2015-01-28 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
January 28, 2015
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Stephen A. Elswick, Chairman
Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Vice Chrm.
Ms. Dorothy A. Jaeckle
Mr. James M. Holland
Mr. Daniel A. Gecker
Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier
County Administrator
15-50
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Greg Akers, Dir.,
Internal Audit
Dr. Sheryl Bailey, Dep.
County Administrator,
Management Services
Ms. Janice Blakley,
Clerk to the Board
Ms. Patsy Brown, Dir.,
Accounting
Mr. Kevin Bruny, Chief
Learning Officer
Ms. Debbie Burcham,
Exec. Dir., Community
Services Board
Mr. Allan Carmody, Dir.,
Budget and Management
Mr. Will Davis, Dir.,
Economic Development
Mr. William Dupler, Dep.
County Administrator,
Community Development
Mr. Michael Golden, Dir.,
Parks and Recreation
Mr. John W. Harmon,
Real Property Manager
Mr. George Hayes, Dir.,
Utilities
Mr. Rob Key, Director,
General Services
Mr. Louis Lassiter, Asst.
County Administrator
Sheriff Karl Leonard,
Sheriff's Department
Mr. Jeffrey L. Mincks,
County Attorney
Mr. Jay Payne, Asst. Dir.,
Social Services
Ms. Susan Pollard, Dir.,
Public Affairs
Ms. Mary Martin Selby, Dir.,
Human Resource Services
Chief Loy Senter,
Fire and EMS
Mr. Scott Smedley, Dir.,
Environmental Engineering
Mr. Jesse Smith, Dir.,
Transportation
Ms. Sarah Snead, Dep.
County Administrator,
Human Services
Mr. Kirk Turner, Dir.,
Planning
Mr. Scott Zaremba, Dir.,
Human Resources Programs
01/28/15
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 14, 2015
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
approved the minutes of January 14, 2015, as submitted.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
2.A. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
2.B. OPEN GOVERNMENT WEBPAGE (CHECKBOOK ONLINE)
Ms. Patsy Brown updated the Board on Chesterfield County's
Open Government web page which supports the county's
continuing effort to promote transparency and accountability.
She stated this type of payment/ expenditure information is
often referred to as "Checkbook Online". She stated this
initiative is the result of direction from the Board and the
collaborative efforts of county leadership, staff from IST,
Accounting, Budget and Schools, as well as input received
from citizens. She noted staff conducted a soft roll-out of
the project and posted checkbook online information for the
first time in November 2014. She stated after evaluating
options for the checkbook online, including different methods
and costs for presentation and delivery, staff chose a
delivery method which required an investment of "staff time
only" so there were no external costs. She further stated all
county departments, including Schools, participated in
reviewing historical payment information to ensure the
prevention of confidential and private information protected
by federal and state laws from being posted. In closing, she
expressed appreciation to Accounting and IST staff, who were
the primary collaborators working through the details to
complete the project.
Mr. Gecker highly praised Ms. Brown and county staff for
their diligent efforts relative to the project. He stressed
the importance of government transparency and responsibility.
Mr. Elswick stated he recently had a conversation with a
citizen who was involved in the soft roll-out of the project.
He further stated the citizen was very complimentary of the
process.
In response to Mr. Holland's questions, Ms. Brown stated the
open government website was. updated November 20, 2014 to
include the month of October's vendor payments. She further
stated budgetary data is still available in print at all
county libraries.
Mr. Stegmaier expressed his sincere appreciation to
Accounting and IST staff for their assiduous efforts. He
stated staff leapfrogged the current technology and put in
place a system for county citizens to have a lot more access
and ability to manipulate data versus other systems
presently.
Mr. Warren noted the initiative began in part from citizen
interests to be involved in county budgetary matters and the
leadership and direction of the Board.
Ms. Jaeckle also thanked Accounting and IST staff for their
efforts, as well as the persistence of county citizens
relative to the matter.
15-51
01/28/15
19
19
PC
2.C. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION UPDATE
Mr. Bill Dupler updated the Board on the county's ongoing
efforts to promote revitalization of neighborhoods and areas
around Providence and Manchester Middle schools slated for
revitalization through the 2013 bond referendum. He stated
proposed revitalization efforts would utilize existing staff
and financial resources. He further stated the proposed
approach would leverage planned county investments in
infrastructure and revitalization -related activities, near
schools programmed for revitalization through the bond
referendum. He stated staff proposes to concentrate CIP and
CDBG infrastructure funding on improvements that are near
schools being revitalized which would include, for example:
waterline replacements, parks and recreation improvements,
road improvements and new sidewalks. He further stated target
areas include neighborhoods and commercial areas generally
within one mile of each school. He further stated staff
proposes to improve rehabilitation tax credits to incentivize
property improvements, as well as, improve the coordination
and communication of revitalization efforts. He noted these
efforts would establish a single point of contact and
direction for county revitalization activities, improving
communication and coordination between the county and the
community partners for revitalization efforts, and
neighborhood cleanups. In closing, he provided examples of
revitalization projects creating significant benefits to the
community.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Dupler stated
crime reports and statistics are correlated with the
revitalization efforts of specific neighborhoods.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Dupler stated
staff is looking to consolidate the activities that support
the Sustain Our Communities Committee into one office along
with the revitalization efforts.
In response to Mr. Holland's question regarding Manchester
Middle School revitalization efforts, Mr. Dupler stated the
vicinity surrounding Bryant and Stratton College is included
in that specific target area. Regarding input from the
business community, he stated staff plans to have a
conversation with the Schools' counterpart on ideas relative
to facilitating meetings and encouraging participation among
homeowners and business owners.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question regarding the Hull
Street corridor project, Mr. Dupler stated there was an
outreach to area businesses and staff will study that
specific model for guidance.
Mr. Holland stressed the importance of enhancing areas around
Cogbill Road and Iron Bridge Road. He stated road
improvements and sidewalks are critically important to
specific areas of the county. He further stated he is very
pleased that steps are being taken to repair waterlines,
especially in older neighborhoods.
Mr. Warren stated Smoketree Community sidewalk enhancements
are a great example of success that was done within the
county's current structure of manpower. He expressed concerns
relative to creating a new management position to coordinate
revitalization efforts.
15-52
01/28/15
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Dupler stated what
has been outlined today is within current resources, with the
exception of the revitalization manager position and funding
for manpower on weekends and some capital improvements to an
existing vehicle designed to pick up bulky waste. He further
stated CDBG funding does have some constraints associated
with it in terms of concentrating the majority of the funding
in low -moderate income neighborhoods. Mr. Dupler stated he
would provide the Board with a total figure relative to
investment at a later time.
Mr. Stegmaier clarified there is a position already in place
through the block grant program that would lead the
revitalization effort; however, block grant funding cannot be
used to pay for the position as was done in the past.
Mr. Warren stressed the importance of knowing the total
investment in order to determine if additional resources are
needed.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Dupler stated the
Sheriff's workforce has been used in the past for weekend
cleanups; however, the viable program would be used 32
weekends out of the year and the Sheriff's Office may not
have the capability to staff that much effort.
Mr. Gecker stated he is inordinately pleased with the
direction staff is taking relative to revitalization efforts.
He further stated when he served on the Planning Commission
the entire focus of planning in the community was determining
what to do with new growth. He stated the focus on a
comprehensive overview of what it means to sustain and
revitalize the community, the cross departmental focus is
incredibly healthy for the county. He further stated the
county has come a long way, in a relatively short period of
time. He stated, in his perspective, the role of the county
is to set the stage to allow the private sector to do what it
is supposed to do. He further stated it cannot be expected
from people in the county to keep up their own property if
the county does not keep up its property. He concurred with
Mr. Warren's remarks relative to increased funding; however,
he believes if shuffling is done internally to allow for a
coordinating position it is time for that to be done. He
stated one of the great amenities the community will have
because of the planning being completed now, will be the
interconnected network for recreation in the community and
the quality of life for county citizens.
Mr. Elswick directed staff to look at all CIP programs within
attendance zones to see if there is funding that can be
better spent to revitalize any area that has been identified.
He reiterated Mr. Gecker's comment to make a coordinating
position available through internal resources.
Ms. Jaeckle suggested shifting coordinating revitalization
responsibilities to an existing position.
Mr. Holland inquired about revitalization efforts and their
correlation with the Sustain Our Communities Committee. He
stressed the importance of encouraging incentives for
property owners and enhancing all gateways to district
corridors.
15-53
01/28/15
9
9
9
Mr. Dupler then briefed the Board on developments relative to
Roadrunner Campground. He stated Roadrunner is required by
law to have a campground permit issued by the state Health
Department and to follow the department's rules and
regulations. He noted Roadrunner Campground has never had the
required permit and is not in compliance with the rules and
regulations. He stated the Health Department has issued a
misdemeanor charge for operation of a campground without a
permit. He further stated earlier this month, the court
ordered Roadrunner to take steps to assure the permanent
residents relocated from the property. First and foremost,
Chesterfield County's interest has always been to assure its
residents are able to live in safe and sanitary conditions.
He stated various county staff over the past two years have
directed campground management to correct over 20 safety and
sanitation violations, including installing backflow
prevention devices, making electrical repairs, repairing
leaking sewage connections, removing discarded materials,
junk and inoperative vehicles, and renovating the bathhouse
and laundry buildings used by occupants. He further stated
county staff from Building Inspection and Planning
interviewed residents on December 19th, visiting every
occupant to assess their needs and understand how to help. He
stated county staff from Building Inspection, Planning and
Social Services has provided assistance to residents, in
person, by mail and over the phone - a number have contacted
staff to say thank you while others continue to seek
assistance.
In response to Mr. Elswick's question, Mr. Dupler stated it
is apparent that there may be a need for volunteers, from
churches and other organizations, who are capable and able to
assist residents in relocating.
2.D. POLICE HEADQUARTERS RENOVATION PROJECT UPDATE
Mr. Rob Key provided an update to the Board on the progress
of the Police headquarters renovation project. He stated the
project began with the replacement of the single -pane
exterior windows and wall panels of the building and the old
HVAC units connected to those walls, greatly improving the
energy performance of the buildings. He further stated these
buildings have been upgraded, making them safer and more
efficient, and extending their usefulness for decades to
come. He stated Stage 2 is the comprehensive renovation which
is now underway. He further stated the renovation includes
removal of most of the non -load-bearing walls, construction
of a new layout designed to support police operations,
handicapped accessible restrooms, replacement of old HVAC and
electrical systems, a new elevator and installation of a fire
sprinkler system which the current building did not have. He
stated within the next 90 days, the schedule calls for the
two -and three-story renovations to continue progressing on
schedule, the old lobby to be demolished and the construction
of the new lobby and elevator shaft to begin; by mid -summer,
the plan calls for the substantial completion of the two -and
three-story and the move -in of most of the police staff. He
noted some of the renovated space will be used as swing space
for temporarily housing the police staff in the one-story
while the old windows are replaced and limited interior
renovations are done, finishing up in late summer. He stated
by early fall, the 1 -story renovations are expected to be
completed, and the temporarily relocated staff will move back
into the 1 -story, then finalizing the project in the Winter.
15-54
01/28/15
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question regarding relocation of
employees, Mr. Key stated Police personnel are already
operating in the one-story building. He further stated in
order to complete the one-story building, employees will be
moved to the two-story and after completion, moved back over
to the one-story building. He stated after the initial
project, there was a delay for a short period of time while
the comprehensive design was being finalized to address the
internal reconfiguration.
In response to Mr. Elswick's question, Mr. Key stated Phase 1
of the project began in 2010. In terms of the timeline, he
stated the project is planned to be completed within a total
of five years.
