10/15/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than October 21, 2013 for consideration at the
Commission’s December 17, 2013 public hearing.
12 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisor’s Meeting (10/23/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Board deferred this case to
their regularly scheduled meeting in January 2014.
Staff (10/24/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that the case was deferred to the Board’s regularly
scheduled January 2014 public hearing.
Staff (11/15/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/17/13):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their January 21, 2014 public hearing.
Staff (12/17/13):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than December 23, 2013 for consideration at the
Commission’s January 21, 2014 public hearing.
Staff (12/23/13):
To date, no new information has been received.
Staff (12/23/13):
If the Planning Commission acts on this request on January 21, 2014, the case will be
considered by the Board of Supervisors on January 22, 2014.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/21/14):
Due to inclement weather, the Planning Commission meeting was postponed to January
23, 2014.
13 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisors Meeting (1/22/14):
On their own motion and with the applicant’s consent, the Board deferred this case to
their April 23, 2014 public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/23/14):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to April 15, 2014.
Staff (1/24/14):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than February 3, 2014 for consideration at the Commission’s
April15, 2014 public hearing.
The applicant was also advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Commission’s public hearing.
Staff (3/6/14):
To date, no new information has been received.
Staff (3/26/14):
If the Planning Commission acts on this request on April 15, 2014, the case will be
considered by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2014.
Applicant (4/15/14):
The deferral fee was paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/15/14):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to August 19, 2014.
Staff (4/16/14):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than June 9, 2014 for consideration at the Commission’s
August 19, 2014 public hearing.
14 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
The applicant was also advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Commission’s public hearing.
Board of Supervisor’s Meeting (4/23/14):
This case was double-advertised, and was deferred by the Planning Commission at their
April 15, 2014 public hearing to their August 19 meeting. On their own motion, the
Board deferred this case to August 27, 2014, in order to receive a recommendation from
the Commission.
Staff (4/23/14):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than June 9, 2014 for consideration at the Board’s August
27, 2014 public hearing.
Staff (7/23/14):
To date, no new information has been receivednor has the deferral fee been paid.
Staff (7/26/14):
If the Planning Commission acts on this request on August 19, 2014, the case will be
considered by the Board of Supervisors on August 27, 2014.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
15 14SN0508-2014AUG27-BOS-RPT
éî
ùéä êûóðêíûø
éèûèóíî
ù÷îèêûðóû
éî