09-26-2001 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
September 26, 2001
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mrs. Renny B. Humphrey, Chairman
Mr. Kelly E. Miller, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mr. J. L. McHale, III
Mr. Arthur S. Warren
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Colonel Carl R. Baker,
Police Department
Mr. George Braunstein,
Dir., Community Services
Board
Mr Craig Bryant, Dir.,
Utilities
Mr Steven Calabro, Dir.,
County Airport
Dr Billy K. Cannaday, Jr.
Supt., School Board
Ms Jana Carter, Dir.,
Youth Services
Ms Marilyn Cole, Asst.
County Administrator
Ms Mary Ann Curtin, Dir.,
Intergovtl. Relations
Mr William W. Davenport
Commonwealth's Attorney
Ms Rebecca Dickson, Dir.,
Budget and Management
Ms Debbie Dugger, Admin.,
Youth Group Home
Mr James Dunn, Dir.,
Economic Development
Mr William Dupler,
Building Official
Ms Lisa Elko,
Clerk
Chief Stephen A. Elswick,
Fire Department
Mr. Michael Golden, Dir.,
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Human Services
Mr. John W. Harmon,
Right-of-Way Manager
Mr. Russell Harris, Mgr.
of Community Development
Services
Major David Hutton,
Sheriff's Office
Mr. Thomas E. Jacobson,
Dir., Planning
Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir.,
Public Affairs
Ms. Kathryn Kitchen, Asst.
Supt. of Schools for
Business and Finance
Mr. Louis Lassiter, Dir.,
Internal Audit
Mr. R. John McCracken,
Dir., Transportation
Mr. Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., Env. Engineering
01-687
Mr. Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Dr. William Nelson,
Dir., Health
Mr. Richard A. Nunnally,
Extension Agent
Mr. Paul D. Patten,
Assessor
Mr. Francis Pitaro, Dir.,
General Services
Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Management Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Community Development
Mr. Thomas A. Taylor, Dir.,
Block Grant Office
Mr. Scott Zaremba, Asst.
Dir., Human Resource Mgt.
Mrs. Humphrey called the regularly scheduled meeting to order
at 3:38 p.m. She stated that the world has profoundly changed
since the Board's last regularly scheduled meeting. She then
read the following statement for the record:
The cowardly actions taken by terrorists on September 11
will live forever in our minds and hearts and continue to
affect our daily lives for many years to come.
This Board of Supervisors, our County staff and the
citizens of Chesterfield Co~unty have demonstrated a patriotic
support for our President and national, state, and local
leaders which is unprecedented. The Board of Supervisors held
a special meeting on September 13 to condemn these cowardly
acts and proclaim our support.
A disaster of this t~pe along with the threat of other
terrorist activities cuts to the core of the values and
principles that we hold dear in our County, primarily the
safety of our citizens and our ability to respond with
assistance and resources in time of need.
The citizen satisfaction survey that we will be reviewing
today indicated that safety in our communities is one of our
citizens' highest priorities. It also indicated that they felt
safer than they did when we conducted the last survey three
years ago. However, I'm sure that today every person in
America feels more vulnerable than they did before September
11.
As we move forward in the face of continued threats of
terrorism, the County must focus on our preparedness for any
event, terrorism or other natural disasters.
I have reviewed the activities of the past two weeks by
our County Fire, Police and EMS agencies and County
Administration and want to report the following:
The County's Emergency Operation Plan is up to date,
has been well exercised and is one of the most
comprehensive in terms of bringing resources and
response to disasters in Chesterfield County.
o
The plan was exercised by the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA) a few years ago and
was rated as one of the best in the country.
01-688
9/26/01
o
o
o
The plan brings resources for any type of disaster
from a major traffic accident to a major tornado or
hurricane or other disasters that may require
evacuations or shelters.
Our Police Department is in close contact with State
and Federal law enforcement agencies, and military
officials and works daily to communicate any
suspicious activities in the county and also receive
advisories about what type activities to look for.
Citizens are encouraged to report to our police
department any suspicious activities they may
observe.
We also have taken steps to protect against and deal
with any retaliatory actions against any of our
Islamic Community here in Chesterfield County. Our
community is diverse and we have citizens living
here representing every culture. We must not assume
anything based on a person's race or religion.
The County has taken extra steps to protect against
our resources (such as our County Airport, County
vehicles, and other equipment) being used by
terrorists. Extra precautions have been taken to
protect our water resources and other facilities.
While we believe we are as prepared as we can be for
emergencies in Chesterfield County, there are threats that have
never before dealt with at the local level. Our staff is
developing a draft to add to our Emergency Operations Plan
about terrorism.
To better inform citizens about the Emergency Operation
Plan and to reassure them that Chesterfield has an excellent
emergency response plan in place, Mr. Ramsey is putting
together a communication package to send to the community.
I encourage all citizens to continue to support your local
Fire, Police and EMS officials, just as you have in the past.
One excellent way to do that is to get involved in some of the
volunteer programs such as the Fire, Police and EMS services
and become an active member. This is an excellent way to
support this County and your fellow citizens.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTE:S
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved the minutes of August 22, 2001 and September 13, 2001,
as submitted.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
2. COUAr~Y ADMINISTRATOR'S CO~NTS
There were no County Administrator's comments at this time.
3. BOARD CO~ITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Barber stated that the Midlothian District is home to the
Islamic Center of Virginia. He further stated that members of
the Islamic Center have condemned and expressed sorrow for the
terrorists' acts and requested that he convey to the public
01-689
9/26/01
that they are offended by the twisted use of their religion for
such an abominable action.
Mr. Miller stated that he has attended a number of memorial
services since the tragic events and indicated that he feels we
should take this opportunity given by God to advance the cause
of civilization. He further stated that the Board has a duty
to support its national leaders and he feels it is a great time
to be an American.
Mr. Warren stated that the County is very well prepared for any
emergency that its citizens may be subjected to. He expressed
appreciation for the outstanding efforts of police, medical,
fire and other emergency services personnel and volunteers.
Mr. McHale commended the County for providing financial
assistance to its employees who are members of the military
reserves and called to active duty.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that, in her employment at Medical College
of Virginia, she has provided solace and conveyed the County's
preparedness for potential disasters to a number of
international students since the terrorist acts. She further
stated that the international community that she is a part of
has condemned the terrorists, actions and have expressed their
heartfelt condolences. She expressed appreciation to Mr.
Ramsey and County employees who continued to provide services
throughout the tragic event.
REOUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, ADDITIONS, QR CHANGES
THE ORDER OF PRESENTATIO~
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
deleted Item 2., Emergency Operations Plan Update; moved Item
5.B., Resolution Recognizing Brown and Williamson Tobacco
Corporation for Its Generous Donation to Chesterfield County,
to be heard prior to Item 5.A., Resolution Recognizing the Late
Mr. John R. Lillard for His Four Years of Service to the
Airport Advisory Board; added Item 6.B., Work Session on Rayon
Park's Sewage Disposal and Drainage Improvement
Recommendations; replaced Item 8.C.2., Appointment to the
Central Virginia Waste Management Authority; replaced Item
8.D.l.c., Resolution Confirming Proceedings of the Chesterfield
Industrial Development Authority for Financing of Industrial
Revenue Bonds for Virginia State University Foundation; added
Item 8.D.23., Approval of Lease of Property from the Kiwanis
Club of Chester; replaced Item 10.A., Report on Developer Water
and Sewer Contracts; replaced Item 17.D., Public Hearing to
Consider Proposed Amendments to the County Code Relating to
Regulation of Adult Uses; replaced Item 17.E., Public Hearing
to Consider the Appropriation of Funds Received from the
Department of Medical Assistance Services, and moved it to
follow Item 15., Requests for Mobile Home Permits and Rezoning
Placed on the Consent Agenda; and adopted the Agenda, as
amended.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
5, RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
5,B, RECQGNiZIN~ BROWN AND WiLLIAMSQN TOBACCO CORPORATION
FOR ITS ~ENEROUS DONATION TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Mr. Golden introduced Mr. Sidney Bragg, Director of Friends of
Chesterfield's Riverfront.
01-690
9/26/01
Mr. Bragg expressed appreciation to Brown and Williamson for
partnering with Friends of Chesterfield's Riverfront and the
County to make the land donation. He presented slides of the
262 acres being donated and stated that the County now has more
than 1,000 acres of conservation property. He introduced Mr.
