Zoning Requests PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
ZONING REQUESTS
to be heard
by the
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 15, 1972
72-16C Delphi Associates (DEFERRED)
Dale Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 66-8 (1) parcel 1
The parcel in question is zoned Local Business (C-I), as is the parcel to
the east. Ail other adjacent property is zoned Agricultural (A). The
request is for rezoning to the Residential (R-2) classification.
On March 18, 1971, the Planning Commission reviewed a request (Case #71-
8C) to rezone this parcel to the Local Business (C-i) classification.
The developer, at that time, proposed to expand the commercial operation
now occupying frontage on Beulah Road adjacent to the subject parcel. The
Planning Commission, after reviewing a Staff Land Use Study, recommended
that approval of C-1 rezonlng not exceed a total depth from the street of
630 ft. which was half the depth requested. The Staff Land Use Study
indicated that the remainder of the property be developed for multi-family
use.
At a meeting held April 14, 1971, the Board of Supervisors resolved to
rezone the entire parcel as requested.
The developer, apparently foregoing his intent to expand commercial zoning
on the parcel, requested (Case #71-72A) on December l, 1971~ that the
Board of Zoning Appeals grant a multi-family use permit for 8 duplex units.
The Board approved the request, subject to the following conditions:
1) The developer providing an accurate account (existing and
future development) of the drainage situation for the area
and submitting a plan for on and off site drainage control,
showing the method and facilities to be utilized in the
hydraulic engineering of this project. Further, that these
plans be approved by the County Engineering Department and
implemented by the developer prior to issuance of building
permits.
2) Utility plans be submitted to and approved by the County
Engineering and Health Departments.
The property be rezoned to Residential (R-2) prior to
the issuance of occupancy permit.
4) Public street access be provided through the project to
Hopkins Road. Further, that such street plans be approved
by the Planning Commission and State Highway Department prior
to the issuance of any occupancy permit.
5) A perimeter yard of 35 feet surround the development.
6) Off street parking be provided at a ratio of 1.5 spaces
per dwelling unit.
7) Parking spaces being 10 ft. x 20 ft.
8) Site plans, landscaping plans and layouts be submitted
to and approved by the Planning Department.
9) Use of public sewer when available.
The request now before the Planning Commission is made in order to satisfy
condition No. 2. Planning Staff is of the opinion that this request will
assist in securing the proper controls and land uses for the area.
Therefore, approval is recommended.
72-20C H. O. Browning
Matoaca Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 171 (1) parcels
22 & 23
This parcel is zoned Agricultural (A) as is all adjacent property. The
parcel is undeveloped as is the majority of adjacent properties. The
request is for Mobile Home Subdivision (MH-2) rezontng.
This case was deferred from the Jan. 18, 1972 meeting in order that an
opinion from the Commonwealth's Attorney's office might be obtained con-
cerning the right of a developer to Drepare his own plat.
The following is an excerpt from a letter over the signature of Morris E.
Mason, Asst. Commonwealth's Attorney:
"Is a subdivision plat required to be submitted prior to or at
the same time a rezoning application for MH-2 zoning?
"Under this zoning classification, subdivision plats may be
filed any time prior to the filing of a rezoning application
but if not sooner filed, such plat must be filed when a rezon-
lng application is made.
"Does Chapter 16, Subdivision Ordinance, permit a person who
is not a civil engineer or certified land surveyor to submit
a plat for tentative approval?
"Section 16-8 of the County Code provides that every final
subdivision plat shall be prepared by a surveyor or civil
engineer duly licensed by the state. Since this section
requires only the final plat to be so prepared, I am of
the opinion that preliminary plats need not be submitted
by a surveyor or civil engineer duly licensed by the state
in order to receive consideration by the Planning Commission."
In addition, the Commonwealth's Attorney also commented on the following
question:
"(1) Are stick built homes (conventionally built homes)
permitted in MH-2 subdivisions?
"This zoning district, among other things, permits churches,
parish houses, schools, libraries and other public buildings
-2-
and even offices of certain professions~ provided such use is
an accessory use to the dwelling. Also accessory buildings
and accessory uses are permitted as a matter of right. Dwelling -
one family is defined as a detached building containing one
family dwelling unit. In view of this, I am of the opinion that
since single family conventional built homes are not otherwise
expressly prohibited, they are permitted in MH-2 districts as a
matter of right.~
72-26C William Ira Crouch~ Jr. et al
Clover Hill Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 64 (1) pt. of par.22
This parcel is zoned Agricultural (A) as is all adjacent property. The
parcel remains primarily vacant as does the property adjacent to ti with
the exception of that property frontin~ Burnett Drive, which is occupied
by single family dwellings. The request is for Residential (R-I) rezoning
to allow proper land use control for the proposed subdivision of Brandon.