In response to Mr. Holland's question, Mr. Key stated there
is currently leased space for employees within the building;
however, that lease space will no longer be needed after the
renovation is finalized.
Ms. Jaeckle expressed concerns relative to the timeframe of
the project and the current conditions Police personnel are
working under. She stressed the importance of focusing on the
learning experience from this current project to make sure
future projects are done in a timely fashion.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's concern, Mr. Key stated he has
spoken with staff relative to speeding up the design process.
Mr. Gecker stated the money for the project was appropriated
and allocated in increments. He further stated this project
ought to be used as an educational experience, to the extent
plans did not go as well they could have on this particular
job, matters can be isolated and avoid repetition in the
future.
Mr. Elswick noted the will of the Board is to have the
project completed sooner rather than later.
Ms. Mary Ann Curtin, Director of Intergovernmental Relations,
presented a brief update to the Board of Supervisors on the
status of several bills before the General Assembly and from
the county's legislative program. She stated staff continues
to review and identify legislation that supports the Board's
priorities as well as those that do not. She further stated
there is a bill making its way through the General Assembly
which deals with the Line of Duty Act, based on the JLARC
Report that was issued in December. She stated staff is
currently looking at the bill to determine its
appropriateness. She further stated there is a very
problematic BPOL tax bill that is expected to come out of
subcommittee with a statewide fiscal impact of $50,000,000.
She stated the bill relates to contractors and
subcontractors' gross receipts. She further stated staff is
focusing on the omnibus transportation bill (H.B. 1887) and
on budget amendments to find potential opportunities for
secondary maintenance. She stated a recent Supreme Court
decision has necessitated a bill on community development
authorities which will sail forward. She further stated it
has been drafted by bond attorneys to address the issues
identified by the court. In closing, she stated the
legislative session will reach crossover on February 10th;
February 8th is the day the House and Senate release their
amendments to the state budget, and adjournment is on
February 28th
15-55
01/28/15
9
19
9
In response to Mr. Elswick's question regarding H.B. 1889
that would impact the Richmond International Airport, Ms.
Curtin stated that bill was stricken.
3. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
There were no Board Member Reports at this time.
4. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADDITIONS DELETIONS
OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
replaced Item 8.B.5., Refer to Planning Commission Amendment
to Subdivision Ordinance Relative to Review Fees for
Subdivision Construction Plan Table Reviews; and added Item
8.B.12., Amendment to the 2015 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Schedule.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
5. RESOLUTIONS
5.A. RECOGNIZING MRS. DIANA C. JEFFERSON, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES, BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS DIVISION, UPON
HER RETIREMENT
Mr. Key introduced Mrs. Diana C. Jefferson, who was present
to receive the resolution.
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Mrs. Diana C. Jefferson was hired by
Chesterfield County, Department of General Services on April
30, 1980, as a part-time custodian in the Buildings and
Grounds Division; and
WHEREAS, in January 1982, Mrs. Jefferson was promoted to
a full-time custodian; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson was committed to her work and
produced high-quality service always with a positive
attitude; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson applied her skills, knowledge
and experience to perform tasks effectively and improve
customer satisfaction; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson was able to analyze situations
to determine the best course of action for the good of the
organization; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson continuously looked for ways to
improve job tasks and initiated changes to improve
efficiency; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson contributed to a safe and
healthy working environment and practiced green housekeeping
procedures; and
15-56
01/28/15
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson
emergencies in a timely manner
customers; and
responded to concerns and
to ensure areas were safe for
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson loved working with people and
maintained effective working relationships with co-workers
throughout her tenure; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson's commitment to a high standard
of personal and professional behavior contributed to the
strategic goals of the Buildings and Grounds Division; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson received many compliments from
customers for her outstanding job performance, which
reflected a positive image of the Department of General
Services; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Jefferson was an asset to the Department
of General Services and the county by being a team player and
role model who set an excellent example for others with her
professional, polite and friendly manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, this 28th day of January 2015,
publicly recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mrs.
Diana C. Jefferson, expresses the appreciation of all
residents for her service to Chesterfield County, and extends
appreciation for her dedicated service to the county and
congratulations upon her retirement, as well as best wishes
for a long and happy retirement.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this
resolution be presented to Mrs. Jefferson, and that this
resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
Mr. Elswick presented the executed resolution to Mrs.
Jefferson, commended her on her dedication and excellent
service to the county, and wished her a long and enjoyable
retirement.
Mr. Gecker and Mr. Holland expressed admiration for Ms.
Jefferson's reflection of a positive image of her department,
as well as her service to the county.
Mr. Stegmaier presented Mrs. Jefferson with an acrylic statue
and county watch, congratulated her on her retirement and
expressed appreciation for her outstanding service to the
county.
Mrs. Jefferson, accompanied by her husband, expressed her
appreciation to the Board for the special recognition.
Mr. Dupler also recognized Mr. Jefferson, who has worked for
the Utilities Department for 30-plue years.
15-57
01/28/15
1E
19
9
6. WORK SESSIONS
6.A. PROPOSED FY2016-2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Carmody presented an overview of the proposed FY2016-2020
Capital Improvement Program. He stated the presentation is
intended to outline concepts, highlight some projects and set
out a general direction of specific projects detailed in the
CIP. He further stated as with the operating budget there was
a tremendous energy spent laying out the county's capital
roadmap, and FY2016-2020 builds off of that work. He stated
the plan continues planned restoration of pay -go funding
(county and schools); a sharp focus on upkeep, care and
replacement of existing capital assets; enhanced, broader
efforts to promote revitalization; and growth pressures
remain a challenge. In regards to capital funding trends, he
stated the county works to maintain a balance with capital
funding efforts, using pay-as-you-go and debt. He further
stated using pay-as-you-go provides needed flexibility that
allows the county to quickly adjust to economic conditions.
He further stated during the recession, capital funding was
focused on taking care of existing facilities, and the
replacement of outdated capital facilities. He stated as the
economic recovery slowly takes hold, and in order to build
capacity for capital needs arising from a growing community,
the plan systematically continues, and builds on ways to
prepare for such projected growth in light of the regulatory
pressures arising from the mandated storm water initiative.
He highlighted some funding methods deployed which include 5
percent pay-as-you-go funding; managed migration of operating
functions back to operating fund; leveraging partnerships by
maximizing the state revenue sharing opportunities; a new
approach with CDBG funds; and reinvesting project savings. In
regards to capital plan priorities, he stated the general
focus of the proposed plan is unchanged from the direction
set forth last year. He highlighted the general government
plan which includes the replacement of the emergency
communications system; the replacement of major technology
systems, IT infrastructure; major facility maintenance
efforts; and maximizing revenue sharing. He stated there are
a few revisions to the overall FY2016-2020 plan, but the
changes are consistent with the Board established strategic
direction. He highlighted revisions to the plan which include
the addition of the Fire/EMS station alerting system
replacement in FY2016 and 2017; a sharper focus on
revitalization efforts such as Providence Middle School and
Davis Elementary School work; the reintroduction of deferred
facilities in out years; sports tourism enhancements at the
Clover Hill Sports Complex, and the River City replacement
turf work. In regards to TMDL, he stated one of the big
decisions in the plan deals with the county's financial
response to the mandated regulatory program for cleaning up
the Chesapeake Bay. He further stated FY2016 TMDL project
work is highlighted by the Pocoshock Creek restoration and
the focus shifts to the Falling Creek project beginning in
FY2017 (which will satisfy nearly 40 percent of the TMDL
goal). He pointed out the need for a recommended funding
source, and noted without one, more than half of pay -go
funding would be absorbed by TMDL by FY2020 (11 percent in
FY2016). In regards to the School capital plan, he stated the
CIP continues to focus on the execution of the 2013
referendum, facility revitalization and restoration of school
pay-as-you-go. He further stated Manchester Middle School is
the lead project for FY2016 and provides an opportunity to
execute a vision that is embodied in the Hull Street corridor
study that was jointly produced with the City of Richmond. He
stated the school division also proposes continuation of the
blended learning initiative with funding for beginning to
15-58
01/28/15
implement that initiative in the elementary schools beginning
in FY2017. He highlighted Utilities' capital plan and stated
the department is facing two major multi-year initiatives
associated with expanding the county's water supply capacity,
and expanding wastewater treatment facilities capacities
coupled with meeting new pollution regulations. In regards to
other CIP considerations, he stated FY2016 makes great
strides on key initiatives, but there are still some
outstanding items. He stated another key element of the plan
is the upgrading and replacement of an ever aging inventory
of public infrastructure, much of which was developed in the
1980s and 1990s. He noted $161 million of projects was cut
from the county's portion of the plan alone. In closing, he
stated the proposed plan stays true to approved capital
priorities and helps maintain a reinvestment balance between
operating and capital needs.
Ms. Jaeckle expressed concerns relative to road improvements
on the I-95 Interchange at Willis Road. She stressed the
importance of alleviating traffic impacts that may be caused
by the Tranlin Corporation in the future.
Mr. Stegmaier assured Ms. Jaeckle that staff would have an
update to the Board relative to the I-95 Interchange at
Willis Road, at the next meeting.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question regarding major
maintenance and replacement standards, Mr. Carmody stated
there is a general goal of 2 to 4 percent of replacement
value to be put into major maintenance type expenditures. He
further stated it is important to note that replacement value
is not the cost of putting a new building on the ground. He
stated when last reviewed, funding levels varied by different
disciplines within operations. He stressed the importance of
maintaining the 5 percent pay-as-you-go funding. He stated
revenue sharing provides $10 million in FY2016 to combine
with the equivalent state maximum providing $20 million for a
variety of transportation projects.
Discussion ensued relative to state revenue sharing for
transportation needs.
Ms. Jaeckle stated one of the reasons she was concerned about
the expansion and renovation of the Smith -Wagner Building was
the fact that so many rooms were dedicated for paper filing.
She further stated there was a conversation relative to using
technology instead of having to accommodate for a paper
filing storage needs.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's concern, Mr. Carmody stated the
paper file storage component is being addressed sooner. He
further stated there is an initiative underway that deals
with a paper reduction program that needs to be synced with
the state's automated social service's system project that is
underway.
Ms. Jaeckle noted she made an observation that Chesterfield
County does not have any major waterline breaks, unlike some
other localities. She commended the Utilities Department for
their efforts relative to upkeep and maintenance.
Mr. Elswick requested more information relative to technology
expenses for county -all departments and funding for
improvements and cost effectiveness relative to the water
plant in Richmond.