Bill Buda, Director of Quality Services and Corporate
Engineering for Brown and Williamson; Mr. Bob Wahlquist, Branch
Manager of the Hamner Division of Brown and Williamson; Mr.
Jack Frye, Director of the Soil and Water Conservation Division
of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and
Ms. Janit Potter, Executive Director of Friends of
Chesterfield's Riverfront.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is committed to protecting
our natural environment; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County works in partnership with the
Friends of Chesterfield's Riverfront to facilitate
opportunities to implement the County's adopted Riverfront
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County currently operates the Dutch
Gap Conservation Area, which consists of more than 800 acres of
pristine natural wildlife area along the James River; and
WHEREAS, such natural conservation areas are rarely, if
ever, cared for at the local government level, but rather at
the federal or state level; and
WHEREAS, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation has
announced that it will donate to Chesterfield County an area of
land consisting of 262 acres along the James River, north of
Bermuda Hundred Road and east of Enon Church Road, located in
the Bermuda Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, this generous donation of land will greatly
enhance the ability of all our citizens and visitors to enjoy
the natural beauty of Chesterfield County's riverfront areas
and abundant wildlife; and
WHEREAS, such civic spirit and
appreciation of this Board and of
Chesterfield County.
generosity merits the
all the citizens of
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Brown and
Williamson Tobacco Corporation for its generosity and
outstanding civic spirit, and expresses the appreciation of all
citizens of Chesterfield County for this notable donation.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be presented to Brown and Williamson Tobacco
Corporation and that this resolution be permanently recorded
among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, Virginia.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey presented the executed resolution to Mr. Buda,
accompanied by Mr. Wahlquist, Mr. Frye, Ms. Potter, Mr. Bragg
and Mr. Golden, and expressed appreciation for Brown and
Williamson Corporation's generous donation. She stated that
the County is one of very few local governments in the country
who has secured conservation areas.
01-691
9/26/01
Mr. Buda expressed appreciation for the opportunity given to
Brown and Williamson to provide a permanent means of enjoyment
and education for the public while also providing for the
environmental protection of the James River.
Mr. Frye expressed appreciation on behalf of the Commonwealth
of Virginia for Brown and Williamson,s leadership role as a
corporate partner for conservation.
Mr. McHale stated that the property is in pristine condition
and noted that bald eagles have been spotted on the land. He
commended Friends of Chesterfield,s Riverfront for its efforts
which led to the partnership with Brown and Williamson.
5.A. RECOGNIZING THE LATE MR. JOHN R, LILLARD FOR MIS FOUR
YEARS QF ~ERVICE TO THE AIRPORT ADVISQRY BOAPD
Mr. Pitaro introduced Mrs. Brenda Lillard and her sons,
Christopher and Matthew, who were present to receive the
resolution on behalf Mr. Lillard.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the late Mr. John Lillard represented the Matoaca
District as a member of the Chesterfield County Airport
Advisory Board from February 1997 to June 2001; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lillard served as Chairman of the Committee
in 1998 and 1999; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lillard helped oversee the airport from
February 1997 thru June 2001; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lillard provided guidance and assistance in
the privatization of airport services and airport development
into the future; and
WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Airport is recognized as
one of the best reliever ai~rports on the east coast; and
WHEREAS, the continuing growth in airport activities is
having a beneficial economic impact on the County.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes the late Mr. John
Lillard and expresses sincere gratitude and appreciation for
his service to the County as a member of the Chesterfield
County Airport Advisory Committee representing the Matoaca
District.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be presented to Mrs. John Lillard and that this
resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey presented the executed resolution to Mrs.
Lillard, accompanied by her sons and Mr. Jon Mathiasen,
Executive Director of Richmond International Airport, and
expressed appreciation for Mr. Lillard's service to the Airport
Advisory Board and also for his efforts which led to numerous
improvements at the Chesterfield County Airport.
Mrs. Lillard expressed appreciation, on behalf of her late
husband, to the Board for the recognition.
01-692
9/26/01
5,C,
RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 7-13, 2001 AS ~LEGAL ASSISTANTS'
Mr. Kappel stated that legal assistants provide valuable
assistance to attorneys and the Board is requested to adopt a
resolution recognizing "Legal Assistants' Week."
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, legal assistants and paralegals provide
professional assistance and support to attorneys, the courts
and the public; and
WHEREAS, legal assistants and paralegals earn their
qualifications through formal education, training and
experience working under the supervision of licensed attorneys;
and
WHEREAS, legal assistants and paralegals work in a
rapidly-growing career field that is vital to the delivery of
quality legal services to clients; and
WHEREAS, the Richmond Association of Legal Assistants is
comprised of 293 members with an active presence in
Chesterfield County and is one of ten professional legal
organizations in the 2,000-member Virginia Alliance of Legal
Assistant Associations that supports legal assistants through
education programs, seminars and workshops; and
WHEREAS, the Richmond Association of Legal Assistants
encourages members to strive to uphold the highest degree of
ethical and professional conduct and proficiency, adopting a
Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes October 7-13,
2001 as "Legal Assistants' Week" in Chesterfield County.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey presented the executed resolution to Ms. Sheryl
Motts, legal assistant with American Tower Corporation,
accompanied by Ms. Elaine Davis, legal assistant with Hamilton,
Beach, Proctor-Silex, and Ms. Pam Craze and Ms. Susan Wilson
representing the County Attorney's office, and expressed
appreciation for the invaluable service provided by legal
assistants.
Ms. Motts expressed appreciation, on behalf of the Richmond
Association of Legal Assistants, for the recognition.
Mr. Miller expressed appreciation for the services provided by
all legal assistants including his own.
6. WORK SESSIONS
6.A. 2001 CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY
Ms. Sharon Randol, Quality Coordinator, presented highlights of
the results of the 2001 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. She
reviewed the methodology used in conducting the survey and
stated the overall quality of life in the County received a 92
percent favorable response. She further stated that, of the
01-693
9/26/01
105 questions that could be compared to the 1998 survey, 66
percent indicated improvement. She noted that the County
scored higher than the highest scoring jurisdiction in
normative data obtained from the National Research Center in
the areas of a place to raise children; Fire and Emergency
Medical Services; and Utility Department services. She
reviewed the top five best reasons for living in the County:
convenient location; schools; suburban life; safety; and
affordable housing. She then reviewed the top five biggest
opportunities faced by the County and the top five sources of
information about the County. She reviewed the most improved
areas according to the survey and noted that all questions
relative to safety increased. She reviewed the three greatest
opportunities identified -- overall cleanliness of the County;
highway congestion; and .access to Richmond International
Airport. She stated that the survey results will be posted on
the Internet/Intranet and also published in County Comments and
the Community Shopper. She recognized Mr. Gary Allen, Quality
Analyst in the TQI Office, and expressed appreciation for his
assistance in analyzing the data.
Mrs. Humphrey expressed appreciation to Mrs. Randol and Mr.
Allen for their efforts in preparing the survey and analyzing
the data.
Mr. Barber stated that the survey will be the topic of his
constituents' meeting on October 1, 2001.
Mr. Ramsey expressed appreciation to the Board for taking the
risk in administering a Citizen Satisfaction Survey.
RAYON PARK'S S~WAGE DISPOSAL AND DRAINAGE IMPRQVEM~NT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Ramsey stated that at last year's budget public hearing,
the Rayon Park community requested funding to address sewage
disposal and drainage improvements. He further stated that Dr.
Nelson reviewed septic tank failures in Rayon Park and a team
of County staff was assembled to recommend options for
providing public sewer to the community. He stated that staff
is requesting that the Board endorse presenting the options to
Rayon Park residents and conducting a survey as to the desires
of the community.
Mr. Stylian Parthemos, Senior Assistant County Attorney,
presented a summary of options for addressing Rayon Park's
septic failures: I) individual homeowners providing for repairs
of failed systems with staff assisting in identifying and, if
qualified, obtaining financial assistance; II) creation of a
small assessment district for the seven homes with acute system
failures with a $3,000 assessment per home over a ten year
period; other property adjacent to the line also being included
in the district; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money
being used to subsidize the cost to reduce the assessment to
$3,000 per home or buildable lot; and qualified homeowners
could also apply for CDBG funding to pay the assessment; and
III) creation of an assessment district for all existing homes
in Rayon Park with the same assessment and subsidization plan
as Option II. He noted that, under Options II and III,
modifications to this year's CDBG budget would be necessary and
Option III would also require CDBG funding in FY2003.