Staff feels that the proposed land use and rezonin~ ~e~.uest is c0.Mpatible
with the area and therefore recommends...~p, proval. '
72-27C James ?. Hubbard
Midlothian Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 24 (1) parcel 31-7
This parcel is zoned Agricultural (A) and is vacant, as is adjacent prop-
erties. The request is for Residential (R-2) rezonlng to allow proper
land use control for indicated single family development (no tentative
subdivision plat has been submitted).
Planning Staff is in concurrence with the land use..cong.ept for this site
and would therefore recommend approval of the request.
72-28C Lake Manor Associates
Clover Hill Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 17-11 (1) part of par. 6-2
This parcel is zoned Townhouse (TH-i) as is property to the east while
all other adjacent property is zoned Agricultural (A). The parcel is
vacant as is all adjacent property. The request is for rezoning to the
Residential (R-2) classification.
The developer has made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals (to be
heard on March 1, 1972) for a use permit to develop the parcel in question
as a multi-family rental project. This particular use would not be per-
mitted under the existing Townhouse (TH-I) zone. It has been indicated
that both the parcel in question and that to the east (zoned TH-i) will
be developed Jointly.
Planning Staff and Commission have respectfully reviewed and approved the
subdivision plan (Lake Manor) for the TH-1 zoned parcel and both the Staff
and the Board of Zoning Appeals will respectfully review and pass on the
site plan for the proposed apartment project.
Planning Staff is of the opinion that comDatability of land uses will be
realized by the proposed development.
The location of these land uses on the proposed sites will offer a
transition between possible commercial development occurring on property
fronting along Rt. 60 and future single family subdivisions which may
possibly develop to the south of the subject parcel along Pocoshock Creek.
Therefore~ Staff would recommend approval of the reqqest.
72-2~C Robert M. Tipton Matoaca Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 182-6 (9) parcel AA
This parcel is zoned Local Business (C-l), as is property to the west,
northwest and southeast. The property to the northeast is zoned Agricul-
tural (A). The parcel is vacant as is that to th~ southwest and southeast.
Property to the northwest is used for multi-family development and that
to the north and northeast is occupied by single family residences.
On January 5, 1972, the Board of Zoning Aopeals granted a use permit allow-
ing five apartment units to be constructed on the parcel subject to it
being rezoned to the Residential (R-2) classification. This condition
was placed on the use permit in order that proper l~nd use control (i.e.
residential zoning for residential land use) could be maintained.
Planning Staff concurs with this process and therefore recommends approval
of the request.
72-30C Pierce Development Company
Matoaca Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 175-5 (1) parcel I
This parcel is zoned Agricultural (A), as is all adjacent property. The
parcel is vacant, with the exception of a drive for access to multi-family
development on an adjacent parcel in Colonial Heights.
On January 5, 1972, the Board of Zonin~ Appeals granted a use permit allow-
ing a driveway and parking area on the parcel in question to serve the
adjacent multi-family development in Colonial Heights. This permit was
granted subject to the parcel bein~ rezoned to the Residential (R-2)
classification. This condition was placed on the use permit in order that
proper land use control (i.e. Residential zoning for an accessory resi-
dential land use) could be maintained.
Staff concurs with this rationale and therefore recommends approval.
72-31C Lloyd Colbert
Matoaca Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 173 parcel 49
This property is zoned Agricultural (A) as are all adjacent parcels. The
request is for Residential (R-2) rezonin~ to facilitate the development
of Farmingdale Subdivision. '~
Staff feels that the. proposed land use and rezoning request is compatiblo
with the area and therefore recommends approval. ' ' ' '
72-32C Robbie~ Inc. Clover Hill Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 63 (t) par. 33--1 & 33-5
This property is zoned Agricultural (A) as are all adjacent parcels. The
request is for Residential (R-2) rezoning to further facilitate the
development of Stanwick Subdivision.
staff feels that the proposed land use and rezonin~ request is compatible
with the area a~d.t~refore recommends approval. ~ '
-4-
72-33C Curtis L. Rudolph
Clover Hill Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 63 (1) parcel 56
This property is zoned Agricultural (A), as are all adjacent parcels. The
request is for Residential (R-2) rezoning to further facilitate the develop-
ment of Qualla Farms Subdivision.