15-59
01/28/15
9
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
There were no Deferred Items at this time.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.A. APPOINTMENTS
On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination
/appointment of members to serve on the Appomattox River
Water Authority Board, South Central Wastewater Authority
Board and the Community Criminal Justice Board.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.A.1. APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY BOARD
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. George Hayes, Director
of Utilities, to serve as an alternate member on the
Appomattox River Water Authority Board, whose term is
effective immediately and will expire on November 21, 2017.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.A.2. SOUTH CENTRAL WASTEWATER AUTHORITY BOARD
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. George Hayes, Director
of Utilities, to serve as an alternate member on the South
Central Wastewater Authority Board, whose term is effective
immediately and will expire on November 21, 2017.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.A.3. COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed The Honorable J. David
Rigler to serve on the Community Criminal Justice Board,
whose term is effective immediately and will expire on June
30, 2015.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-60
01/28/15
8.B. CONSENT ITEMS
8.B.1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
8.B.l.a. RECOGNIZING COUNTY EMPLOYEES UPON THEIR RETIREMENT
8.B.1.a.l. MRS. CHRISTIE B. GUNN, POLICE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Mrs. Christie B. Gunn, retired from the
Chesterfield County Police Department on January 1, 2015,
after providing more than 27 years of outstanding quality
service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Gunn has faithfully served the county in
the capacity of Data Entry Operator, Senior Office Assistant,
Public Safety Records Specialist, Records and ID Supervisor,
Senior Records Specialist and Master Records Specialist; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Gunn was chosen as the 2001 Police
Department Civilian "Employee of the Year"; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Gunn and her fellow employees received a
Unit Citation following four separate audits of the Records
Unit by the FBI and the Virginia State Police, the results of
which exceeded expectations and validated the department's
professionalism and attention to detail; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Gunn was the recipient of a Unit Citation
Award for the professionalism, dedication and diligence
displayed by her unit in achieving a 99.7 percent accuracy
rating in records management and providing superior customer
service while the department was operating well below
authorized staffing; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Gunn is recognized for her excellent
communications and human relations skills, her
professionalism and her teamwork, all of which she has
utilized to provide great assistance to internal and external
customers; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Gunn has provided the Chesterfield County
Police Department with many years of loyal and dedicated
service; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of
Supervisors will miss Mrs. Gunn's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mrs. Christie B. Gunn,
and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of
Chesterfield County, appreciation for her service to the
county, congratulations upon her retirement, and best wishes
for a long and happy retirement.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-61
01/28/15
9
9
9
8.B.1.a.2. CORPORAL JEFFREY A. MEADOR, POLICE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Corporal Jeffrey A. Meador retired from the
Chesterfield County Police Department on January 1, 2015,
after providing more than 28 years of outstanding quality
service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Corporal Meador has faithfully served the
county in the capacity of Patrol Officer, Field Training
Officer, Detective, Detective First Class, Senior Detective,
Master Detective, Career Detective and Corporal; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure with the Chesterfield County
Police Department, Corporal Meador served as a Juvenile
Detective and as Property Detective where he has served for
more than 17 years; and
WHEREAS, Corporal Meador has been a conscientious,
dedicated employee who has displayed exemplary teamwork and
investigative skills in the resolution of numerous cases; and
WHEREAS, Corporal Meador has served as a member of the
Special Response Unit; and
WHEREAS, Corporal Meador has been recognized for his
excellent communications and human relations skills, his
professionalism and his teamwork, all of which he has
utilized within the Police Department and in assisting
citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Corporal Meador has received many letters of
commendation, thanks and appreciation for services rendered;
and
WHEREAS, Corporal Meador has provided the Chesterfield
County Police Department with many years of loyal and
dedicated service; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of
Supervisors will miss Corporal Meador's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes Corporal Jeffrey A.
Meador, and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens
of Chesterfield County, appreciation for his service to the
county, congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes
for a long and happy retirement.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-62
01/28/15
8.B.1.a.3. MS. JUDY HATHAWAY, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Ms. Judy Hathaway retired from the Chesterfield
County Utilities Department on January 5, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hathaway began her public-service career
with Chesterfield County Department of Utilities on August
29, 1988, as a Customer Service Representative and was
responsible for answering customer calls and handling
customer concerns, and in August 1994, she was promoted to
Account Collector and was responsible for resolving customer
account issues, collecting delinquent accounts, and
establishing and updating policies and procedures related to
collections and lien processes; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hathaway held the position of Account
Collector until her retirement and in that time she received
numerous certificates of recognition for teamwork, collected
over $5.2 million in debt collections, filed approximately
7,000 liens and referred over 22,000 accounts for further
debt collection activities; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hathaway has been an asset to the Utilities
Department because of her dedication in collecting debts from
past -due accounts for water and wastewater customers and her
participation on numerous process action teams that improved
collection processes; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hathaway has passed on her significant
knowledge and mentored other employees in the Billing and
Customer Service Section to help improve their skills and
encourage them to be successful with their responsibilities;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hathaway
knowledge, pride, and quality
at the Utilities Department.
has exhibited dedication,
in the work she has performed
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes Ms. Judy Hathaway, and
extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of
Chesterfield County, appreciation for her twenty-six years of
service to the county.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.l.b. AUTHORIZING PROVISION OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND
EXECUTION OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS
BY RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
adopted the following resolution authorizing the county to
provide financial information and execute the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement in support of the Riverside Jail
Authority issuing Jail Facility Refunding Revenue Bonds,
Series 2015:
15-63
01/28/15
19
9
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA REGARDING REFUNDING BONDS
TO BE ISSUED BY THE RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY
The County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County") is a
member of the Riverside Regional Jail Authority (the
"Authority"). The Authority issued its $47,220,000 Jail
Facility Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 (the 112007 Bonds") to
finance a portion of the costs to construct an addition to
the Authority's regional jail.
To take advantage of current low interest rates in the
capital markets, the Authority has determined to refinance
all or a portion of the 2007 Bonds to reduce debt service
payments. Such refinancing is to be accomplished by the
Authority through the issuance of its Jail Facility Refunding
Revenue Bonds, Series 2015 (the "Bonds").
In connection with the issuance of the 2007 Bonds, the
County entered a Continuing Disclosure Agreement dated as of
August 7, 2007 (the 112007 Agreement") in substantially the
same form as the form of Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the
"2015 Continuing Disclosure Agreement") presented to this
meeting. The 2007 Agreement required the annual delivery of
the County's audited financial statements and certain other
information contained in its comprehensive annual financial
report.
The Authority has advised that the issuance of the 2015
Bonds will necessitate the members of the Authority entering
into the 2015 Continuing Disclosure Agreement to provide
substantially the same information at the substantially the
same time as the members are currently providing under the
2007 Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia:
1. Approval of 2015 Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The
2015 Continuing Disclosure Agreement is approved in
substantially the form presented at this meeting. The County
Administrator, and such other officers of the County as may
be appropriate, are authorized to execute and deliver the
2015 Continuing Disclosure Agreement, and affix and attest
the seal thereto if needed, with such changes, insertions or
omissions as may be approved by any of them, whose approval
will be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery
thereof.
2. General Authorization. Such officers of the County are
each authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf
of the County, and to do and perform such things and acts, as
they deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the
transactions authorized by this Resolution or contemplated
the 2015 Continuing Disclosure Agreement, and are further
authorized to assist the Authority in connection with the
issuance of the Authority's 2015 Bonds and provide the type
of information previously provided to the Authority in prior
bond financings for use in the Authority's bond offering
documents for the 2015 Bonds. All of the foregoing,
previously done or performed by such officers of the County,
are in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed.
3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its adoption.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-64
01/28/15
8.B.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCES
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on a
plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation has advised this Board the
streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees
a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Project/Subdivision: Brooks Chapel Section 2
Type Change to the Secondary System miles of State Highways:
Addition
Reason for Change: New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-229
Street Name and/or Route Number
• Ethens Mill Road, State Route Number 7783
From: Ethens Point Lane, (Route 7782)
To: Tuscola Drive, (Route 5789), a distance of: 0.14 miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 211, Page 88
Right of Way width (feet) = 50
• Ethens Castle Drive, State Route Number 7531
From: Ethens Point Lane, (Route 7782)
To: Cul -de -Sac, a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 211, Page 88
Right of Way width (feet) = 40
• Ethens Point Court, State Route Number 7784
From: Ethens Point Lane, (Route 7782)
To: End of Maintenance, a distance of: 0.01 miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 211, Page 88
Right of Way width (feet) = 50
• Ethens Point Lane, State Route Number 7782
From: Ethens Mill Road, (Route 7783)
To: End of Maintenance, a distance of: 0.02 miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 211, Page 88
Right of Way width (feet) = 50
• Midhurst Drive, State Route Number 7530
From: 0.04 miles east of Ethens Castle Drive, (Route 7530)
To: Cul -de -Sac, a distance of: 0.04 miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 211, Page 88
Right of Way width (feet) = 40
15-65
01/28/15
9-
• Ethens Point Lane, State Route Number 7782
From: Ethens Castle Drive, (Route 7531)
To: Ethens Mill Road, (Route 7783), a distance of: 0.08
miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 211, Page 88
Right of Way width (feet) = 50
• Ethens Castle Drive, State Route Number 7531
From: 0.02 miles south of Midhurst Drive, (Route 7530)
To: Ethens Point Lane, (Route 7782), a distance of: 0.17
miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 211, Page 88
Right of Way width (feet) = 50
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on a
plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation has advised this Board the
streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees
a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Project/Subdivision: Brooks Chapel Section 3
Type Change to the Secondary System miles of State Highways:
Addition
Reason for Change: New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-229
Street Name and/or Route Number
• Ethens Point Court, State Route Number 7784
From: 0.01 miles north of Ethens Point Lane, (Route 7782)
To: Cul -de -Sac, a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 220, Page 9
Right of Way width (feet) = 40
• Ethens Point Lane, State Route Number 7782
From: 0.02 miles west of Ethens Mill Road, (Route 7783)
To: Cul -de -Sac, a distance of: 0.12 miles.
Recordation Reference: Plat Book 220, Page 9
Right of Way width (feet) = 40
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-66
01/28/15
8.B.5. REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO REVIEW FEES FOR SUBDIVISION
CONSTRUCTION PLAN TABLE REVIEWS
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
referred to Planning Commission an amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance relative to review fees for subdivision
construction plan table reviews for public hearing and
recommendation; and directed the Planning Commission to
forward a recommendation to the Board no later than March 18,
2015.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.6. INITIATE AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE TO PERMIT
A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CHURCH USE,
LOCATED AT 3320 AND 3424 WEST HUNDRED ROAD, 3401 AND
3409 OSBORNE ROAD AND 3321 WEST GROVE AVENUE
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
initiated an application for a Conditional Use to permit a
private school in conjunction with a church use on 3.7 acres
zoned Residential (R-7), identified as Tax ID 793-656-7618,
8532 and 9037, and 794-656-0123 and 0200, and appointed
Kirkland Turner, Director of Planning, as the Board's agent
and waived disclosure requirements.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.7. REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION
8.B.7.a. FROM ADANA INVESTMENTS, LLC TO CONSTRUCT A GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY WITHIN A FIFTY -FOOT COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY
KNOWN AS FONDA STREET
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
granted Adana Investments, LLC permission to construct a
gravel driveway within a 50' county right of way known as
Fonda Street to access property at 7612 Fonda Street, subject
to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy
of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.7.b. FROM KAMRAN RAIKA AND ANA RAIKA TO CONSTRUCT TWO
BULKHEADS IN THE IMPOUNDMENT EASEMENT FOR SWIFT
CREEK RESERVOIR
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
granted Kamran Raika and Ana Raika permission to construct
two bulkheads in the impoundment easement for Swift Creek
Reservoir, subject to the execution of a license agreement.