When asked, Mr. Parthemos stated that the average cost for
repairing the failed septic systems is $15,000.
Mr. Miller expressed concerns relative to use of the General
Fund for the project.
9/26/01
01-694
When asked, Mr. Ramsey stated that, if an assessment district
option were chosen, the Utilities Department would advance the
assessment district fees which would be repaid over the ten
year period.
Mr. Parthemos stated that the assessment district options are
contingent upon the transfer of the Defense Supply Center
Richmond (DSCR) sewer line to the County.
Mr. Ramsey stated that all communication
indicated a desire to transfer the line.
Discussion ensued relative
assessment districts and the
installation costs.
with DSCR has
to the process for creating
use of CDBG funds to offset
Mr. McHale stated that he is reluctant to put the $3,000 per
buildable lot burden on Rayon Park property owners without a
clear indication of support for the assessment district.
Mr. Parthemos then reviewed drainage improvements recommended
by the team including ripraping the channel from No-Name Creek
to Alcott Road with the a new culvert under Alcott Road; a
paved ditch from Alcott Road to Libwood Avenue; and a new pipe
under Libwood Avenue; 20-24 new driveway culverts or crossover
pipes and associated ditches along a 2,500-foot stretch of
Congress Road. He stated that the plan would also require the
Virginia Department of Transportation to supply the culverts
along Congress Road as they have typically done in the past,
and also require DSCR to re-direct drainage from Ring Road
through the construction of a berm located inside their fence
which they have already agreed to. He further stated that it
is anticipated Environmental Engineering will submit an
application for CDBG funding for the drainage improvements
estimated at $50,000-$60,000.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she feels the drainage improvements
need to be addressed immediately.
Mr. McHale requested that staff bring forward a recommendation
for advancing the drainage improvement portion of the project
and seek recovery of funds through the Block Grant process.
Mr. Miller questioned whether staff has explored other federal
funding or grants that might be available for the project.
Mr. Ramsey stated that staff is not aware of any grants that
would apply. He further stated that DSCR has agreed to
construct a berm along Ring Road which will address a
significant drainage issue.
Mr. Miller requested that staff explore with its Congressional
representatives the possibility of a funding source for the
project.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she will be meeting with Congressman
Forbes tomorrow and requested that staff prepare information
that she can provide the Congressman relative to requesting a
possible funding source to address the drainage portion of the
project.
Mr. McHale stated that addressing the drainage issues might
also help with the septic system problems. He concurred with
preparing a request for Mrs. Humphrey to provide to Congressman
Forbes and then have staff bring forward a recommendation to
the Board to accelerate at least the drainage portion of the
project.
9/26/Ol
01-695
Mr. Barber stated that he understands the importance of the
issue and indicated that he
feels CDBG funding is the right
mechanism to address it. He expressed concerns relative to the
considerable amount of CDBG funding necessary to address the
issue.
7, DEFERRED ITEM~
There were no Deferred Items at this time.
NEW BUSINESS
ADOPTION OF POLICY FOR REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION
Mr. Micas stated that three categories of County property enjoy
a real estate tax exemption: state, federal and church
property; property owned by certain elderly and disabled
people; and specific properties owned by charitable and
nonprofit organizations. He further stated that the Board has
granted 14 separate exemptions for property ranging from $250-
$4,900 since 1995. He stated that the policy staff is
recommending limits individual parcels to a $5,000 maximum
annual real estate exemption and requires considering all
requests for exemption at a single public hearing with those
approved being transferred to the General Assembly. He further
stated that the General Assembly can also grant personal
property tax exemptions and indicated that staff is
recommending that there be no dollar limit on personal property
tax exemptions because of tlhe accelerated depreciation rate.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that a request for personal
property tax exemption from First Tee is being held pending
adoption of a policy by the Board. He further stated that all
requests for exemption will be brought to the Board for
individualized decisions. He stated that the policy caps the
amount of real estate exemption to $5,000 annually. He further
stated that he only recalls one request for personal property
tax exemption in the past 25 years.
Mr. Barber stated that the application process will still
provide the Board with the flexibility of approving only
certain portions of individual requests.
Mr. Miller stated that the policy is providing a mechanism to
set parameters on the tax exemption process.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
adopted staff's proposed policy for real estate tax exemption
requests as outlined in the papers of this Board.
And, further, the Board approved applying the policy to
personal property tax exemption requests with the exception of
the $5,000 annual tax exemption limitation criteria.
Ayes: Humphrey, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: Miller.
8.B. STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION APPROVALS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved the following streetlight .installation:
01-696
9/26/01
BERMUDA DISTRICT
* Rivers Bend Circle and Rivers Bend Road
Cost to install streetlight: $3,761.45
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C. APPOINTMENTS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
suspended its rules at this time to allow simultaneous
nomination/appointment/reappointment of members to serve on the
Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee, Central Virginia
Waste Management Authority, Appomattox Basin Development
Corporation Board of Directors, and Youth Services Citizen
Board.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$,¢,1. CHESTERFIELD EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
nominated Mr. Karl Leonard to serve on the Chesterfield
Emergency Planning Committee, who will be appointed by the
Governor.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$,C.2. CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Charles E. Dane to serve
as an alternate member on the Central Virginia Waste Management
Authority Board of Directors whose term is effective
immediately and expires December 31, 2002. (It is noted Mr.
Dane will fill the unexpired term of Mr. Ray McGowan.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.3. APPOMATTOX BASIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
simultaneously nominated/reappointed Mr. Gary Thomson, Mr. Jim
Daniels and Mr. J. L. McHale, III, representing the County at-
large, to serve on the Appomattox Basin Development Corporation
Board of Directors, whose terms are effective September 30,
2001 and expire September 30, 2002.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.C.4. YOUTH SERVICES CITIZEN BOARD
Discussion ensued relative to additional recommendations for
appointments to the Youth Services Citizen Board from the
Midlothian and Matoaca Districts.
It was generally agreed that the recommendations also be
included in the motion for approval.
9/26/01
01-697
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Ms. Rani English and Ms.
Ashley Henderson, both representing the Bermuda District, Ms.
Emily Anderson, representing the Midlothian District, and Mr.
Eric Creaseman, representing the Matoaca District, to serve as
youth members on the Youth Services Citizen Board, whose terms
are effective July 1, 2001 and expire June 30, 2002.
And, further, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr.
Christopher Dover, representing the Clover Hill District, to
serve as an adult member on the Youth Services Citizen Board,
whose term is effective July 1, 2001 and expires June 30, 2004.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
nominated/reappointed Ms. Shelby Porter, representing the
Bermuda District, to serve as an adult member on the Youth
Services Citizen Board, whose term is effective July 1, 2001
and expire June 30, 2004.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$.D, CONSENT ITEMS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
removed the following items from the Consent Agenda to allow
for public comment: Item 8.D.l.c., Resolution Confirming
Proceedings of the Chesterfield Industrial Development
Authority for Financing of Industrial Revenue Bonds for
Virginia State University Foundation; and Item 8.D.16.,
Authorization of Petersburg Area Transit Service Extension on
Chesterfield Avenue, River Road and Woodpecker Road.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION~
8.D.l.a.