Staff feels that the proposed, land use and rezoning request, is ,compatible
with the area and therefore recommends approval.
~2-34C Fred R. Pearce
Clover Hill Magisterial District
Tax Map Sec. 18-13 (1) parcel 3-1
This parcel is zoned Agricultural (A) as is the property to the west and
south. The adjacent property to the east is zoned Local Business (C-l)
and to the north General Business (C-2). The parcel in question is vacant.
Property to the west is occupied by a church. Property to the north is
occupied by a trailer park. The request is for rezoning to the Local
Business (C-l) classification.
On April 14, 1971, the Board of Supervisors considered the following:
"(71-7CS) ~r. Fred R. Pearce again comes before the Board requestin~
the rezoning from Agricultural (~.) to General Business (C-2) of a
parcel of land of rectangular shape fronting aoproximately 140 ft.
on the southern line of Midlothian Turnpike (Rt.60) and extending
southwestwardly to a depth of approximately 200 feet, being located
approximately 490 feet northwest of the intersection of Midlothian
Turnpike (Rte.60) and Tuxford Road, in Clover Hill Magisterial Dis-
trict. Refer to Tax Map Sec. 18-13 (1) parcel 3-1.
"Mr. Gaines T. Rich, President of the Shenandoah Civic Association
and the Pastor of the St. Marks United Methodist Church both agree
to the granting of a Use Permit for the requested use after opposing
vigorouslv the request for C-2 Zoning.
"Upon consideration whereof and on motion of Mr. Dietsch,seconded by
Mr. Martin, it is resolved that the request for C-2 Zoning be denied
and that a special Use Permit to operate an upholstery shop and
office complex be granted on the aforedescribed property, subject
to the necessary screening bein~ provided along the western boundary
and that all site plans, landscaping plans, etc. be approved by the
Planning Department."
It should be noted that if the subject request is granted then the exist-
ing use permit would become invalid and the operation of an upholstery
shop as previously permitted would not be allowable on the parcel unless
the Board of Supervisors so ruled that such a use was similar in nature
to those permitted (as listed) in a local business zone.
Staff would recommend that should the property, be zoned than the preyiou~-
ly ,proposed use for the operation of an 'upholstery ,Shop not be pe,r~,i~,~,ed
as is provided for by the ordinance.
-5-
owns several auto businesses along Rt. 360 and there is no opposition
from the adjacent property owners and has been none at any time, and
the purchase of this property would benefit Mr. Layman, the present
owner.
Mr. G. C. Layman states that he wants to retire and sell the property,
that no one would build a home on this site due to the noise of truck
traffic, that he started the business in 1928 and it would be a gross
injustice not to allow him to sell the bulness at this time.
Mr. Wallace LaPrade states that there are several hundred acres in
close proximity being developed as nice residential proerty, that he
is interested in the zoning of the 360 Corridor and that people can
build residential homes on Rt. 360.
Mr. Robert Bennett states that he lives adjacent to the subject prop-
erty and does not object and requested the Board to look out for Mr.
Layman, since it is necessary that he retire from this work.
Mr. C. Denny White on hearing all of the evidence stated that he
sympathizes with Mr. Layman but also the long range plan of the County
and cast his vote against the rezoning."
69-11C - January 21~ 1969 P.C.
"Mr. J. G. Woodfin comes requestin~ the rezoning from Agricultural to
General Business (C-2) in Manchester Magisterial District of a parcel
of land of irregular shade fronting 200 ft. on U.S. Rte. 360 and ex-
tending northwestwardly 240 feet being 1000 ft. northeast of Walmsley
Boulevard. Refer to Sec. 39-12 par. 6.
He presents a letter bearing 14 signatures of adjoining property owners
in which they have indicated no obJestion to the requested zoning.
Mr. Browning asks the applicant if a use permit would serve the pur-
poses with the stipulation that repairs also be allowed.
Whereupon Mr. Woodfin states that he eventually wishes to demolish the
present building in that it is not suitable for his operation and
therefore would rather have the commercial zoning.
On Motion of Mr. Vaughan, seconded by Mr. Browning, it is resolved that
the commission recommends approval of the requested General Business
(C-2) zoning.