(It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of
this Board.)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-67
01/28/15
9
9
8.B.8. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ACROSS PROPERTY OF
BARBARA FLINT DAVIS
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a
drainage easement and temporary construction easements across
property of Barbara Flint Davis. (It is noted a copy of the
plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.9. DESIGNATION OF RIGHT OF WAY AND CONVEYANCE OF
EASEMENTS TO VEPCO AND VERIZON FOR THE SOUTH
PROVIDENCE ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
designated right of way and approved the conveyance of
easements to VEPCo and Verizon for the South Providence Road
Sidewalk Project and authorized the County Administrator to
execute the declaration and easement agreements. (It is noted
a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.10. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM
THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR WRENS NEST ROAD
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SETTLERS LANDING
SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
accepted a grant and appropriated funds in the amount of
$320,783, as anticipated grant funding reimbursements, from
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents; and awarded the construction contract for Wrens
Nest Road drainage improvements in the Settlers Landing
Subdivision to Shoosmith Construction Incorporated in the
amount of $777,000 and authorized the County Administrator to
execute the necessary documents.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.11. APPROPRIATION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS, ACCEPTANCE OF
GRANT AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AWARD OF
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PROPOSED LTC -20/25
PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PURCHASE OF STREAM
AND WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
appropriated and transferred funds from pro rata fees up to
$964,500; accepted a grant and appropriated funds in the
amount of $878,200, as anticipated grant funding
reimbursements, from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality and authorized the County Administrator to execute
any necessary documents; awarded the construction contract
for the proposed LTC -20/25 Project to Southwood Building
Systems Incorporated in the amount of $1,278,678.75 and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
15-68
01/28/15
documents; and authorized the County Administrator to execute
the necessary documents to purchase stream and wetland
mitigation credits within the funding allocated in the
project budget.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.12. APPROVAL OF REVISED MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2015
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
approved the revised Board of Supervisors meeting schedule
for 2015.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda for
Board discussion:
8.B.3. AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF DONATED
FUNDS FROM THE MID -LOTHIAN MINES AND RAIL ROADS
FOUNDATION TO CONVERT AN EXISTING PART-TIME POSITION,
FUNDED BY THE MID -LOTHIAN MINES AND RAIL ROADS
FOUNDATION, TO A TEMPORARY FULL-TIME POSITION
Mr. Gecker recognized Mr. Tom Gardner, who was in the
audience, for his many contributions and dedication to the
community. He noted Mr. Gardner has built out public
infrastructure in the Village of Midlothian for Mid -Lothian
Mines Park.
On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to accept and appropriate
donated funds up to $63,465 from the Mid -Lothian Mines and
Rail Roads Foundations in reimbursement for a temporary full-
time position.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.4. APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL PROPERTY
AT MID -LOTHIAN MINES PARK AND A MANAGEMENT AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY
On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute a lease
agreement with LATC, LLC for use of additional property for
Mid -Lothian Mines Park, subject to substantial accord
approval for use of the property as a public park, and to
execute a Management and Maintenance Agreement with the Mid -
Lothian Mines and Rail Roads Foundation for the property.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-69
01/28/15
9
9
8.C. DISCUSSION RELATED TO CHESTERFIELD CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION
GOALS AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
Mr. Elswick stated during the Board's discussion on January
14th, relative to the creation of the Chesterfield Capital
Construction Goals and Accountability Committee, he failed to
acknowledge that the Board had received a letter from then
School Board Chair Ms. Diane Smith requesting the use of the
School Liaison Committee for the task. He further stated
subsequently, he met with Mr. Stegmaier, Dr. Newsome and
current Chair Ms. Carrie Coyner to discuss the new committee.
He stated at that meeting he was asked that the Board
consider using the School Liaison Committee for the
undertaking.
Mr. Holland thanked Mr. Elswick for bringing the item back
before the Board for discussion. He stated he did not have an
opportunity to read the letter from Ms. Smith before the
Board meeting on January 14th. He further stated after reading
the letter he agrees with the School Board and their request.
He stated he believes the Board should not develop a new
committee, because using the School Liaison Committee would
be more cost effective, more efficient and more productive.
He noted it is the prerogative and power of the Chairman to
alter and create boards and committees based on
recommendations in his purview. He stated he has always
agreed with limiting the scope and expansion of government
relative to the use of time. He further stated last year on
the first day of his Chairmanship he directed staff to
examine each county board and committee to determine its
purpose and importance.
Ms. Jaeckle noted each Board member did receive Ms. Smith's
letter via email from staff before the January 14 Board
meeting. She noted the email could have easily been
overlooked with the hundreds of emails Board members received
that week relative to a specific zoning case. She stated she
understands the School Board's position; however, she
believes the task is too big for the School Liaison Committee
to handle. She further stated the Liaison Committee is
currently examining technology, PTR, the five-year plan and
health initiative. She stated she does not believe it would
be effective if it were only in the confines of the School
Liaison Committee. She further stated she believes the
Chesterfield Capital Construction Goals and Accountability
Committee should remain and expire when the projects are
completed.
Mr. Gecker noted the committee was created by the vote of the
Board of Supervisors. He apologized that Ms. Smith's letter
was not addressed at the last meeting. He stated the letter
came out in a different form than the conversations with
School Board members had suggested it would. He further
stated one item in the letter that bears some discussion is
the expansion of the scope and charge of the committee. He
stated there is a larger component to capital construction
than just to the schools; it does encompass the
revitalization within a range around those schools that are
being examined. He further stated he certainly supports the
idea that the committee expands its scope to include both the
county and school efforts with regards to the area around the
15-70
01/28/15
schools under rehabilitation. He stated he believes the
Liaison Committee is doing valuable and important work and
therefore should not need to deal with an added component
relative to capital projects. He further stated it seems to
him that given the significant financial commitment being
made towards the effort, having the people involved that were
listed in the original committee proposal is important to get
their independent thoughts to guide the process. He stated
development and redevelopment is labor intensive and in order
to get an acceptable end result, management must oversee all
aspects. He noted he is fully supportive of the Chesterfield
Capital Construction Goals and Accountability Committee with
the further explanation expressly that the scope of the
committee includes the county general fund items, as well as
school funded items.
Mr. Warren stated he will continue to support the position
relative to the creation of the Chesterfield Capital
Construction Goals and Accountability Committee adopted at
the last meeting. He further stated the more accountability
that is built into system, the better.
Mr. Elswick stated the School Liaison Committee has made
major strides relative to addressing an array of school -
related issues. He further stated he is concerned that the
School Liaison Committee would lose focus and be consumed
with the goals of the new committee. He stated he believes
the process will serve as a model for other local
jurisdictions. He concurred with Mr. Gecker's recommendation
to expand the scope of the new committee to include county
general fund items, as well as school -funded items.
Ms. Jaeckle stated electives offered in schools and their
correlation to property values is a perfect example of how
one issue can affect the overall county. She stressed the
importance of both boards bringing together a better balance
in order to rehabilitate the interworking of county schools,
as well as their infrastructure.
Mr. Gecker stated both the Board of Supervisors and the
School Board should act in a coordinated fashion for the
benefit of the citizens and the new committee is a
culmination of making that idea a reality.
Mr. Holland concurred with Mr. Gecker's remarks relative to
both boards working in concert for the benefit of the county.
He expressed his appreciation for the dialogue relative to
the topic.
9. REPORTS
9.A. REPORT ON DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
9.B. REPORT ON STATUS OF GENERAL FUND BALANCE, RESERVE FOR
FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS, DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS AND
LEASE PURCHASES
9.C. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD
DETERMINATION FOR MARIANNA PARLANTI (CASE 15PD0136) TO
PERMIT A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (DATA NODE ANTENNA) IN A
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) DISTRICT
15-71
01/28/15
9
9
9.D. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD
DETERMINATION FOR ZAREMBA METRO MIDLOTHIAN, LLC (CASE
15PD0138) TO PERMIT A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (DATA NODE
ANTENNA) IN A GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (I-2) DISTRICT
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
accepted the following reports: a Report on Developer Water
and Sewer Contracts; a Report on Status of General Fund
Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District
Improvement Funds and Lease Purchases; a Report of Planning
Commission Substantial Accord Determination for Marianna
Parlanti (Case 15PD0136) to Permit a Communications Tower
(Data Node Antenna) in a Light Industrial (I-1) District; and
a Report of Planning Commission Substantial Accord
Determination for Zaremba Metro Midlothian, LLC (Case
15PD0138) to Permit a Communications Tower (Data Node
Antenna) in a General Industrial (I-2) District.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
10. FIFTEEN -MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED
MATTERS
Mr. Bruce Carter addressed the Board relative to revisions
to the noise ordinance and enforcement of noise
violations.
Mr. Elswick directed staff to examine Mr. Carter's request
to amend the noise ordinance.
11. DINNER
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
recessed to Room 502 for dinner.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
Reconvening:
12. INVOCATION
Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Vice Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
gave the invocation.
13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
Eagle Scout Cameron Galligher led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag of the United States of America.
15-72
01/28/15
14. RESOLUTIONS
14.A. RECOGNIZING MR. CAMERON GALLIGHER UPON ATTAINING THE
RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT
Ms. Pollard introduced Mr. Cameron Galligher, who was present
to receive the resolution.
On motion of Mr. Elswick, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered
by Congress in 1916; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build
character, provide citizenship training and promote physical
fitness; and
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and
outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop,
carrying out a service project beneficial to his community,
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law, Mr. Cameron Blake
Galligher, Troop 876, sponsored by Mount Pisgah United
Methodist Church, has accomplished those high standards of
commitment and has reached the long -sought goal of Eagle
Scout, which is received by only four percent of those
individuals entering the Scouting movement; and
WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and
endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in
society, Cameron has distinguished himself as a member of a
new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all
be very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, this 28th day of January 2015,
publicly recognizes Mr. Cameron Blake Galligher, extends
congratulations on his attainment of Eagle Scout, and
acknowledges the good fortune of the county to have such an
outstanding young man as its citizen.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
Mr. Gecker presented the executed resolution and patch to Mr.
Galligher, accompanied by members of his family,
congratulated him on his outstanding achievements, and wished
him well in future endeavors.
Mr. Galligher, accompanied by members of his family, provided
details of his Eagle Scout project and expressed appreciation
to his parents and others for their support.
15. FIFTEEN -MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED
MATTERS
There were no requests to address the Board at this time.
15-73
01/28/15
9
9
9
16. REQUESTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND REZONING
PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD IN THE
FOLLOWING ORDER: - WITHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS - CASES WHERE
THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATION AND THERE IS NO
OPPOSITION - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ACCEPT
THE RECOMMENDATION AND/OR THERE IS PUBLIC OPPOSITION
WILL BE HEARD AT SECTION 18
1 SGNn117
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Richard Moore requests
renewal of manufactured home permit (Case 07SR0259) to permit
a temporary manufactured home and amendment of zoning
district map in a Residential (R-7) District on .4 acre known
as 2527 Dwight Avenue. Density is approximately 2.5 units per
acre. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for Residential use (7.01 to 10 units/acre). Tax
ID 792-676-3347.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 15SNO117 and stated
staff recommended approval subject to the conditions.
Mr. Richard Moore accepted the conditions.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
approved Case 15SN0117, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant, Richard Moore, shall be the owner of the
temporary manufactured home. (P)
2. Occupancy of the temporary manufactured home shall be
limited to David B. Moore. (P)
3. No permanent -type living space may be added to the
manufactured home. The manufactured home shall be
skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent
foundation. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15SNO118
In Bermuda Magisterial District, William Hambright requests
renewal of manufactured home permit (Case 07SN0315) to permit
a temporary manufactured home and amendment of zoning
district map in a Heavy Industrial (I-3) District on .2 acre
known as 8321 Haven Avenue. Density is approximately 5 units
per acre. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for General Industrial use. Tax ID 796-676-2102.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 15SNO118 and stated
staff recommended approval subject to the conditions.
Ms. Jaeckle recommended combining Case 15SNO118 and Case
15SN0119.
Mr. William Hambright accepted the conditions of Case
15SNO118 and Case 15SN0119.