RECOGNIZING MR. NICHOLAS HOGAN UPON ATTAINING
RANK OF EAGLE
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, 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; and
01-698
WHEREAS, Mr. Nicholas Peter Hogan, Troop 893, sponsored by
Saint Edward's Catholic Church, has accomplished those high
standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of
Eagle Scout, which is earned 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, Nicholas 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 hereby extends its congratulations
to Mr. Nicholas Peter Hogan on his attainment of Eagle Scout,
and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an
outstanding young man as one of its citizens.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8,D,l,b,
RECOGNIZING MR. CARL L. WHITE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Mr. Carl L. White began his public service with
the County as a Deputy in the Sheriff's Office in June 1977,
hired by Mr. Nick Fucella for Sheriff Wingo; and
WHEREAS, by providing quality public service, Mr. White
was transferred from the jail to the Courts in 1979 as a
Bailiff for Judge John Daffron, Jr., served as the Bailiff for
several other judges including the Honorables E. P. Gates, Sr.,
Herbert C. Gill and D. W. Murphey, and was also the Bailiff for
the very first capitol murder trial held in Chesterfield County
for Judge E. P. Gates, Sr.; and
WHEREAS, Mr. White has shown tremendous knowledge
regarding the County and its programs and the ability to relate
that to others and was transferred to Civil Process in 1991
until present; and
WHEREAS, Mr. White's desire to do a good job has been a
primary factor that has permitted him to perform at a very high
level while always striving for excellence and going beyond the
call of duty.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the outstanding
contributions of Mr. Carl L. White, expresses the appreciation
of all residents for his service to the County, and extends its
appreciation for his dedicated service to the County,
congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes for a long
and happy retirement.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
9/26/01
01-699
I RE M NT R
CONSTRUCTION QF A NEW ADULT DETENTION CENTER F0~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTy
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has identified a new adult
detention center as a priority project in its Adopted FY 2002
- FY2007 Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Sheriff, in conjunction with
Chesterfield County Administration has planned for the
construction of a new adult detention center by completing a
Community-Based Corrections Plan, a Jail Condition Study and a
Jail Planning Study; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has adopted a Capital
Improvement Program that includes a local funding plan for a
new adult detention center; and
WHEREAS, section 5.a. of item 448 of the 2000 - 2002
Appropriations Act of the Commonwealth of Virginia allows for
partial reimbursement of all eligible costs incurred when
replacing a local adult detention center with a new local adult
detention center that does not result in a net increase in the
operational bed capacity; and
WHEREAS, the replacement facility is anticipated to be
completed in 2005 with State reimbursement requested in 2005;
and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County requests an exception to item
448A of the 2000 - 2002 Appropriations Act of the Commonwealth
of Virginia by citing section 5.a. as justification for
Chesterfield County to obtain State reimbursement of twenty-
five percent of all eligible costs of the proposed adult
detention center in Chesterfield County; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County formally requests approval
of state reimbursement of twenty-five percent of all eligible
costs for a proposed replacement adult detention center in
Chesterfield County in accordance with the exceptions outlined
in item 448 of the 2000 - 2002 Appropriations Act of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHate and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.l.e.
NAMING THE CHESTER LIBRARY BUILDING FQR ELTQN R,
BEVERLY
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Mr. Elton R. Beverly served from 1970 through
1977 as Chairman of the Chesterfield County Public Library
Board of Trustees; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Beverly spearheaded funding and public
support efforts, and oversaw design and construction of the
Chester Library on Harrowgate Road, which was dedicated on
Sunday, September 18, 1966; and
01-700
9/2 /01
WHEREAS, Mr. Beverly led the initial library building
campaign which resulted in passage on June 27, 1972 (by a 70%
margin) of a bond referendum funding a public library system,
and then oversaw the design and construction of a Central
Library and three additional branches; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Beverly has contributed many hours of service
to the community including two years as Treasurer of the
Chesterfield Red Cross, over five years as Sunday School
Superintendent of the Chester United Methodist Church, four
years as a member of the Chester/Chesterfield Citizens Advisory
Council of the United States Postal Service, and over 25 years
as a member of the John Rolfe Players as director, president,
treasurer, and actor in over 25 shows; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Beverly during his 45 years of service with
Allied Chemical Corporation (now Honeywell) was an exemplary
employee bringing credit to his department, his corporation,
and the community through such activities as coordinating
United Givers Fund campaigns and other community action
programs.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Elton R. Beverly by
naming the Chester Library Building, the "Elton R. Beverly
Building."
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be presented to Mr. Beverly at the dedication
ceremony on Sunday, October 28, 2001 and that this resolution
be permanently recorded among the papers of the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
NAMING THE CHESTER LIBRARY MEETING ROOM FOR MAUD
MCLAURINE HURT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the late Mrs. Maud McLaurine Hurt provided
inspiration and guidance in making possible a public library
in Chester; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hurt served as President of the Chester
Library Board from 1936 until her death in 1956; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hurt tirelessly advocated for Countywide
public library service years before this became a reality;
and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hurt is acknowledged to be the "Mother of
Chester"; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hurt was instrumental in the establishment
of Chester High School; was a charter member of Chester Baptist
Church where she held positions of responsibility for many
years; organized the Bermuda Hundred Chapter of the Daughters
of the American Revolution and served as regent for 18 years;
served as president of the Chesterfield Chapter, United
Daughters of the Confederacy; played a major role in the
establishment of the Woman's Club of Chester and the Chester
Garden Club, both of which she served as president; and helped
organize the Chesterfield County Chapter of the American Red
Cross which she served as an officer for many years.
9/26/01
01-701
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes the late Mrs. Maud
McLaurine Hurt by naming the Chester Library Meeting Room, the
"Maud McLaurine Hurt Meeting Room."
A/~D, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be presented to a member of Mrs. Hurt's family at
the dedication ceremony on Sunday, October 28, 2001 and that
this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of the
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.2.
ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE FY20Q1 LOCAL
ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Police Department to accept and appropriate
$81,413 in United States Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds;
transferred $9,046 in local match funds to purchase equipment
and the necessary supplies to enhance the community policing
and crime prevention program; and authorized the County
Administrator to execute all grant documents. (It is noted the
local match is available from funds that had been set aside in
the FY02 adopted budget for a different grant which was not
awarded.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.3. APPROVAL OF SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ALLOCATION FOR FY2002
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
transferred $6,485,200 from the Reserve for School Capital
Improvements to the School Capital Improvement Plan fund for
the Matoaca High School and the Chesterfield Technical Center
projects; transferred $453,625 from the FY2001 Major
Maintenance project to the Grange Hall and C. E. Curtis
Elementary School projects; and appropriated $141,100 in State
Technology Grant funding to the James River High School wiring
project.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8,D,4, TRANSFER OF DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
8.D.4.a.
FROM THE MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT IMPR0VEMRNT F,U~. TO
THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO PURCHAS~
AND INSTALL LANDSCAPING IN THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION RI~HTS-QF-WAY IN RIVERTQN
SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
transferred $10,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement
Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase and
install landscaping in the Virginia Department of
Transportation rights-of-way in Riverton Subdivision.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
9/26/01
01-702
8,D,4.b.
FROM THE DALE DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUND TO THE
SCHOOL BOARD TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL MATERIALS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO FALLING CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
transferred $818 from the Dale District Improvement Fund to the
School Board to purchase and install materials for improvements
to the playground at Falling Creek Elementary School.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8 .D.4 .c.
FROM THE MATOACA DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUND TO THE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO PURCHASE
FOOTBALL PRACTICE EOUIPMENT FOR WOOLRIDGE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
transferred $3,260 from the Matoaca District Improvement Fund
to the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase a football
blocking sled and blocking dummies.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.5. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
8 .D.5 .a.
FOR ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS TO BAILEY BRIDGE
MIDDLE SCHOOL
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the appropriation of $250,000 from the School
Board's share of FY2001 tax revenue over the budget to the
School's Capital Projects Fund for the design of
additions/renovations to Bailey Bridge Middle School.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.5.b. FOR THE OLD HUNDRED ROAD SHOULDER PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
appropriated an additional $25,000 in anticipated Virginia
Department of Transportation reimbursements for the Old Hundred
Road Shoulder Project.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.6. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC ~R~RINGS
8.D.6 .a.
TO CONSIDER A~_ENDMMNTS TO THE COUNTY'S LAND USE
TAXATION ORDINANCE TO ~XTEND THE CURRENT
APPLICATION DEADLIN~
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
set the date of October 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. to consider
9/26/01
01-703
amendments to the County's Land Use Taxation Ordinance
extend the current application deadline.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$,D,6.b. TO CONSIDER THE LEASING QF COUNTY PROPERTY
to
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
set the date of October 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing to consider leasing of County property at the Clover
Hill Water Tank to Sprintcom, Incorporated.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING 0RDINA/~C~
RELATING TO FLAGS
8,D,6,C.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
set the date of October 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing to consider a zoning ordinance amendment relating to
the regulation of flags.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR T~
ROUTE 960 (SWIFT CREEK TO WINTERPQCK ROAD) WIDENIN~
PROJECT
8,D.6,d,
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
set the date of October 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing to consider the appropriation of $5,800,000 in
anticipated Virginia Department of Transportation
reimbursements for the Route 360 (Swift Creek to Winterpock
Road) Widening Project.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
ADOPTION OF PETITION SUPPORTING THE FORMATION OF
SEPARATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIQN DISTRICT FOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
8,D,7,
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following petition requesting that the Virginia
Soil and Water Conservation Board establish a separate Soil and
Water Conservation District for Chesterfield County:
Petition of Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
To Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has determined
that there is need, in the interest of public health, safety
and welfare, for a new district to function in the territory
described below, the grounds upon which that determination is
based being as follows:
The rapidly expanding area of available conservation
programs, which require the expertise and assistance of
the technicians employed by local Soil and Water
01-704
9/26/01
(A)
Conservation Districts and to better serve its
constituents by increasing manpower and funding through
the creation of an additional district.