Mr. Browning, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Burnett vote aye.
Mr. Howard and Mr. Dubus vote nay.
Mr. Henshaw abstains."
69-11CS - Feb. 12~ 1969 B. of S.
"Mr. Joseph G. Woodfin, represented by Mr. Milton Farley~ comes before
the Board requesting the rezoning from Agricultural to General Business
(C-2) of a parcel of land of irregular shape fronting 200 feet on U.S.
Rte. 360 and extending northwestwardly 240 feet, being 1000 feet
northeast of Walmsley Boulevard in Manchester Magisterial District.
Refer to Sec. 39-12 par. 6.
Mr. Farley recites the history of this case and states that Mr. Woodfin
has purchased the property and now wants to expand and improve the
property.
Mr. Glenn, a resident of Longwood Acres, and representing the Civic
Association states that the Land Use Map was passed about two years
ago and this should not be changed at this time, that the zoning
request would decrease the value of the homes and introduces a dele-
gation of approximately 25 people opposed to this zoning.
Mr. Friel states that he does not want spot zoning on Rt. 360.
Mr. Farley asked the question that did not the subdivider reserve
land on Rt. 360 fronting on said road.
-8-
Mr. Robert Jensen states that this is spot zoning or block busting
and states he is in favor of the Land Use Map as it is now adopted.
Mr. J. L. Hamrick states that he is not opposed to the proposed use
but is afraid of what zoning would take place on adjacent properties
if this is so zoned, and that he does not want Rt. 360 to look like
Route #1.
Mr. Hamrick asked that Mr. Woodfin accept a Use Permit, whereupon Mr.
Farley states that is hard to borrow money for the necessary construc-
tion on a Use Permit.
Mr. Woodfin states that he does not want a Use Permit.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dietsch, seconded by
Mr. Purdy, it is resolved that this request be and it hereby is denied.
It is here noted that Mr. Martin, Mr. Browning and Mr. Apperson do
not vote."
70-4C - Februar~ 17~ 1970 P.C
"-Mr. jOseph G.''Woodfih III and David M. Woodfin come requesting the
rezoning from Agricultural to General Business (C-2) in Manchester
Magisterial District of a parcel of land of square shape fronting
208.72 ft. on Rt. 360 extending northwestwardly to a depth of 208.72
ft. and being located 1000 ft. ± northeast of the intersection of Rt.
360 and Walmsley Boulevard. Refer to Sec. 39-12 (1) parcel 6.
He states they now have the building rented for an auto shop but wish
to build a new building not necessarily a repair shop. They indicate
that they do not have a definite plan but are negotiating with
prospective clients.
The secretary reads a letter from Mrs. Ella B. Jolly indicating that
she is in favor of the zoning.
The Planning Director briefly reviews the past history of this site.
Mr. Browning indicates that he feels getting proper zoning may have
been an oversight of the previous owner.
Mr. Hawkins states that he feels zoning might help in that improvements
could be made to the property.
Upon consideration whereof and on motion of Mr. Dubus, seconded by Mr.
Marshall, it is resolved that the Planning Director consult with the
Commonwealth's Attorney and requests a written opinion as to the con-
tinuation of a nonconforming use, particularly as it applies to the
aforementioned case 70-4C in the name of Joseph G. Woodfin, III and
David M. Woodfin. It is further resolved that the Commonwealth's
Attorney render his opinion in such time that it may be used on the 17
March 1970 in rendering a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
All vote aye.
On motion of Mr. Browning, seconded by Mr. Hawkins, it is resolved
that further consideration of this case be deferred to 17 March 1970.
All vote aye."
70-4C - March t7~, 19,7,0 P.C.
"Mr. Woodfln comes again concerning the rezoning of land on Rte. 360
which was deferred by the Commission last month.
The secretary reviews last month's proceedings and also reads six
letters of opposition to the change of zoning (most of these having
been mailed directly to Mr. Marshall).
Mr. Woodfin states he wishes to construct a new building whereupon Mr.
Browning raises a question as to the intended use. He goes on to say
that it will not be for an auto or repair shop and that he has several
interested tenants, possibly for a small market, fabric shop or the
like. The lot is 210 feet by 210 feet and he feels that he has the
needed setback available.
--9--
The parcel is vacant while adjacent properties are either vacant or occu-
pied by single family dwellings. The request 5s for rezoning of a portion
(91.6 acres) of the parcel for Residential (R-2) use and for the rezoning
of a portion (15.1 acres) for General Business (C-2) use.