15-74
01/28/15
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
approved Case 15SN0118, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner of the manufactured
home. Occupancy of the manufactured home shall be
limited to Wayne Hambright. (P)
2. No permanent -type living space may be added to the
manufactured home. The manufactured home shall be
skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent
foundation. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15SN0119
In Bermuda Magisterial District, William Hambright requests
renewal of manufactured home permit (Case 07SN0318) to permit
a temporary manufactured home and amendment of zoning
district map in a Heavy Industrial (I-3) District on .4 acre
known as 8325 Haven Avenue. Density is approximately .3 unit
per acre. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for General Industrial use. Tax ID 796-675-2588
and 2495.
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
approved Case 15SN0119, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant, William Hambright, shall be the owner and
occupant of the manufactured home. (P)
2. No permanent -type living space, may be added to the
manufactured home. The manufactured home shall be
skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent
foundation. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15SN0122
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Edward L. Strickland
requests renewal of manufactured home permit (Case 08SN0101)
to permit a temporary manufactured home and amendment of
zoning district map in a Heavy Industrial (I-3) District on
.9 acre known as 8401-A Haven Avenue. Density is
approximately 1.1 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for General Industrial
use. Tax ID 796-675-4921.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 15SN0122 and stated
staff recommended approval subject to the conditions.
Mr. Edward Strickland accepted the conditions.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
15-75
01/28/15
9
1E
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board
approved Case 15SN0122, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant, Edward L. Strickland, shall be the owner
and occupant of the manufactured home. (P)
2. No permanent -type living space may be added to the
manufactured home. The manufactured home shall be
skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent
foundation. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15SN0562
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, R. E. Collier Builder,
Inc. requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential
(R-15) plus conditional use planned development to permit
exceptions to ordinance requirements and amendment of zoning
district map on 5.2 acres lying 160 feet off the east line of
Rams Crossing at Brookstone Crossing, 715 feet south of Rams
Crossing Court. Residential use of up to 2.90 units per acre
is permitted in the Residential (R-15) District. The
Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for
Mixed Use Corridor use. Tax IDs 755-690-9053 and 756-690-
0292.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 15SN0562 and stated
both the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
and acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Mr. Andy Scherzer, representing the applicant, accepted the
recommendation. He noted the presence of citizens who wished
to speak to the case.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
Mr. Paul Grasewicz voiced his support of the project and
noted the quality of the development located in the eastern
portion of the county and the applicant's assurance to fully
addressing impacts on capital facilities.
Ms. Kathleen Clark, a resident of the neighborhood, expressed
concerns relative to property values, traffic impacts and lot
sizes and widths less than those in Bexley East. She urged
the Board to deny the request.
Mr. John Burgner, President of the Bexley Homeowners
Association, noted after further discussion relative to the
proposal, the Homeowners Association is split even in their
decision. He stated some members have indicated their
acceptance of the project if the applicant would reduce the
number of lots from eight to seven.
Mr. Brown Pearson, a resident of the neighborhood, stated
density is too high and a condition should limit the number
of lots. He expressed concerns with lots sizes and widths and
urged the Board to reduce the number of lots from eight to
seven.
15-76
01/28/15
There being no one else to address the request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Andy Scherzer stated the project is a 5.2 acre piece. He
further stated the neighborhood has open space that
compensates for the difference between the smaller cluster
lots that were developed in Bexley East and the 15,000 feet
that would be required on the traditional lots. He noted
every site is configured in different ways relative to
setbacks. He stated all required buffers will be located
within recorded open space and the maximum density of the
development will not exceed eight lots. He further stated the
proposal is compatible with Bexley East and proffered
conditions ensure a quality development, open space
provision. He noted the applicant is a reputable builder with
proven quality development in the area.
In response to Mr. Warren's questions, Mr. Scherzer stated
the bulk standards and requirements are the same as the
original zoning. In regards to traffic impacts, he stated the
Transportation Department usually utilizes 10 trips per day,
per house, for a normal standard family household.
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Richard Collier
stated the price of new housing would range between $450,000
and $500,000. He further stated the proposed housing would be
priced higher than existing homes in Bexley East. He stated
the quality of the development is assured through the
proffered conditions. He noted there are no sidewalks
proposed.
Mr. Scherzer stated there will be nature trails and paths for
recreation through the open space, which the cluster -type
development requires.
Mr. Warren noted there was a compromise reached to reduce the
number of lots from ten to eight. He stated the applicant is
providing quality amenities and the architectural treatment
is compatible with styles within the Bexley Subdivision. He
further stated the applicant is fully addressing impacts on
capital facilities.
Mr. Warren then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holland, for
the Board to approve Case 15SNO562 and accept the following
proffered conditions:
1. Master Plan. The Textual Statement dated August 8, 2014,
revised December 5, 2014, shall be considered the Master
Plan. (P)
2. Buffers. All required buffers shall be located within
recorded open space. (P)
3. Density. The maximum density of this development shall
not exceed eight (8) lots. (P)
4. Architectural/Design Elements.
A. Driveways/Walks
1. Driveways: All private driveways serving
residential uses shall be hardscaped.
15-77
01/28/15
F]
2. Front Walks: A minimum of a four (4) foot
wide hardscaped front walk shall be provided
to each dwelling unit.
B. Landscaping and Yards
1. Street Trees: Street trees shall be planted
or retained along both sides of all streets
that provide general circulation.
2. Supplemental Trees: Prior to the issuance of
a final Certificate of Occupancy for each
dwelling unit, a minimum of one (1) flowering
tree shall be planted in each front yard. At
the time of planting, these supplemental trees
shall have a minimum caliper of 2" measured at
breast height (4'-10" above ground).
3. Front Foundation Planting Beds: Foundation
planting is required along the entire front
fagade of all dwelling units, and shall extend
along all sides facing a street. Foundation
Planting Beds shall be a minimum of 4' wide
from the unit foundation. Planting beds shall
include medium shrubs spaced a maximum of four
(4) feet apart. Unit corners shall be
visually softened with vertical accent shrubs
(4'-51) or small evergreen trees (6'-81) at
the time of planting.
C. Architecture and Materials
1. Style and Form: The architectural styles
shall be interpretations of traditional
Richmond architecture, using forms and
elements compatible with those in the adjacent
Bexley Subdivision such as Georgian, Adam,
Classical Revival Colonial, Greek Revival,
Queen Anne, and Craftsman Styles.
2. Repetition: Dwellings with the same
elevations may not be located adjacent to,
directly across from, or diagonally across
from each other on the same street. This
requirement does not apply to units on
different streets backing up to each other.
3. Foundations: The exposed portion of any
foundation shall be brick or stone. Synthetic
or natural stucco foundations may be permitted
for fagades constructed entirely of stucco.
Rear walkout basement walls may be sided or
cast concrete painted to match house.
4. Exterior Fagades: Acceptable siding materials
include brick, stone, masonry, stucco
synthetic stucco (E.I.F.S), and approved
horizontal lap siding. Horizontal lap siding
may be manufactured from natural wood or
cement fiber board. Plywood, vinyl and metal
15-78
01/28/15
siding are not permitted. Additional siding
requirements:
a. Where a dwelling borders more than one
street, all street -facing facades shall
be finished in the same materials.
b. Cementitious siding is permitted in
traditional wide beaded styles only,
unless otherwise approved by the
Architectural Board for special design
conditions.
c. Synthetic Stucco (E.I.F.S.) siding shall
be finished in smooth, sand or level
texture. Rough textures are not
permitted.
D. Roof Material: Roofing material shall be
dimensional architectural shingles or better with a
minimum 50 year warranty.
E. Porches, Stoops and Decks
1. Front Porches: All front entry stoops and
front porches shall be constructed with
continuous masonry foundation wall or on
12"x12" masonry piers. Extended front porches
shall be a minimum of five (5)' deep. Space
between piers under porches shall be enclosed
with framed lattice panels. Handrails and
railings shall be finished painted wood or
metal railing with vertical pickets or swan
balusters. Pickets shall be supported on top
and bottom rails that span between columns.
F. Front Porch Flooring: Porch flooring may be
concrete, exposed aggregate concrete, or a finished
paving material such as stone, tile or brick,
finished (stained dark) wood, or properly trimmed
composite decking boards. Unfinished treated wood
decking is not acceptable. All front steps shall
be masonry to match the foundation. (P)
5. Cash Proffer. For each dwelling unit, 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 cash proffer service district for the property,
unless state law prevents enforcement of that timing:
A. $18,966.00 per dwelling unit for the period
beginning the July 1 preceding the Board of
Supervisors' approval of the case through July 1
four years later, at which point the amount will be
adjusted for the cumulate change in the Marshall
and Swift Building Cost Index during that time
period.
B. Thereafter, the per dwelling unit cash proffer
amount shall be automatically adjusted, annually,
by the annual change in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index on July 1 of each year.
15-79
01/28/15
F]
9
C. Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the
purposes proffered or as otherwise permitted by
law. (B)
6. The minimum gross floor area for each dwelling unit
shall be 2,350 square feet. (P)
7. If approved by VDOT, roll -face curb (combination 4" curb
and gutter, CG -7) shall be constructed along all public
roads (T)
8. The following shall be recorded as Deed Restrictions in
conjunction with the recordation of any subdivision
plat:
THIS DECLARATION
is made and
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
OF RESTRICTIONS
executed this
by R. E.
COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS,
day of
Collier, Inc. -Builder, (the
Owner) ,
Recitals:
A. The Owner is the fee simple owner of certain real
property located in Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown
on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, and it
is his desire to provide for the orderly development of a
residential community thereon.
B. The Owner desires to subject the Property to the
covenants and restrictions as hereinafter set forth for the
benefit of the Property and each Owner of a portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner hereby declares his Property
is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, occupied
and used subject to the covenants, conditions and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, such covenants conditions
and restrictions to run with, bind and burden the Property
for and during the period of time hereinafter specified.
A. Additions to the Property by Owner. As long as the
Owner owns any real property in the general area of the
Property described in Exhibit A hereto, the Owner may submit
additional real property to the Provisions of this
Declaration by filing a supplement hereto in the appropriate
Clerk's Office.
B. Architectural Control Committee.
1. No building, structure, outbuilding, fence,
wall or improvement of any nature whatsoever (except for
interior alterations to existing structures not affecting the
external structure or appearance of any improvement on any
portion of the Property) shall be constructed or modified on
the Property unless and until the plans for such construction
shall have been approved in writing by the Architectural
Control Committee (the Committee). The plans submitted to
the Committee for approval shall include (1) the construction
plans and specifications and related drawings, and (2) a plat
showing the location of all proposed improvements..
15-80
01/28/15
2. No plans for a primary dwelling to be
constructed on the Property shall be submitted for such
approval unless the living area of such dwelling. exclusive
of open porches, attics, basement, and garages shall exceed
2,350 square feet.
3. Approval by the Committee shall be based upon
compliance with the provisions of this Declaration, the
quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external
design with surrounding structures, location of improvements
with respect to topography and finished grade elevation, the
effect of the construction on the outlook from surrounding
portions of the Property, color schemes and all other factors
which in the reasonable opinion of the Committee will affect
the desirability or suitability of the proposed improvements
in relation to the aesthetic quality of the Property.
4. Approval or disapproval of each application to
the Committee shall be given to the applicant in writing
within thirty days of receipt of a complete set of plans and
application. In the event the approval or disapproval is not
forthcoming within thirty days, unless an extension is agreed
to by the applicant in writing, the application shall be
deemed approved and the construction of the applied for
improvements may be commenced provided that all such
construction is in accordance with the submitted plans and
provided further that such plans conform in all respects to
the other terms and provisions of this Declaration.