(B) The increasing need for advice and assistance to the
citizens and businesses within Chesterfield County to
address natural resource conservation concerns of this
rapidly urbanizing county.
(C) The ability to minimize the logistical difficulties of
providing technical assistance encountered by serving an
immense geographic area with terrain and accessibility
challenges and the desire to spend less travel time
between governmental entities in order to focus a greater
percentage of time on local concerns.
(D) A need for a separate local Board, knowledgeable in local
issues, to serve Chesterfield County only, thus
realignment would allow a greater amount of accessibility
to the directors by their constituents by having meetings
locally where local people could voice local concerns.
Accordingly, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
hereby petition the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
as follows:
(i)
That the proposed name of the new district shall be the
Chesterfield Soil and Water Conservation District.
(2)
That the territory proposed to be organized as a district
shall include the entire area within the boundaries of
Chesterfield County.
(3)
That the Soil and Water Conservation Board is hereby
required to define the boundaries of the proposed
district, to conduct a hearing within the territory so
defined on the question of the creation of a district in
such territory, and to determine that such a district be
created.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.8. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on plats
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 § 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.
9/26/01
01-705
AND,
resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Tv~e Chanae to the Secondary System of State Hk;hway~: .Addition
Basis for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Statutory Reference: §33.1-229
Project: Amstel Bluff, Section D
· Highcrest Ridge Drive, State Route Number: 4552
From: Bluff Ridge Dr., (Rt. 3958)
To: Swiffrock Ridge Dr., (Rt. 4553), a~ distance of: 0.10 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/16/1998 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 97; Pg. 21-25,
with a width of 50 Ft.
· Swiffrock Ridge Court, State Route Number: 4554
From: Swiftrock Ridge Dr., (Rt. 4553)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/16/1998 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 97; Pg. 21~25,
with a width of 50 Ft.
· Swiftrock Ridge Drive, State Route Number: 4553
From: Highcrest Ridge Dr., (Rt. 4552)
To: Swiftrock Ridge Ct., (Rt. 4554), a distance of: 0.07 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/16/1998 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 97; Pg. 21-25,
with a width of 50 Ft.
· Swiftrock Ridge Drive, State Route Number: 4553
From: Swiftrock Ridge Ct., (Rt. 4554)
To: Swiftrock Ridge PI., (Rt. 4555), a distance of: 0.20 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/16/1998 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 97; Pg. 21-25,
with a width of 50 Ft.
· Swiftrock Ridge Place, State Route Number: 4555
From: Swiftrock Ridge Dr., (Rt. 4553)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.05 milles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/16/1998 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 97; Pg. 21-25,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this
Engineer for the
with a width of 50 Ft.
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the street described below is shown on plats
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 street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Stre¢~ RCquiremcn%$
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to ~ 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements.
9/26/01
01-706
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.
Tvoe Chanoe to the Secondary System of State Hic~hwavs:
Basis for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Statutory Reference: §33.t-229
Project:
From:
To:
Addition
Duckridge Blvd ~ The Lakes Access Rd
Duckridga Boulevard, State Route Number: 3814
Hull Street Rd., ( Rt. 360) 0.42 Mi. E of Woodlake Py., ( Rt. 3600)
Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.09 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 12/15/1999 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Db. 3730; Pg. 804,
with a width of 90 Ft.
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on plats
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 ~ 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirement0.
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.
Tvoe Chanc;e to the Secondary System of State Hi¢~hwaw: Additioq
Basis for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Statutory Reference: §33.1-229
Project: Meadowbrook Farms, Section G
· Country Manor Lane, State Route Number: 4560
From: 0.03 W. of Victoria Park Tr., ( Rt. 4565)
To: Ironhorse Rd., ( Rt. 4568), a distance of: 0.03 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/12/1999 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 103; Pg. 40-42,
with a width of 52 Ft.
· Country Manor Lane, State Route Number: 4560
From: Ironhorse Rd., ( Rt. 4566)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.04 miles.
9/26/01
01-707
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/12/1999 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 103; Pg. 40-42,
with a width of 52 Ft.
· Ironhorse Court, State Route Number: 4569
From: Ironhorse Rd., ( Rt. 4568)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.03 rniles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/12/1999 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 103; Pg. 40-42,
with a width of 55 Ft.
· Ironhorse Road, State Route Number: 4568
From: Country Manor Ln., ( Rt. 4560)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.03 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/12/1999 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 103; Pg. 40-42,
with a width of 55 Ft.
· Ironhorse Road, State Route Number: 4568
From: Country Manor Ln., ( Rt. 4560)
To: Ironhorse Ct., ( Rt. 4569), a distance of: 0.13 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/12/1999 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 103; Pg. 40-42,
with a width of 55 Ft.
· Victoria Park Way, State Route Number: 455t
From: Country Manor Ln., ( Rt. 4560)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.08 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 2/12/1999 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 103; Pg. 40-42,
with a width of 50 Ft. Var.
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on plats
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 R~quir~m~n~$
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 ~ 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street R~q~ir~m~nt$.
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.
Tvr)e Chanae to the Secondary System of State Hiahwavs:
Basis for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Statutory Reference: §33.1-229
Project: Rivers Trace, Section A
/~.ddltion
01-708
9/26/o
· Corte Castle Road, State Route Number: 4757
From: 0.07 Mi. E of Pypers Pointe Dr., ( Rt. 4756)
To: Devlin Dr., ( Rt. 4443), a distance of: 0.08 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 11/19/2001 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 108; Pg.
18-19, with a width of 50 Ft.
· Corte Castle Road, State Route Number: 4757
From: Deviin Dr., ( Rt. 4443)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 11/19/2001 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 108; Pg.
18-19, with a width of 50 Ft.
· Devlin Drive, State Route Number: 4443
From: Corte Castle Rd., ( Rt. 4757)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.16 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 11/19/2001 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 108; Pg.
18-19, with a width of 50 Ft.
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the street described below is shown on plats
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 street meets 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 street
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to § 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.
Type Chancre to the Secondary System of State Hlahwav$: Addition
Basis for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Statutory Reference: §33.1-229
Project: Turnberry Lane, Salisbury Village Townhouses
· Turnberry Lane, State Route Number: 4384
From: Pagehurst Dr., ( Rt. 4970)
To: Winterfield Dr., ( Rt. 714), a distance of: 0.14 miles.
Right-of-way record was filed on 9/24/1987 with the Office Of Clerk To Circuit Court in Pb. 58; Pg. 51-52,
with a width of 60 Ft.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01-709
8.D. 9, STREET NAME CHANGE:~
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved renaming portions of Coalfield Road and Old Hundred
Road to Charter Colony Parkway. (It is noted the portions to
be renamed are shown on a plat filed with the papers of this
Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8,D,10, APPROVAL OF UTILITY CONTRACTR
8,D.10,a, FOR FOXFIRE, SECTION 6
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved a utility contract for FoxFire, Section 6 - Contract
Number 00-0203 which includes 225 L.F. ± of 15-inch oversized
sewer lines:
Developer: Delmarva Properties, Inc.
Contractor: Infracorps of Virginia, Inc.
Contract Amount: Estimated County Cost for
Oversizing .................... $2,925.00
Estimated Developer Cost ..... $101,390.00
Code:(Refunds thru Connections - Oversizing) 5N-572VO-E4C
District: Matoaca
(It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.10.b,
FOR WATERMILL P~RKWA¥/W00LRIDGE ROAD EXTENSION
PHASE I
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved the following Utility Contract for Watermill
Parkway/Woolridge Road Extension Phase I - Contract Number 00-
0037 which includes 1,980 L.F. ± of 16-inch oversized water
lines:
Developer: Reservoir Land Associates
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Contract Amount: Estimated County Cost for
Oversizing .................... $41,370.00
Estimated Developer Cost ...... $123,862.00
Estimated Total ............... $165,232.00
Code: (Refunds thru Connections - Oversizing) 5B-572VO-E4C
District: Matoaca
(It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$,D,10.c, FOR HAMPTON PARK, SECTION 16
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved the following Utility Contract for Hampton Park,
Section 16 - Contract Number 01-0110 which includes 533 L.F. ±
of 15-inch oversized wastewater lines:
01-710
9/26/01
Developer: Hampton Park Associates, LLC
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Contract Amount: Estimated County Cost for
Oversizing .................... $7,041.00
Estimated Developer Cost ...... $69,876.50
Estimated Total ............... $76,917.50
Code: (Refunds thru Connections - Oversizing) 5N-572VO-E4C
(It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.11. REOUESTS TO VACATE AND REDEDICATE
8.D.11.a.