Over the past year this parcel has undergone much study with consideration
given to a multitude of land use combinations. The following minutes from
both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings are present-
ed as background to the request now before the Commission:
P.C. April 20, 1971
"?'1-28C Mr, J."K-.'Timmons and Mr. Edward E. Willy, Jr., representing
Mr. Edward G. Willis, come requesting the rezoning from Agricultural
(A) to Local Business (C-l), General Business (C-2), Townhouse (TH-l)
and Residential (R-2) of a parcel of land in Midlothian Magisterial
District, containing approximately 178 acres, fronting approximately
1460 feet on Robious Road and extending northwardly approximately 4200
feet to the Southern RR., bein~ located approximately 4000 feet north-
west of the intersection of Robious Road (Rte. 675) and Midlothian
Turnpike (Rte. 60). Refer to Tax Map Sec.l?-3 (1) part of parcel l,
Sec. ~-15 (1) parcel 1.
"Messrs. Willy and Timmons present a development plan indicating the
various land uses envisioned for this parcel, stating that out of the
total 178 acres, 45 acres would be devoted for town houses for sale
(TH-l) units, having a density of aoproximately 8 units per acre;
acres for recreational use; 20 acres for multi-family rental develop-
ment, having a density of l0 units per acre; 18% acres of single family
detached lots, totaling some 37 individual lots; 3?% acres for commer-
cial development (C-1 & C-2); 5% acres reserved for a church site;
acres reserved for a school site; the balance being developed in a
road network.
"Mr. Willy further states that it is Mr. Willis' intention to develop
this project along the lines of a total planned community.
"He further states that architectural designs and controls will esta-
blish colonial and Williamsburg type styles throughout the commercial
and residential development. A mall type shopping center is envision-
ed utilizing the 350 degree design concept.
"Mr. Timmons states that this request encompasses the largest parcel
of land left undeveloped in the area. Mr. Timmons further states that
the plan as presented represents the thoughts and ideas of Mr. Willis,
various consultanta, area residents, the Planning Commission and
Planning Staff.
"Mr. Henshaw states that Commission action, on this property to date,
has been primarily concerned with answering particular questions and
responding to particular ootnts raised with regard to change of this
area. He further states that at no time has any approval or disapproval
been given or indicated.
"Mr. Timmons concurs and adds that it was not his intention to infer
that the Commission has granted its approval on what comes before them
tonight. Mr. Timmons .goes on to state that preliminary studies indi-
cate the economic feasibility of providing public utilities for this
development. He further elaborates stating that it would cost approxi-
-12-
mately $300,000 to bring sewer from Brighton Green to service this site.
"Mr. Perry Hebb, representing the Subdivision of Bon Air Terrace, states
objections to this request citing the overcrowding of schools, existing
road conditions and higher tax burdens. He then submits a petition,
bearing the signatures of approximately ninety (90) individuals, which
states: "We, the undersigned, oppose Mr. Ted Willis' proposed shopping
center and apartment complex, which is to be located on 168
acres lying between Bon Air Terrace and Greenfield, for
the following reasons:
"(1) Increased traffic up Robindale Road and in general
area which we consider a safety hazard to our children.
"(2) Overcrowding local school system.
"(3) Additional congestion - approximately 2,000 people
due to multi-family dwellings.
"(4) Tax burden on county as far as schools and sewage
are concerned.
"(5) Open area for further commercial zoning.
"(6) Disrupts suburban atmosphere.
"(7) Disproportionate property value increase. Our
property would grow at a much slower rate.
~(8) Widening of Robious Road would cause condemnation
of right-of-way property."
'~Mr. George Cook, representing the Greenfield Civic Association,
states his objection reiterating previous testimony.
"He further states that the best use for this property would be
colely for the development of single family detached residences.
"Mr. Henshaw states that the Planning Commission is faced with a
unique situation insomuch as the surrounding properties have been
zoned and developed for sometime.
"Mr. Balderson states the difficulty involved in securing proper
zoning controls for the development of this magnitude without having
a planned unit development ordinance which would be geared to the
establishment of land use criterias and controls as would be neces-
sary in such a development.
"Mr. Ritz states that it is his opinion that the Commission might
utilize the Staff's efforts and assistance in a study of this re-
quest, outlining and presenting various alternatives to the land
uses and zoning requested.