S. Approval by the Committee shall not constitute
a basis for liability of the members of the Committee, the
Committee or the Owner for any reason including with
limitation (i) failure of the plans to conform to any
applicable building codes or (ii) inadequacy or deficiency in
the plans resulting in defects in the improvements.
6. The Committee shall be composed of three
individuals, two appointed by R. E. Collier, Inc. -Builder,
Owner, and one a member of the Bexley Association ACC..
These members may be removed by the Owner with or without
cause and successors shall be appointed by the Owner and
Bexley HHOA, maintaining the same respective composition as
stated above as long as the Owner has ownership interest in
the Property and thereafter by the Bexley HOA itself. The
committee members shall not be entitled to any compensation
for their activities hereunder. The Committee may designate
a representative to act in its behalf who need not be a
member of the Committee and such representative shall not be
entitled to compensation for his activities hereunder.
7. The authority of the Committee hereunder, its
procedure and make-up may be modified or abrogated by duly
recorded instruments executed by the then owners of eighty
percent of the lots created on the Property, except as to the
rights of the Owner as provided in Paragraphs 2 and 6 of this
section entitled Architectural Control Committee.
C. Restrictions.
15-81
01/28/15
9
9
1. No lot shown on a plat of subdivision of the
Property (lot) shall be used except: for purposes incidental
thereto, except for model homes utilized by builders. Only
one residence shall be constructed on a lot; provided,
however, that suitable outbuildings and other improvements of
the same construction and exterior siding as the main
residence may be constructed if approved by the Committee as
hereinbefore provided.
2. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the
public view on any Lot except one sign of not more than six
square feet advertising on the lot for sale, or signs used by
a builder to advertise the Lot during the construction sales
period.
3. No trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn or other
outbuildings erected on any Lot shall at any time be used as
a residence, temporarily or permanently, and no structure of
a temporary character be used as a residence.
4. No trailer, camper, recreational vehicle or
boat having a height of five feet or more or truck having a
height of seven feet or more shall be parked on the street in
front of any residence. Trailers, campers, recreational
vehicles, boats or trucks of this nature shall not be parked
over twelve hours in any one week on any Lot, including any
driveway, so as to be visible from any street or other
portion of the Property.
5. No motor vehicle shall be parked for more than
twelve hours in any one week on any Lot without having a
current Virginia registration, or other state registration.
6. Each primary dwelling shall have a roof which
consist of synthetic slate, natural slate, metal, concrete
shingle or "hard" type roof or a high definition
architectural shingle with a life -time (50 year) warranty as
approved by the Committee.
7. All driveways shall consist of exposed
aggregate concrete, asphalt, or other masonry pavement, to
include individual concrete pavers.
8. All mailboxes shall be identical in design and
provided by the owner to the original purchaser of any lot
and shall remain with the lot when such lot is resold.
9. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind
shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot, except that dogs,
cats and other household pets may be kept, provided (i) they
are not raised, bred or kept for commercial purposes (ii)
they shall not become an annoyance or nuisance to other Lot
owners.
10. No obnoxious or offensive activity shall be
carried on or allowed upon any portion of the Property, nor
shall anything be done thereon that may be or become a
nuisance or annoyance.
11. No Lot shall be used or maintained as a
dumping ground for rubbish, trash, garbage or other waste
15-82
01/28/15
shall not be kept except in sanitary containers maintained in
a neat and orderly manner. Equipment for the storage or
disposal of such materials shall be kept in a clean and
sanitary condition in rear yard only.
12. No Lot may be subdivided, altered or modified
except as provided on the subdivision plat (s) recorded and
to be recorded in connection with the development of the
Property, provided however the Owner, with the approval of
the Committee, shall have the right to re -subdivide, alter,
modify, or vacate any subdivision plat as long as no Lot
shown thereon has been conveyed by the Owner.
13. Each Lot shall be maintained free of tall
grass, undergrowth, dead trees, weeds and trash and generally
free of any condition that should decrease the attractiveness
of the Property.
14. No Lot shall be cleared of trees or defoliated
in such a manner as to decrease the attractiveness of the
Property.
15. Exterior Construction of each dwelling on a
Lot shall be completed within one year after the commencement
thereof.
16. No exterior Radio or Television antenna or
satellite dish shall be erected on any lot without the
Committee's approval, unless otherwise protected by law.
17. All utility lines shall be buried with the
exception of that part of the utility line which normally is
located above ground.
18. No Lot shall contain or have on it an above
ground swimming pool.
19. The house numbers on the mail box posts will
be designed and applied as the Architectural Committee so
specifies.
20. A distinctive architectural post lamp will be
provided to the original purchaser of any lot and shall be
maintained and used continuously for its intended purpose and
shall remain with the lot when such lot is resold.
21. Sidewalks will be exposed aggregate concrete,
brick or other masonry products approved by the Committee.
No smooth concrete surfaces will be allowed on any exterior
areas except garage aprons.
22. Service yards incorporating heating and air
conditioning equipment and trash areas must be approved
properly located and screened.
D. The Bexley Homeowner's Association, Inc.
1. Every Homeowner (the Homeowner) of a Lot, upon
which a house has been built and a Certificate of Occupancy
has been issued by Chesterfield County, shall be a member of
The Bexley Homeowner's Association, Inc. (The Association)
15-83
01/28/15
9
9
9
and Membership shall be mandatory and appurtenant to and may
not be separated from ownership of that Lot.
2. The Homeowner shall be entitled to all the
benefits and privileges of Membership and shall abide by all
Rules and Regulations of The Association as long as they are
current on payment of all mandatory Association dues and
Assessments
E. Severability.
1. Invalidation of any of the covenants hereof by
judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the
above provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals all as duly
authorized.
STATE OF VIRGINIA,
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , by Richard E.
Collier, President of R. E. COLLIER, INC. -BUILDER, a Virginia
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
All those certain lots or parcels of land described on a plat
of Bexley East, Phase II, Lots on Broadstone Crossing and
Broadstone Crossing Court, made by Balzer and Associates,
Inc., dated , to be recorded in the Clerk's
Office, Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia (P)
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
I. Rezone from A to R-15 for the uses permitted in R-
15 District with a Conditional Use Planned
Development ("CUPD") to permit ordinance
requirement exceptions, as described herein, and as
provided in the accompanying proffers.
II. General Conditions
A. Uses shall be limited to uses permitted by
right or with restrictions in the R-15
District. The development shall have a
cluster design which includes street trees and
open spaces.
III. Requirements and Exceptions
15-84
01/28/15
If any of the following facilities are to be
provided they shall be identified on the overall
conceptual subdivision plan and on the record plat
for any lot adjacent to such facilities.
A. Recreational Facilities.
Only passive recreational facilities shall be
permitted within the property. These uses
shall be limited to facilities and uses that
primarily serve the surrounding residential
community (i.e. trails, paths, sidewalks,
ponds, open space, and vistas).
B. Focal Point/Recreation Area. A minimum of
0.40 acres of open space/recreation area shall
be provided within this property to provide a
"focal point". Part of the focal point area
shall be "hardscaped" and have benches and
other amenities that accommodate and
facilitate gatherings. A portion of the focal
point may include areas devoted to best
management/stormwater facilities. The focal
point shall be developed concurrent with the
phase of development that the focal point is
intended to serve.
C. Garages. Front loaded attached garages shall
not be permitted.
D. Development shall conform to the following:
(1) Principal Structures.
(i) Lot area and width. Each lot shall
have an area of not less than 7,200
square feet and an average lot size
of not less than 10,000 square feet
and a lot width of not less than
fifty (50) feet. Common open space
area will be left in a natural state
equal to the amount of acreage so
reduced by the lot size exceptions
to the R-15 zone so permitted.
(ii) Percentaqe of lot coverage. All
buildings, including accessory
buildings, on any lot shall not
cover more than seventy (70) percent
of the lot's area.
(iii)Front yard. Minimum of thirty (30)
feet in depth. Minimum setbacks
shall be increased where necessary
to obtain the required lot width at
the front building line.
(iv) Side yard. Two (2) side yards, each
a minimum of seven and one-half (7
1/2) feet in width.
(v) Corner side yard. Minimum of thirty
(30) feet.
15-85
01/28/15
9
W,
(vi) Rear yard. Minimum of twenty-five
(25) feet.
(2) Accessory Structures. Setbacks for
accessory structures shall conform to the
setback requirements for such structures
in the R-15 District except as follows:
(i) One (1) story accessory structures:
The rear, side and corner side yard
setbacks shall be half the required
yards for principal structures
defined above.
(ii) More than one (1) story accessory
structures: The rear, side and
corner side yard setbacks shall be
the required setbacks for principal
structures defined above.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
F sd�ioI.idi,
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Bayhill Development Corp.
requests amendment of zoning (Case 06SN0106) relative to
reduction of cash proffers and amendment of zoning district
map in a Residential (R-12) District on 59.2 acres lying 1430
feet off the south line of Bailey Bridge Road, 610 feet south
of Battlecreek Drive. Density will be controlled by zoning
conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for Suburban Residential
II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre). Tax ID 735-668-8457;
736-668-2699; and 736-669-3468.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 15SN0600 and stated
both the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
and acceptance of one proffered condition.
Mr. Carol Foster, representing the applicant, accepted the
recommendation.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
Mr. Paul Grasewicz urged the Board to reexamine the Cash
Proffer Policy. He expressed concerns relative to the
requirement for an applicant to request the Board's approval
to reduce cash proffers to the Board's maximum acceptable
cash proffer and to delay the escalator as outlined in the
Cash Proffer Policy.
There being no one else to address the request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Elswick directed staff to prepare a report to the Board
regarding Mr. Grasewicz's concern relative to the Cash
Proffer Policy.
Mr. Elswick then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for
the Board to approve Case 15SN0600 and accept the following
proffered condition:
With the approval of this case, Proffered Condition 3 of Case
06SN0106 shall be amended as follows:
15-86
01/28/15
Cash Proffers: For each dwelling unit, 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 cash proffer service district for the property,
unless state law prevents enforcement of that timing:
a) $18,966 per dwelling unit for the period beginning
the July 1 preceding the Board of Supervisors'
approval of the case through July 1 four years
later, at which point the amount will be adjusted
for the cumulate change in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost index during that time period.
b) Thereafter, the per dwelling unit cash proffer
amount shall be automatically adjusted, annually,
by the annual change in the Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index on July 1 of each year.
c) Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the
purposes proffered or as otherwise permitted by
law. (B)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15SN0610
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Debra M. Picardat requests
rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Agricultural (A) plus
conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to
ordinance requirements relative to public road frontage
requirements and amendment of zoning district map on 15.9
acres fronting 50 feet on the south line of Whitehouse Road,
160 feet east of Beechwood Avenue. Density will be controlled
by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for
Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0 dwellings per acre)
Tax ID 795-629-4576.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 15SN0610 and stated
both the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
and acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Ms. Debra Picardat accepted the recommendation.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
approved Case 15SN0610 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. Permitted uses shall be those uses permitted by -
right or with restrictions in the Residential (R-
88) Zoning District. (P)
2. The property shall not be further subdivided. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15-87
01/28/15
9
9
1E
15SN0535
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Dwight Allen Crews requests
conditional use to permit a business (contractor's storage
yard) incidental to a dwelling and amendment of zoning
district map in a Residential (R-7) District on 1 acre known
as 12234 Parker Lane. Density will be controlled by zoning
conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for Residential use (2.5
dwellings per acre or less). Tax ID 795-654-5864.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 15SN0535 and stated
the Planning Commission recommended approval and acceptance
of the proffered conditions. He further stated staff
recommended denial because the request does not comply with
the Plan and there is commercial encroachment into a
residential area.