A SIXTEEN FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THE
PROPERTY OF BON SECOURS - RICHMOND HEALTH ~¥$TEM
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an agreement to vacate and
rededicate a 16-foot drainage easement (public) across the
property of Bon Secours - Richmond Health System. (It is noted
a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.11.b.
A SIXTEEN FOOT AND VARIABLE WIDTH WATER EASEMKNT
ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF BON SECOURS - RICHMOND
HEALTH SYSTEM
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an agreement to vacate and
rededicate a 16-foot and variable width water easement across
the property of Bon Secours - Richmond Health System. (It is
noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12. ACCEPTANCE OF PARCELS OF LAND
8.D.12.a.
ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILLIS ROAD
FROM BRADLEY J. TALLEY
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.144
acres along the south right of way line of Willis Road (State
Route 613) from Bradley J. Talley, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
9/26/01
01-711
$,D,12,b, ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT QF WAY LINE .OF BELLWOOD ROAD
FROM E. I, DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.019
acres along the south right of way line of Bellwood Road from
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12 .c.
ONE PARCEL ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
BELMONT ROAD AND ONE ALONG T~E NORTH RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF COGBILL ROAD FROM WALTER W, MARSH AND
CHARLOTTE ANN MARSH
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of two parcels of land; one containing
0.1843 acres along the east right of way line of Belmont Road
(Route 651); and, one containing 0.396 acres along the north
right of way line of Cogbill Road (Route 638) from Walter W.
Marsh and Charlotte Ann Marsh, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted
copies of the plats are filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12.d. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAy LINE OF BELMONT ROAD
FROM FAIR HAVENS INDEPENDENT METHODIST CHURCH
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.144
acres from Fair Havens Independent Methodist Church, and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers
of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12.e. ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BELMONT ROAD
FROM RANDy L, CRIST
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.0209
acres along the east right of way line of Belmont Road (State
Route 651) from Randy L. Crist, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8,D,12.e.2,
FROM WILLIAM S, CROSTIC, SR, AND MARTHA D,
CROSTIC
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.1495
01-712
9/26/01
acres along the east right of way line of Belmont Road (Route
651) from William S. Crostic, Sr. and Martha D. Crostic, and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers
of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12.e.3.
FROM RANDY W. WOMACK AND SHARON D. WOMACK, AND
D. N. COLE, INCORPORATED
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.1521
acres along the east right of way line of Belmont Road (Route
651) from Randy W. Womack and Sharon D. Womack, and D. N. Cole,
Incorporated, a Virginia corporation, and authorized the County
Administrator td execute the necessary deeds. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12.f. ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HULL STREET
ROAD FROM VERIZON, INCORPORATED
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.08
acres along the south right of way line of Hull Street Road
(U.S. Route 360) from Verizon, Incorporated, successor in
interest to the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
Virginia, a Virginia corporation, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12.g. ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF POCOSHOCK
BOULEVARD FROM BRENLEY ASSOCIATES
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.1012
acres from Brenley Associates, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12 .h.
ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HULL STREET
ROAD FROM SELECTED INVESTMRNT HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of two parcels of land containing a
total of 0.058 acres from Selected Investment Holdings, L.L.C.,
and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with
the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
9/26/0
01-713
8.D.12.i,
FOR THE EXTENSION OF HENSLEY ROAD FROM BJ
SUMMERFORD, LLC
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 8.768
acres from BJ Summerford, LLC, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.12 .j,
ON THE JAMES RIVER FROM BR0WNAND WILLIAMSON
TOBACCO CORPORATION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 262.642
acres from Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers
of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.13. REOUESTS FOR PERMISSION
8.D.13.a.
FROM COLUMBIA GAS OF.VIRGINIA, INCQRPORATED FOR
AN UNDERGROUND GAS PIPELINE TO ENCROACH WITHIN
AN UNIMPROVED COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY KNOWNAS
GREENBRIAR DRIVE
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved a request from Columbia Gas of Virginia, Incorporated
for an underground gas pipeline to encroach within an
unimproved County right of way known as Greenbriar Drive,
subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted
a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this
Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barlber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$,D,13,b.
FROM DOUGLAS J, HACKMAN AND DEBORAH A. HACKMAN TO
INSTALL A PRIVATE WATER SERVICE FOR A RESIDENCE
ON NEWBYS BRIDGE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved a request from Douglas J. Hackman and Deborah A.
Hackman to install a private water service within a private
easement to serve property at 5400 Newbys Bridge Road, and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the water
connection agreement. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity
sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$,D,13,¢, FROM L, C, VAIR0 AND BARBARA W, VAIR0 TO C0NNECT
A FOUR INCH PRIVATE DRAIN LINE TO A STORM SEWER
IN A CQUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved a request from L. C. Vairo and Barbara W. Vairo to
9/26/01
01-714
connect a four-inch private drain line to an existing storm
sewer located in a 16-foot drainage easement across Lot 2,
Augustus Wright Estate, Section 2, subject to the execution of
a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity
sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$,D,14, REOUESTS TO OUITCLAIM
8.D.14.a.
A PORTION OF A SIXTEEN FOOT SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS
LOT 23, BLOCK B, TRAMPLING FARMS, SECTION A FROM
BEVERLY J. LUSTER
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a
portion of a 16-foot sewer easement across Lot 23, Block B,
Trampling Farms, Section A across the property of Beverly J.
Luster. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.14.b.
A VARIABLE WIDTH SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS T~
PROPERTY OF T AND N DEVELOPMENT, L,L,¢.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a
variable width sewer easement across the property of T and N
Development, L.L.C. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.14.c.
A VARIABLE WIDTH STORM WATER MANAGEMRNT/BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTIES
OF GILLSGATE, L.L.C.,AND KEVIN M. MCGUIRE AND AMY
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute quitclaim deeds to vacate a
variable width storm water management/best management practice
easement across the properties of Gillsgate, L.L.C., and Kevin
M. McGuire and Amy M. McGuire. (It is noted a copy of the plat
is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8 .D.15.
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND
POWER COMPANY TO iNSTALL UNDERGROUND POWER LINE~ TO
PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE NEW MATOACA HIG~ SCHQOTp
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with
9/26/01
01-715
Virginia Electric and Power Company to install underground
power lines to provide service to the new Matoaca High School.
(It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of
this Board.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.17.
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR ROUTE 10/ALLIED ROAD TURN
LANE PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
awarded a contract in the amount of $160,626 to Shoosmith
Brothers, Incorporated for the Route 10/Allied Road Turn Lane
Project.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.18,
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY'S RESERVE FOR
FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS TO PURCHASE VIDEO EQUIPMENT
FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT AND GENERAL DISTRICT COURT
BUILDINGS
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved the transfer of $90,000 from the Reserve for Future
Capital Projects to the Circuit/General District Courts Project
to purchase video equipment.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
$.D.19.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTIQN ¢0NTRACT FOR ASHTON CREEK
WASTEWATER PUMP STATION REHABILITATION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
awarded a construction contract in the amount of $1,585,000 to
M and W Construction Corporation for County Project Number 00-
0295, Ashton Creek Wastewater Pump Station Rehabilitation, and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
documents.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8,D,20,
INITIATiQN OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE TO
PERMIT A WASTEWATER PUMP STATION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
initiated an application, for Conditional Use to permit a
wastewater pump station on property at 12501 Bailey Bridge Road
(Bailey Bridge Middle School), PIN: 738672809200000, and
appointed Mr. John Harmon, County Right of Way Manager, as the
Board's agent.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01-716
9/26/01
$ ,D,21,
CONFIRMATION OF ACTION BY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO
A~_E_ND THE MILITARY LEAVE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
TO PAY ACTIVE DUTY EMPLOYEES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THEIR MILITARY PAY AND THEIR COUNTY PAY UNTIL
DECEMBER 30, 2001
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
confirmed the action of the County Administrator to amend the
Military Leave Administrative Procedure to pay active duty
employees the difference between their military pay and their
County pay until December 31, 2001.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8 .D.22.