"The Commission concurs with this opinion and Mr. Ritz further re-
quests that each member voice his opinion with regard to the overall
development of this property, taking into consideration the various
balances~between residential and commercial land uses and the densi-
ties to which these developments miEht be extended.
"Mr. Marshall states that the commercial area as shown on the plan
should be reduced and placed more to the interior of the development.
"Mr. Dubus states that the commercial area should be more of a
local business rather than a general business nature.
"Mr. Browning states that no commercial zoning should occur within
the development.
-lB-
"Mr. Marshall responds stating that some bushiness should be included
since this is a total planned community development which should be
all inclusive but he envisioned something approximating the size of
the River Road Shopping Center located at the northwest terminus of
Huguenot Bridge.
Mr. Henshaw states that he is opposed to any shopping facilities
in the development.
Mr. Howard states that a market research plan should guide the
developers in selectin~ the amount of land to be developed commercially
Mr. Hawkins feels that no shopping center should be developed.
Mr. Burnett states that although some shopping area should be pro-
vided, he questions the total amount as proposed by the developer.
He further states that somethin~ approximating the size of the River
Road facility would be in order, perhaps 5 to 10 acres with the
majority reserved for professional offices.
He ~further states that additional single family development should
buffer the shopping center.
"At this point Mr. Timmons interjects that future area demands will
dictate the need for lar~er and more defined areas for neighborhood
shopping.
Mr. Henshaw states that no multi-family units should be developed.
Mr. Marshall states that some multi-family and townhouse for sale
development should be included, but approximately half what the
developer's plan indicates.
Mr. Hawkins feels that more single family detached lots should be
developed to buffer the townhouses and multi-family rental units.
Mr. Dubus states that the townhouse area which encompasses approxi-
mately 22 acres in the center, should be replaced with single family
residences.
Mr. Browning states that he is still of the opinion that the entire
parcel should be developed for single family residential use.
Mr. Ritz states that the Planning Department will respond to the
comments of the Commission and to the various alternatives that
might be utilized in the development of this property.
"Whereupon consideration thereof, on motion of Mr. Browning, seconded
by Mr. Howard~ it is resolved that this Commission defer action on
the aforedescribed request to the ~ay 18, 1971 meeting in order that
a staff development study might be made.
All vote aye.~'
P.C. May 18, 1971
"71~"6C M~. Edward E. Willey, Jr., representing Mr. Edward Willis,
comes requesting the rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Local Business
(C-l), General Business (C-2), Townhouse (TH-l) and Residential (R-2)
of a parcel of land in Midlothian Magisterial District, containing
approximately 178 acres, fronting approximately 1460 feet on Robious
Road and extending northwardly approximately 4200 feet to the Southern
RR, being located approximately 4000 feet northwest of the intersec-
tion of Robious Road (Rte.675) and Midlothian Turnpike (Rte.60).
Refer to Tax Map Sec. 17-3 (1) part of parcel t, and Sec. 9-15 (1)
parcel 1.
"Planning Director presents nine sketch plans for the Willis Tract
as requested by the Planning Commission.
"Mr. Willey requests postponement for one month.
"Mr. Dubus believes Planning Commission should make some decisions
prior to tabling this application.
-14-
"Mr. Henshaw~ Mro Hawkins, Mr. Howard~ and Mr. Browning prefer
Plan 2.
Mr. Dubus prefers Plan 2, plus 4 to 5 acres of C-1 zoning. Mr.
Marshall prefers development something like Plan 3.
"Mr. J. K. Timmons of J. K. Timmons & Associates, engineer for
applicants, presents the R.R.P.D.C. transportation plans showing
how Robious Rd. will become a major street as the area to the
west becomes more developed.
"Mr. Bob Williamson, Plannln~ and Construction Engineer for the
Chesterfield County Schools asks about the status of the school
site. The Chairman indicates that the Commission's action on
this rezoning application will not affect the school site and
that the Commission will take up consideration of the school site
later in the meeting.
"Mr. Willey indicates that his client will enter into a restrictive
covenant with the neighbors concerning the appearance of commercial
structures on his property.
"Upon consideration thereof, on a motion of Mr. Marshall~ seconded
by Mr. Browning~ it is resolved that the Commission recommends the
tabling of this request, at the request of the owner. Ail vote aye."
· P.C.. June 15.~ 1~7.!