Mr. Dwight Crews accepted the recommendation.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
Ms. Jaeckle stated the property is well-maintained and noted
the support of neighbors.
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
approved Case 15SN0535 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. Non -Transferable Ownership: This Conditional Use
approval shall be granted exclusively to Dwight
Crews, and shall not be transferable with the land.
(P)
2. Use: This Conditional Use approval shall be for the
operation of a contractor's storage yard,
incidental to a dwelling. (P)
3. Time Limitation: This Conditional Use approval
shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten
(10 ) years from the date of approval. ( P)
4. Equipment Storage: The contractor's storage yard
shall be limited to equipment storage only.
Equipment storage shall be limited to:
a.
One
(1)
Backhoe
b.
One
(1)
Pick-up truck
C.
One
(1)
Dump truck (single axle)
f.
Two
(2)
flat-bed trailers
g.
One
(1)
enclosed trailer. (P)
5. Expansion of Use: No new building or parking area
construction shall be permitted to accommodate this
use. The use shall be confined to the rear of the
house and to the northwest corner of the rear yard.
(P)
15-88
01/28/15
6. Buffer: A minimum five (5) foot buffer shall be
maintained along the northern and southern property
lines, to the rear of the residence, and along the
western property line. In addition, these buffers
shall comply with the requirements of the Ordinance
for buffers that are less than fifty (50) feet. (P)
7. Employees and Clients: No employee shall be
permitted to work on the premises other than family
member employees that live on the premises. No
clients shall be permitted on the property. (P)
8. Signage: There shall be no signs identifying this
use. (P)
9. Hours of Operation: Movement of equipment shall be
limited to Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m.
to 6 p.m. Equipment shall not be moved on Sunday.
(P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15SN0518
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Rita Randolph Jones
requests conditional use to permit a family day-care home and
amendment of zoning district map in a Residential (R-7)
District on .8 acre known as 3900 Round Hill Court. Density
will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for Suburban Residential II use (2.0 to 4.0
dwellings per acre). Tax ID 764-690-6673.
Mr. Robert Clay presented a summary of Case 15SN0518 and
stated the applicant is seeking a conditional use to permit a
family day-care home in a Residential (R-7) District. He
stated the Planning Commission recommended approval as
conditioned, with one-year term to accommodate relocation. He
further stated staff also recommended approval as
conditioned, as the use should be compatible with surrounding
residential development. He stated similar family day-care
homes have been approved in other neighborhoods throughout
the county and have operated without any apparent adverse
impact on area residents and the residential character of the
area will be maintained. He noted there was opposition at the
Planning Commission meeting relative to safety (traffic) and
concerns that approval of the request could set a precedent
for other businesses in the community. He also noted support
of the request relative to the good character of the
applicant and the service the use provides to the
neighborhood.
Ms. Rita Jones accepted the recommendation.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
15-89
01/28/15
9
9
9
Mr. Warren made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holland, for the
Board to approve Case 15SNO518 and accept the proffered
conditions. He stated there are a number of bills before the
General Assembly tightening requirements relative to daycare
centers. He noted unfortunate incidents in recent months
related to home-based daycare centers.
Mr. Elswick called for a vote on the motion made by Mr.
Warren, seconded by Mr. Holland, for the Board to approve
Case 15SNO518 and accept the following proffered conditions:
1. Non -Transferable Ownership: This conditional use
approval shall be granted to and for Rita Jones,
exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run
with the land. (P)
2. Expansion of Use: There shall be no exterior
additions or alterations to the existing structure
to accommodate this use. (P)
3. Signage: There shall be no signs permitted to
identify this use. (P)
4. Number of Children: This conditional use approval
shall be limited to providing care, protection and
guidance to a maximum of twelve (12) children,
other than the applicant's own children, at any one
time. (P)
5. Hours of Operation: Hours and days of operation
shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 6
a.m. to 6 p.m. There shall be no Saturday or Sunday
operation of this use. (P)
6. Time Limitation: This conditional use approval
shall be granted for a period not to exceed one (1)
year from the date of approval. (P)
7. Outdoor Play Areas: Any outdoor play area and/or
recreational equipment utilized by the family day-
care home shall be located in the side or rear yard
of the property. Equipment for outdoor play areas
shall be located no closer than fifteen (15) feet
to the side or rear property lines. (P
8. Employees: No more than one (1) employee shall be
permitted to work on the premises other than family
member employees that live on the premises. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
15SN0996
(Amended) In Bermuda Magisterial District, Colony Village LLC
requests amendment of conditional use (Case 07SN0292) to
increase the number of multifamily residential units and
amendment of zoning district map in Community Business (C-3)
and General Business (C-5) Districts on 16.8 acres fronting
825 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, 155
feet south of Velda Road. Density will be controlled by
zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for General
Commercial and Community Commercial uses. Tax IDs 794-665-
8176 and 794-666-6719.
15-90
01/28/15
Ms. Darla Orr presented a summary of Case 15SN0596 and stated
the applicant is requesting amendment of Case 07SN0292 to
increase the permitted number of multi -family residential
units. She further stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval because of the quality of the project, the
conditions limit the number of 3 -bedroom units and offer
interconnectivity and the development is important to the
area. She stated staff recommended denial because the
proposal offers an option not guaranteed for mixed use
development and it fails to address development impacts.
Ms. Jaeckle stated according to the report from the Richmond
Regional Planning District Commission, there are not enough
residences in the area to bring in commercial uses that the
residents in that area desire. She further stated she
understands asking for mixed-use when building residences in
a purely residential area; however, there needs to be more
flexibility when a developer is building residences in an
area that cannot support more commercial unless there are
residences. She noted schools in that area are not
overcrowded and before the development was built there were
58 school children residing in the trailer park that was
previously located on the property, as opposed to 12 school
children now residing in Colony Village.
Mr. George Emerson, the applicant, stated the development is
a significant investment in the area and additional units
will incorporate the same quality. He further stated the
property has been cleaned up with the development and
reinvestment would not happen in the area without incentives.
He stated that areas of the county's less -prosperous eastern
side should pay lower cash proffer fees than areas in the
western side of the county. He noted the quality architecture
and appearance of the development.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
Mr. Paul Grasewicz expressed concerns relative to restricted
private access to the property and impacts to capital
facilities. He stated the developer's initial risk was offset
by savings from no cash proffers and full cash proffers
should be offered for the remaining units. He urged the Board
to deny the request.
Mr. Bob Olsen stated zoning was approved with no cash proffer
for the first phase which off -set the developer's initial
risk; therefore, full cash proffer should be offered for the
remaining units. He urged the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Freddy Boisseau asked the Board to remain true to the
county -wide implementation of the Cash Proffer Policy or
reexamine the policy and make changes accordingly.
Ms. Tricia Dunlap stated cash proffers are only appropriate
when a development has an infrastructure impact that must be
offset. She further stated this development is an example of
a powerful free market tool needed to drive development to
the county in ways that are appropriate to revitalize
blighted areas. She urged the Board to reexamine the Cash
Proffer Policy and approve the request.
Mr. Michael Jackson expressed concerns
precedent by providing waivers to the
He urged the Board to deny the request.
15-91
relative to setting a
development community.
01/28/15
9
9
9
M
Ms. Lisa Bailey, an area owner of Express Auto Center,
commended Mr. Emerson for his courageous investment in the
area and stated the project is an asset to the Jefferson
Davis corridor. She noted she and her husband plan to reside
in the complex in the near future. She urged the Board to
approve the request.
Ms. Renee Eldred, president of the Bensley Civic Association,
urged the Board to approve the request. She commended Mr.
Emerson's bravery and stated there is a lack of commercial
businesses willing to locate to the Jefferson Davis corridor.
Mr. John Pettengill expressed concerns relative to
distribution of wealth from the county to the developer. He
stated the developer's initial risk was offset by savings
from no cash proffers and full proffers should be offered for
the remaining units. He urged the Board to deny the request.
Ms. Kim Marble, a resident of Bensley Village, urged the
Board to approve the request. She stated the project is a
tremendous benefit to the Jefferson Davis corridor and much
needed revitalization efforts in the community.
Mr. Phil Cunningham, President of the Jefferson Davis
Association, expressed his support of the request. He stated
the applicant's request is an example of how incentives
should be considered to off -set the risk for revitalization
efforts. He further stated the development is a substantial
investment in the area.
Mr. Rick Young, a neighboring property owner, applauded the
efforts of Mr. Emerson and his positive contribution to the
revitalization of the Jefferson Davis corridor. He urged the
Board to approve the request.
Mr. Rodney Martin expressed concerns relative to impacts on
public facilities.
There being no one else to address the request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Emerson stated those people who spoke in opposition of
the request do not live in the vicinity of the development.
He stressed the importance of looking at areas of the county
independently and determining how to put all types of incomes
into schools within blighted regions. He stated an additional
$18 million will be invested into the development. He noted
the gates surrounding the property are necessary to create a
sense of safety for the tenants.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question regarding the property,
Mr. David Pritchard stated when undertaking revitalization
the market is not the same; there is no competition with
other jurisdictions. As a result, he further stated
accommodations need to be made to make the property cost
equal to the green field development, as opposed to making it
affordable. He stated early developments spark the market and
create confidence for other businesses to come afterwards,
and without those original cases, the subsequent ones do not
follow.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Turner stated
there is a great deal of enthusiasm related to the
redevelopment of the Jefferson Davis corridor. He further
stated, from a Planner's perspective, Colony Village is a
fantastic product and a perfect use for that site.
15-92
01/28/15
Ms. Jaeckle stated the development is a quality product and a
true benefit to the Jefferson Davis corridor. She noted
lenders did not want to finance the project because it was
too good of a product for that area and suggested that Mr.
Emerson build ordinary apartments.
Ms. Jaeckle then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for
the Board to approve Case 15SNO596 and accept the proffered
conditions.
Mr. Warren stated he frequently used Route 1 to commute to
college and saw a lot of the businesses over the years on the
corridor fail, and yet there are places along the corridor
that have revitalized certain areas. He further stated the
applicant has taken a significant risk to pave the way for
other developers to build in that area. In this particular
situation, he stated he has balanced the upfront money to the
county versus the possibility of stimulating the Jefferson
Davis corridor by getting someone from the private sector,
willing to gamble and take a risk for the betterment of the
community. He voiced his support of the motion.
In response to Mr. Holland's question relative to changes in
the area around the development, Mr. Turner stated currently
there is investment being made in Rayon Park which is a few
miles away from Colony Village, and certainly with the
announcement of Tranlin's investment, that area of the county
will continue to see additional investment. He further stated
it is time to begin looking at the Jefferson Davis corridor
and create an environment the county can be very proud of. He
stated there is reinvestment in Bermuda Square and other
areas of the corridor.
Mr. Holland noted some of the best schools in Chesterfield
County are Title 1 schools and outperform more affluent
schools. He inquired about the solutions to poverty and
questioned if the proposed investment along the Jefferson
Davis corridor will solve that problem. He expressed concerns
relative to the demand of increased population and the
pressure placed upon public facilities.
Mr. Gecker noted he voted against original case because there
were no guarantees that the project would move forward. He
stated the applicant has done more that what he originally
anticipated given the circumstances that surround the
property. He further stated the proffer policy is geared
towards impacts on capital facilities, which was lessened by
the project, for example the decrease in the number of school
children. He stated the project replaces housing that was
substandard by any measure, with housing that is not
substandard. He further stated the proffer policy accounts
for the proposed situation and talks about the reduction
and/or elimination of proffers in unique circumstances for
revitalization projects. He noted there is no transfer of
funds from the county to the developer. He stated the
development has benefited the capital facilities of the
community. He further stated, although he would not suggest
the use is ideal for that site, it is more acceptable than
what was previously there. He stated he intends to support
the case wholeheartedly.