CONSIDERATION OF REOUEST BY MARUCHAN VIRGINIA.
INCORPORATED FOR WAIVER OF THE PROVISION OF AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL PARK RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS REGARDING
ORIENTATION OF LOADING AREAS AND LOADING DOORS TO
PERMIT THE BUILDING TO BE ARRANGED AND THE LOADING
DOORS AND AREAS ORIENTED SO THAT THEY MAY BE
VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT PUBLIC ROADS
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
waived the Airport Industrial Park restrictive covenants
relative to orientation of loading areas and loading doors to
permit Maruchan Virginia, Incorporated to arrange its building
and orient its loading doors so that they may be visible from
adjacent public roads.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8 .D.23.
APPROVAL OF LEASE OF PROPERTY FROM THE KIWANIS CLUB
OF CHESTER
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved the lease of 5.3 acres ± from the Kiwanis Club of
Chester to be used as a public park for passive recreation and
historical interpretation, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the lease agreement.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda to
allow for public comment:
8.D.l,c,
CONFIRMING PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHESTERFI~T.~
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR FINANCING OF
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR VIRGINIA STATE
UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIQN
Mr. George Beadles expressed concerns relative to amending the
acreage and number of units in the agenda item and approving
the financing of bonds for a project that is still in the
zoning process. He stated that he feels it would be more
appropriate for the Board to defer the funding issue until its
December 18, 2001 meeting after the zoning case has been heard.
9/2s/01
01-717
Mr. Micas stated that there is no legal connection between the
financing and zoning decisions and indicated that the Board is
being requested to validate the fact that the Industrial
Development Authority acted within its legal authority. He
stated that zoning decisions depend exclusively on land use
considerations and are not related to financing.
Mr. Miller stated that, although legally the two issues are not
connected, he has difficulty with the perception that might be
given by the Board by approving the financing prior to approval
of the project.
Mr. Barber stated that he equates the issue with a developer
purchasing property prior to zoning approval and feels that
providing financing would not guarantee in any way the outcome
of the zoning case.
Mr. Miller questioned the necessity to act upon the financing
issue at this time.
Mr. Stith stated that the issuance of industrial development
bonds is subject to the applicant obtaining the rezoning from
the Board.
Mr. Dunn stated that the requested action will induce the
applicant to move forward with the project and establish a date
for reimbursement of incurred costs that are permitted by law.
No one else came forward to speak to the issue.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she feels the Industrial Development
Authority has acted in its correct authority, and indicated
that adoption of the resolution is no indication of the Board's
support of the zoning case.
Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, for
the Board to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the
County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") has considered the
application of Virginia State University Foundation, a Virginia
nonstock, nonprofit corporation (the "Foundation"), for the
issuance of the Authority's student housing revenue bonds, in
an amount not to exceed $18,500,000 (the "Bonds"), to assist in
financing, directly or through an affiliate, (a) all or a
portion of the costs of an off-campus student housing facility
(the "Project"), for the benefit of students at Virginia State
University, to be located at the corner of Hickory and
Woodpecker Roads on a parcel of land in the Village of Ettrick,
in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"), and (b) certain
costs of issuance of the bonds, and has held a public hearing
thereon on August 16, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Project is now expected to have approximately
132 units on an approximately 15 acre parcel of land; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board to approve
the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 147(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"), and
Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended
(the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution agreeing
preliminarily to assist the Foundation with the financing of
the Project, upon terms to be agreed upon by the Authority and
the Foundation as expressed in such resolution, a record of the
public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to
the Project have been filed with the Board.
01-718
9/26/01
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial
Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield for the
benefit of the Foundation, to the extent required by the Tax
Code and the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist
in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by the Tax Code and the Virginia Code, does not constitute an
endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the
Foundation, and, as required by Section 15.2-4909 of the
Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County
nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the
interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from
the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith
or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County
or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
8.D.16.
AUTHORIZATION OF PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT SERVICm
EXTENSION ON CHESTERFIELD AVENUE. RIVER ROAD AND_
WOODPECKER ROAD
Mr. George Beadles stated that he was not aware that mass
transit already existed in the County when the GRTC LINK
service became available. He further stated that he supports
increasing bus service in the County.
No one else came forward to speak to the issue.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that extension of the service will provide
transportation for Virginia State University students and
senior citizens to the grocery store in Ettrick and will not
result in any cost to taxpayers.
Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for
the Board to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, public transportation service could be provided
to the Ettrick Food Lion Shopping Center area by extending
existing Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) service; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petersburg has informed the County
that PAT will provide the service at no cost to the County.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors grants PAT the authority to extend
transit service on Chesterfield Avenue, River Road and
Woodpecker Road, a total distance of approximately 0.9 mile, to
serve the Food Lion Shopping Center.
And, further, the Board authorized the County Administrator to
make service adjustments in stop locations and frequency of
service as necessary to provide efficient service.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
9/26/01
01-719
9. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED HATTERS OR CLAIMR
There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or
claims at this time.
10, REPORTS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved the following reports:
A report on Developer Water and Sewer Contracts and a status
report on the General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital
Projects, District Improvement Funds and Lease Purchases.
And, further, the Board accepted the following roads into the
State Secondary System:
ADDITION LENGTH
BAYHILL POINTE, SECTION 8 (Effective 8/20/01)
Hillcreek Circle (Route 5061) From .03 Mile East
of Hillcreek Drive (Route 5016) to Cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi
Hillcreek Terrace (Route 5017) - From .02 Mile East
of Hillcreek Drive (Route 5016) to Cul-de-sac 0.06 Mi
BON AIR PLACE (Effective 8/10/01)
Rubis Lane (Route 4267) - From Summit Acres Drive
(Route 870) to Rubis Terrace (Route 4268) 0.06 Mi
Rubis Terrace (Route 4268) - From Rubis Lane(Route
4267) to Cul-de-sac 0.07 Mi
Rubis Terrace (Route 4268) - From Rubis Lane (Route
4267) to Cul-de-sac 0.03 Mi
COMMONWEALTH CENTER PARKWAy (Effective 8/20/01)
Commonwealth Center Parkway (Route 754) - From
Existing Route 754, 0.14 Mile East of Hull Street
Road (Route 360) to 0.74 Mile East of Hull Street
Road (Route 360) 0.60 Mi
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
11, DINNER
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
recessed to the Administration Building, Room 502, for dinner.
Reconvening:
12, INV, OCATION
The Board members, County Attorney, County Administrator, Clerk
and Deputy Clerk joined hands with clergy members and
invocations were given by Reverend Jerome Hancock, Pastor of
9/26/01
01-720
Southside Church of the Nazarene; Imam Shaheed Coovadia of the
Islamic Center of Virginia; Minister Delores Winfield of Mount
Gilead Full Gospel International Ministries; and Dr. Wilson
Shannon, Pastor of First Baptist Church of Centralia.
13,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
QF AMERICA
Eagle Scout Michael Stafford led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the flag of the United States of America.
14. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
14 .A.
RECOGNIZING BOY SCOUTS UPON ATTAINING THE RANK OF
EAGLE SCOUT
14.A.1. MICHAEL WAYNE STAFFORD, DALE DISTRICT
Mr. Hammer introduced Mr. Michael Stafford who was present to
receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
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; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Michael Wayne Stafford, Troop 825, sponsored
by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has
accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached
the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned 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, Michael 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 hereby extends its congratulations
to Mr. Michael Wayne Stafford on his attainment of Eagle Scout,
and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an
outstanding young man as one of its citizens.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mr. Miller presented the executed resolution and patch to Mr.
Stafford, accompanied by members of his family, congratulated
him on his outstanding achievement and wished him well in his
future endeavors.
9/26/01
01-721
Mr. Stafford expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and also to God, his family, scoutmasters and
church for their support.