'?1-25C Mr. Edward E. Willey, Jr., comes requesting
(same description as on PaRe 14).
"Mr. Willey submits a revised plan for the proposed development on
the above noted property and states that after reviewing the Plan-
ning Staff's plans and attempting to incorporate sentiments expressed
by adjacent property owners~ area residents and the Commission, he
is of the opinion that this revision will not only accommodate the
wishes of the developer and meet the needs of the community but may
be accepted as proper and orderly development for the area.
"Mr. Willey points out that the new plan would include some 18.5
acres for recreation, some 50.4 acres to be developed for Townhouses,
7.3 acres to be developed for local business use, 17.3 acres being
developed for general business use~ 46.8 acres being developed for
single family detached residences and approximately 19.0 acres to be
de~eloped in the road network. This being a total of 159.0 acres.
He further states that the slngle family detached residences will
number some 94 units which will be approximately 2 units per acre.
"Mr. Burnett questions ~r. WilleF with regard to the developer's
intent to dedicate and construct Savoy Road as a public road past
the school site~ Joining the remainder of the development.
"Mr. Wllley responds statin~ that it is his understanding that in
the conveyance of the school property this road extension would be
dedicated by the developer and the building of the road~ if necessary,
would be accomplished by the School Board.
"Mr. Burnett states that it is his understandin~ that funds coul~
not be made available through school bond money to permit this type
of construction. He further states that he is concerned that it
-15-
will fall the responsibility of the County to build this road in
order to serve the school site and further he feels that by causin~
this the developer is furthering his own ends by the probable utili-
zation of this road at the expense of the County.
"Various members of the Commission and Mr. Balderson express the
opinion that prior to any road bein~ constructed approval by this
Commission would have to be granted in addition to location and
road plans being approved by the Highway and Engineering Departments.
~'Mr. Willey states that, at this point, the developer's intent and
the School Board commitment should not influence the planned develop-
ment of the remainder of this property.
"Mr. Henshaw asks Mr. Willey if those restrictive covenants dis-
cussed at the last meeting as would be entered into by Mr. Willis
and adjacent property owners were still intended to be placed on
the property.
"Mr. Willey states that they are still planned.
"Mr. Henshaw asks if those who enter into the covenants with Mr.
Willis would have the right and obligation to bring ~uit should Mr.
Willis or any succeeding property owners violate the covenant
agreements.
"Mr. Willey states that they would be binding on Mr. Willis and on
any future owners of the property and that violation of these cove-
nants would have to be recognized and brought to the attention of
the proper authority by the adjacent property owners. He further
states that injunctive methods may be imposed which would not only
restrict the developer from continuing the violation but also cause
the developer to bear the cost of any legal proceedings brought about
by the violation of these covenants.
"Mr. Balderson notes that if the Board of Supervisors sees fit to
rezone the property~ in a manner agreeable to the applicant, then
the developer must submit plans showing the location and designs
for proposed roads and the petitioning of parcels within the property.
The Commission would then have the right to review these plans under
the subdivision ordinance and the controls stated therein.
"Mr. Sterling Gunn, representing area residents in opposition, re-
quests that those present and opposing stand as a demonstration of
the opposition present. Approximately 75 persons respond to the
request.
"Mr. Hibb, representing Bon Air Terrace~ states that in previous
petitions submitted to this Commission, various area residents have
noted their opposition to this development~ stating the traffic
hazards that would be created, the de-evaluation of property and
the overcrowding of area schools.
"Mr. Russel Stone~ representin~ Woodmont Subdivision, expresses the
opinion that in his estimation this is an example of spot zoning
which is not conducive to adjacent land uses.
"Mr. David Howe~ Greenfield Subdlvision~ states that there is no
need for a shopping facility of the magnitude proposed by Mr. Willis.
-16-
"Mr. McCracken~ representing that property to the north owned bT the
Girl Scouts, states that he has no objection to the development as
proposed.
"Mrs. Ruth Adcock~ property owner to the south, states that she
has no objection to this request.
I~Upon consideration of the issues involved~ it is on motion of Mr.
Browning, seconded by Mr. D'bus, resolved that this Commission re-
commends that no greater an intensity than Residential (R-2) rezon-
lng be granted on the aforedescribed property. Mr. Burnett abstains;
all others vote aye."
B. of S. - July..!4~ 1971
71-28CS Mr. J. K. Timm0ns comes before the Board, representing Mr.