Mr. Elswick stated he is willing to bet that Fire and EMS
calls for service have decreased as a result of the
development. He stressed the importance of focusing on
revitalization in blighted areas of the county. He stated the
development will serve as a test case for future investment
opportunities within the county.
15-93
01/28/15
9
9
9
Mr. Elswick called for a vote on the motion made by Ms.
Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for the Board to approve
Case 15SN0596 and accept the following proffered conditions:
The Applicant in this case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of
the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning
Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and their
successors or assigns, proffer that the property known as
Chesterfield County Tax Identification Number 794-665-8176
and 794-666-6719 ("the Property") under consideration will be
developed according to the conditions of Case 07SN0292 and
the following proffered conditions if, and only if, the
request submitted herewith is granted with only those
conditions agreed to by the Applicant. In the event this
request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to
by the owner and Applicant, the proffer shall immediately be
null and void and of no further force or effect.
The applicant hereby deletes Proffered Condition 6 of Case
07SN0292 and amends Textual Statement Section II Item I as
follows. All other conditions of Case 07SN0292 shall remain
in force and effect:
1. Number of dwelling units. There shall be no more
than sixteen (16) residential dwelling units per
floor. The maximum number of dwelling units shall
be 340 units. (P)
The applicant offers the following proffered conditions:
2. Sidewalks. Prior to the issuance of any additional
certificate of occupancy, the applicant, sub-
divider, or assignee(s) shall construct a five
(5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along Jefferson
Davis Highway immediately adjacent to the property.
The exact design and location shall be approved by
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
(T)
3. Units. A maximum of forty four (44) 3 -bedroom units
shall be permitted on the property. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, and Gecker.
Nays: Holland.
13SN0519
(Amended) Bermuda Magisterial District River's Bend East, LLC
requests amendment of zoning (04SN0197) to modify cash
proffers, tract boundaries & zoning map on 221.8 acres zoned
R-12 located north of Meadowville Road and within Meadowville
Landing Subdivision. Density set by zoning conditions or
ordinance. Comp Plan suggests Low (max 1 units/ac), Med-High
Density Residential (min 4-8 units/ac) & water opportunity
uses. Tax IDs 822-661-3043, 4694, 4969, 5346, 9039, 9171 &
9416; 822-662-5422, 7709, 7732 & 8838; 823-660-1465 & 2793;
823-661-0132, 0310, 0653, 1195, 2713, 2779, 3490, 5194, 7485,
7597 & 7971; 823-662-0923, 5888, 7911, 8124 & 9432; 824-661-
0060, 0183, 1365, 1492, 3482, 4392 & Pt of 4626; 824-662-
0210, 0424, 1480, 2105, 2538, 2663, 2686, 3717, 3991, 4065,
4955, 5678, 6468, 6957, 7345 & 8086; 824-663-2711, 4117,
6027, 7202, 7331 & 8408; 825-660-9979; 825-661-6811; 825-662-
6584, 7258, 7891 & 9097; 825-663-0139, 1214 & 7439; 826-661-
8420; 826-662-0976, 2377, 3575, 4772, 5664, 5899 & 6770; &
826-663-0301, 1603, 3002 & 4301.
15-94
01/28/15
Ms. Darla Orr presented a summary of Case 13SN0519 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended denial of
Request I and recommended approval of Request II and
acceptance of Proffered Condition 2. She further stated the
development will have an impact on necessary capital
facilities. She stated the proposal fails to address the
development's impact on capital facilities in accordance with
the Board's Cash Proffer Policy. Consequently, she stated the
county's ability, to provide adequate facilities to its
citizens will be adversely impacted; therefore, denial of
Request I (proffer reduction) is recommended. She further
stated with the approval of the request, the maximum number
of dwellings would not increase above the permitted 400
units. She stated while the revised tract boundary map would
permit an increased number of lots with a minimum area of
12,000 square feet, the modification would not increase the
permissible density of 400 dwelling units. In addition, she
stated the proposed amended zoning would be compatible with
the existing single-family residential use with the
Meadowville Landing subdivision. She further stated given
those considerations, approval of Request II (tract boundary
modification) is recommended.
Mr. Emerson, the applicant, offered sales and assessment
information for properties within the Meadowville Landing
subdivision, noting the impact on property values as
development has occurred in the technology park. He added
that the quality promised relative to housing and amenities
was delivered, but the county has not made road improvements
to handle increased traffic; area schools are not over
capacity; Bermuda residents support the case; and the county
should be required to address road issues resulting from the
development of the technology park.
Mr. Elswick called for public comment.
Mr. Bob Olsen stated reducing cash proffers is not fair to
other county taxpayers and the county should not subsidize
developers because of a market change. He urged the Board to
deny Request I.
Ms. Sandy Pettengill expressed concerns relative to the
applicant's request for a reduction of cash proffers. She
urged the Board to deny Request I.
Mr. Freddy Boisseau, Bermuda District resident, stated he
believes all developers, commercial and residential, should
pay proffers to mitigate their impacts on capital facilities.
He stated reducing cash proffers is not fair to other county
taxpayers. He urged the Board to deny Request I.
Mr. Rodney Martin noted Title 1 schools are performing better
than those of higher economic means. He expressed concerns
relative to the applicant's request to reduce cash proffers.
Mr. Michael Jackson expressed concerns relative to the
developer's request to reduce cash proffers and the
possibility of setting a precedent by providing waivers to
the development community. He urged the Board to deny Request
I.
Mr. John Pettengill
distribution of wealth
the reduction of cash
the request.
expressed concerns relative to
from the county to the developer and
proffers. He urged the Board to deny
15-95
01/28/15
19
9
Mr. Paul Grasewicz stated the escalator should continue to be
included in the proffer payment so the current value of the
amount originally proffered is realized, not a loss because
the costs to provide public infrastructure have also
increased since the zoning was approved. He urged the Board
to deny Request 1.
There being no one else to address the request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Emerson noted there was no opposition from citizens who
live in or near the residential subdivision. He stated he is
the only developer in the middle of a technology park where
the county is currently developing. He further stated the
jumpstart of the neighborhood will enhance the development of
the technology park.
Mr. Elswick noted the Board's policy regarding public hearing
time limits.
Ms. Jaeckle stated the Bermuda District's balance of taxes is
paid more in industrial and commercial taxes than
residential.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Stegmaier stated
the percentage of taxes paid in Henrico County are over 30
percent from commercial, and Chesterfield down around 22
percent in retail bases are 40 percent higher than
Chesterfield County's retail base.
Ms. Jaeckle noted the residents living in and directly around
the proposed area are dealing with the negative impacts
created by the development of the technology park. She stated
the proposed development is a good feed into the area schools
and brings in a population of higher education. She noted the
technology park was originally designed to accommodate upper
level executives; however, some commercial uses call for a
different type of clientele living in surrounding
neighborhoods. She stated there are "bedroom" communities
located within the county that do not have to deal with
industrial/commercial uses.
Ms. Jaeckle then made a motion for the Board to approve Case
13SN0519, with Request II, and deny Request I. She noted the
Bermuda District Planning Commissioner only denied Request I
based on the lack of votes to approve the request, not
because the request was not justified.
Mr. Mincks clarified the motion to deny Request I and approve
Request II with the proffered condition. He stated in this
particular case the applicant has proffer -busting language
within his request that allows him to back out of the
condition which affects Request II. He further stated the
applicant would need to agree to leave the proffer in Request
II as it currently is.
In response to Mr. Emerson's request to cap the cash proffer
at $14,500, Ms. Jaeckle stated that is not the policy.
Mr. Mincks clarified that because the applicant put a proffer
busting provision in the proffer, if a portion of the
application is denied and a portion is approved, then the
applicant can override the proffer -busting provision. He
stated if the applicant is willing to leave Request II in
place, then the Board can vote on the original motion. He
further stated the cash proffers would remain as they
currently are, under the motion.
15-96
01/28/15
Mr. Emerson agreed with the motion on the table.
Mr. Gecker seconded Ms. Jaeckle's motion.
In regards to assessment statistics, Mr. Gecker stated
Midlothian pays more in real estate taxes than any other
district. He noted his district now qualifies for block grant
money. He stated there is an issue that runs through the
county, and the idea that the Bermuda District is treated
differently has got to stop because it does not mirror the
facts. He further stated the policy does not allow for the
proposed change as it did for Colony Village.
In response to Mr. Gecker's question regarding the
recommendation of the Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Carmody
stated the focus of the reduction of cash proffers was
centered on the transportation component.
Mr. Gecker stated the issue of proffers has been
controversial and there have been many different solutions to
it brought forward over the years. He further stated he is
content to leave the proffer where it is and noted he would
have voted against a motion to reduce the cash proffer.
In response to Mr. Warren's questions, Dr. Cynthia
Richardson, Planning Director for Chesterfield County Public
Schools, stated there are 10,000 more students in
Chesterfield County Schools versus Henrico County Schools.
She further stated the cost of education is around $10,000
per pupil.
In regards to the reduction/elimination of cash proffers, Mr.
Warren noted either the tax rate would need to be increased
or there would need to be a balance with sources of income to
offset the cost of educating children.
In response to Mr. Warren's question, Ms. Orr stated the
current escalated cash proffer is $14,840 per unit and would
continue to escalate by the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index.
In response to Mr. Holland's question, Mr. Carmody stated the
cash proffer made with the proposal does include a
transportation component, which would provide $3,547 for road
infrastructure. He further stated the cash proffer that is
already in place for the case that the applicant is asking to
amend is $14,840.
Mr. Mincks clarified the motion on the table.
Ms. Jaeckle noted the Bermuda District currently has the two
largest trailer parks on the east coast. She stated in the
last 5-10 years growth in schools is not coming from new
housing, but from a turnover within the trailer parks. She
further stated the purpose of cash proffers is to mitigate
impacts; however, the question remains who is creating the
impacts. She stressed the importance of long-term
sustainability relative to quality standards in neighborhoods
throughout the county.
Mr. Elswick thanked the citizens in attendance for their
input. He expressed concerns relative to the east/west,
north/south divide that has been brought up numerous times in
discussion. He stated the Board needs to make decisions as
one county.
15-97
01/28/15
9
9
Mr. Holland stressed the importance of addressing
transportation impacts to address safety and accommodate the
increase in traffic relative to the development and similar
zoning cases presented before the Board.
Mr. Elswick called for a vote on the motion made by Ms.
Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for the Board to deny
Request I and approve Request II of Case 13SN0519 and accept
the following proffered condition:
The Applicant hereby offers the following additional
proffered condition applicable to Tax ID 824-661-4626:
2. Exhibit A prepared by Townes and dated September
23, 2014 shall be the exhibit referenced in
proffered conditions of Case 04SN0197. (P)
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
17. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings at this time.
18. REMAINING MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND ZONING REQUESTS
There were no remaining requests for manufactured home
permits or rezoning at this time.
19. FIFTEEN -MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED
MATTERS
Mr. Rodney Martin expressed concerns relative to Chesterfield
County Public Schools, funding for the old Clover Hill High
School renovations.
20. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adjourned at 9:52 p.m. until February 11, 2015.
Ayes: Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle, Holland and Gecker.
Nays: None.
J mes St er Steph n A. )Elswick
County—A,ministrator Chairman
15-98
01/28/15
91
9
9