Edward J. Willis, the rezoning from same description as on
Page 14).
'~Mr. Tlmmons states that Mr. Willis wishes to withdraw the request
for commercial zoning of this tract of land, that this is a large
parcel of land having been owned by Mr. Willis for over 25-years,
that it is close to a Railroad, that parts of it will be difficult
to develop, that it lies immediately west of the Girl Scout Camp
property which the Board has promised to assist and presented a map
made by Wilbur Smith and Associates showing the roads and traffic
in the area.
"Mr. Edward Willey, Attorney for ~r. Willis, states that no part of
the zoning request is other than Residential, adjacent to the exist-
ing subdivisions in the area, therefore, it will not adversely affect
adjacent land~ that if the Board of Zoning Appeals give approval
for Townhouses a density will be planned not to exceed eight (8)
homes per acre.
'~Mr. E. Allman, residing in the Woodmont area, states that Mr. Willis
wants to defer using the Business property until a later date and
if business is developed the Quiet deadend streets in Woodmont will
be extended across the Southern Railroad.
"Mr. Willis, the applicant, explains the road glans and the condi-
tions existing around the Girl Scout property.
"Mr. Timmons states that less than 25% of the planned Recreational
area is in flood plains.
"Mr. Sterling Dunn, President of the Greenfield Civic Association
states that a development of this type will ruin the neighborhood
because of the increased traffic.
"Mr. David Johnson and Mr. David Howe~ speak in opposition to the
zoning.
"Mr. Martin states that this is beautiful building property, that
he favors the zoning of this property for Residential-2 purposes,
that the Board should not over-rule the people in the area.
"Mr. Ritz, County Planner, states that if the Board grants the R-2
zoning request that both sides of the roads proposed should be
zoned R-2 for easy development.
-17-
"Upon further c~Tsideration and on motion o~Mr. Martin, seconded
by Mr. Dietsch, it is resolved that all of the land in this tract
requested to be zoned Residential-2 be and it hereby is rezoned
Residential-2.
Mr. Horner votes Nay.
Mr. Browning, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Dietsch, Mr. Martin and Mr. Purdy
vote Aye.
P.C. Jan.
"Mr. Jim Hayes~ of J. K. Timmons and Associates, comes representing
the WILLIS PROPERTY.
Whereupon presentation of the plan Mr. Burnett expresses the feeling
that this Residential area has developed in too nice a manner to
allow adjacent Subdivision activity, proposing the development of
such small lots.
Mr. Hayes states that the lot sizes would meet the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance as would be allowable in the Residential-
2 zoning District.
Mr. Willis states that he has presented better plans for the develop-
ment of this property but the County has rejected such plans.
Mr. Burnett states that he understands this.
Mr. Erepela asks Mr. Ritz for his recommendation as how the Commis-
sion should proceed with reEard to the subdivision of this property.
Mr. Ritz states that the Board of Supervisors will have before it,
a request to rezone this property to the Residential (R-2) and
General Business (C-2) classification. In addition, the Board of
Zoning Appeals may possibly receive a request for consideration of
Multi-family land use for a seMment of the property in question.
He further recommends that this Commission defer action with regard
to the single family Subdivision of the property until such time as
the Board of Supervisors has responded to the rezoning request.
Whereupon consideration thereof- it is on motion of Mr. Krepela,
seconded by Mr. Belcher, re~8~$~e~~e~ative approval be and
it hereby is deferred until such time as the Board of Supervisors
have taken action with regard to the rezoning of the property in
question. All vote aye."
It appears that commercial development in this area will, for the most
part, concentrate along Rt. 60 and at the intersection of Robious Road
and Rt. 147. If this development trend continues, then the need for
commercially zoned land north and south along Robious between Rt. 147
and Rt. 60 will not present itself. Therefore, other than commercial
land use controls should be provided for.
Although the Planning Commission has indicated their dissatisfaction
with a subdivision plan presented for this parcel, it would seem,
(taking existing adjacent land use and land use controls into considera-
tion) that, under our existing zoning ordinance, the R-2 rezoning as
requested is Justified.
-18-
Planning Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the requested General
Business (C-2) rezoning and approval of the Residential (R-2) rezoning.
In addition, the R-2 rezonlng should include the portion requested for
C-2.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley R. Balderson, Jr.
Senior Planner
Chesterfield County Planning Department
-19-