~4.A,2, DAVID ZANDY LEECH, BERMUDA DISTRICT
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
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 prolject beneficial to his community,
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. David Zandy Leech, Troop 178, sponsored by
Ivey Memorial United Methodist Church, has accomplished those
high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought
goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned 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, David 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 hereby extends its congratulations
to Mr. David Zandy Leech on his attainment of Eagle Scout, and
acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an
outstanding young man as one of its citizens.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
(It is noted Mr. Leech was unable to attend the meeting and the
resolution will be forwarded to him.)
14,A,3, WILLIAM GEORGE WYATT. JR.. BERMUDA DISTRICT
Mr. Hammer introduced Mr. William Wyatt who was present to
receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
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,
9/ 6/Ol
01-722
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; and
WHEREAS, Mr. William George Wyatt, Jr., Troop 815,
sponsored by Chester United Methodist Church, has accomplished
those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-
sought goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned 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, William 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 hereby extends its congratulations
to Mr. William George Wyatt, Jr. on his attainment of Eagle
Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have
such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mr. McHale presented the executed resolution and patch to Mr.
Wyatt, accompanied by members of his family, congratulated him
on his outstanding achievement and wished him well in his
future endeavors.
Mr. Wyatt expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and also to his scoutmasters, family, friends and
Chester United Methodist Church for their support.
14.B. RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 2001, AS "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AWARENESS MONTH"
Mr. Hammer introduced Ms. Meghan Lamm and Mr. Larry Barnett who
were present to receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, violence in the home continues as a major social
problem affecting all members of the family and community and
dramatically reduces the quality of life for many citizens; and
WHEREAS, we understand the problems of domestic violence
occurs among people of all ages and in families of all
economic, racial, and social backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an
individual's privacy, dignity, security, and humanity, due to
systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological
and economic control and abuse; and
WHEREAS, the impact of domestic violence is wide ranging,
directly affecting women, men and their children and our
community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is committed to supporting
the well being of families by advocating for intervention and
prevention activities that decrease the incidents of domestic
violence; and
WHEREAS, only a coordinated and integrated effort, which
01-723
obtains a commitment from all elements of the community to
share responsibility in the fight against domestic violence,
will put an end to the horrific crime.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes the month of October
2001, as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" and urges all
citizens to actively support the efforts of the Chesterfield
County Domestic Violence Resource Center, the Chesterfield
Domestic Violence Task Force and our local domestic violence
service providers in working towards the elimination of
domestic violence in our community.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey presented the executed resolution to Ms. Lamm,
accompanied by Mr. Barnett, and expressed appreciation for the
efforts of the Domestic Violence Task Force towards eliminating
domestic violence.
Mr. Barnett expressed appreciation to the Board for their
support and presented each Board member with a purple ribbon
which signifies commitment to ending domestic violence.
15.
REOUESTS FOR MOBILE HOME PERMITS AND REZONING PLACED ON
THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD IN T~E FOLLOWING ORDER;
- WiTHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS - CASES W~ERE THE APPLICANT
ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATIONAND T~ERE IS NO OPPOSITION
- CASES W~ERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE
RECOM~ENDATION AND/OR THERE IS PUBLIC OPPOSITION WILL
BE HEARD AT SECTION 1[
01SN0235
AND
01PD0244
In Matoaca Magisterial District, SBA PROPERTIES, INC. requested
Conditional Use Planned Development and amendment of zoning
district map and appeals the Planning Commission's Substantial
Accord Determination to permit a communications tower with
height exception in a Residential (R-25) District. The density
of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for residential use of 1 to 5 acre
lots. This request lies on 3.94 acres fronting approximately
fifty (50) feet on the south line of Spring Run Road and
located across from Bending Oak Drive. Tax IDs 734-661-Part of
7427 and 735-662-Part of 1264 and Part of 2022 (Sheet 24).
Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant has is requesting that
the Board remand Cases 01SN0235 and 01PD0244 to the Planning
Commission.
No one came forward to speak to the remand request.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
remanded Cases 01SN0235 and 01PD0244 to the Planning
Commission.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barlber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01-724
01PD0171
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SPRINT PCS requested
Conditional Use Planned Development and amendment of zoning
district map and appeals the Planning Commission's Substantial
Accord Determination to permit a communications tower with
height exception in a Residential (R-40) District. The density
of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0
units per acre. This request lies on 1.8 acres fronting
approximately ninety-five (95) feet on the south line of
Robious Road, across from Polo Parkway. Tax ID 738-714-Part of
6361 (Sheet 2).
Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant is requesting a deferral
until October 24, 2001.
Ms. Lisa Murphy, representing the applicant, requested a
deferral until October 24, 2001.
No one came forward to speak to the deferral.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
deferred Case 01PD0171 until October 24, 2001.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0245
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ALLEN L. KIDD requested
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricultural
(A) to Corporate Office (O-2). The density of such amendment
will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for
residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre. This request
lies on 5.6 acres fronting approximately 820 feet on the west
line of North Arch Road across from Arboretum Parkway,
approximately 120 feet south of Knightsbridge Road. Tax IDs
752-704-1695 and 752-705-2621, 3439 and 3751 (Sheet 6).
Mr. Jacobson stated that the applicant is requesting a deferral
until October 24, 2001. He further stated that, after
discussion with the applicant, Mr. Barber is recommending that
the request be deferred until November 28, 2001.
Mr. Dean Hawkins, representing the applicant, stated that Mr.
Barber's recommendation to expand the deferral until November
28, 2001 is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the deferral.
Mr. Barber stated that, because of the recent redistricting,
the request was initially in the Midlothian District but is now
in the Clover Hill District. He further stated that the
additional 30 days will provide Mr. Warren and Mr. Russ Gulley,
Clover Hill Planning Commissioner, an opportunity to review the
case and meet with the community.
Mr. Warren recognized residents of Shenandoah who were present
at the meeting and indicated that they support deferral until
November 28, 2001.
9/2 /01
01-725
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
deferred Case 01SN0245 until November 28, 2001.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
02SN0108
In Matoaca Magisterial District, JPI CAMPUS QUARTERS requested
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricultural
(A) to Residential Multi-family (R-MF) with Conditional Use
Planned Development for exceptions to Ordinance requirements.
Residential use of up to 10 units per acre is permitted in a
Residential Multi-family (R-MF) District. The Comprehensive
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for planned
transition use. This request lies on 14.7 acres fronting
approximately 670 feet on the east line of Hickory Road, also
fronting approximately 525 feet on the north line of Woodpecker
Road and is located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax IDs 792-613-9415, 793-612-
1497 and 793-613-4553 and 5939 (Sheet 45).
Mr. Jacobson stated that the Planning Commission, at its
September 18, 2001 meeting, deferred the case until November
20, 2001. He further stated that staff is requesting that the
Board defer the case until iNovember 28, 2001.
Mr. John Cogbill, representing the applicant,
deferral until November 28, 2001.
requested
No one came forward to speak to the deferral.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
deferred Case 02SN0108 until November 28, 2001.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0163
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SPRINT PCS requested
Conditional Use Planned Development and amendment of zoning
district map and appeals the Planning Commission's Substantial
Accord Determination to permit a communications tower with
height exception in a Residential (R-40) District. The density
of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0
units per acre. This request lies on 1.8 acres fronting
approximately ninety-five (95) feet on the south line of
Robious Road, across from Polo Parkway. Tax ID 738-714-Part of
6361 (Sheet 2).
Mr. Jacobson stated that Mr. Barber has requested a deferral
until October 24, 2001.
Ms. Lisa Murphy, representing the applicant, stated that the
deferral is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the deferral.
01-726
9/26/01
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
deferred Case 01SN0163 until October 24, 2001.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0201
In Matoaca Magisterial District, DUV;tL INVESTMENTS, INC.
requested rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). Residential use of up
to 1.74 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-25)
District. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 1 - 5 acre lots. This
request lies on 135 acres lying approximately 1,500 feet off
the west line of Elko Road, measured at a point approximately
150 feet north of Vinewood Drive. Tax ID 784-629-7820 (Sheet
41).
Mr. Jacobson stated that Mrs. Humphrey is requesting a deferral
until October 24, 2001.
Mr. Andy Scherzer, representing the applicant, stated that the
deferral is acceptable.
Mr. Jerry Jernigan, a resident of the Matoaca District, stated
that he supports the deferral.
Ms. Brenda Stewart, a resident of Woodpecker Road, stated that
she supports the deferral. She expressed concerns relative to
the proposed R-25 zoning and stated that the Southern ~D~
Western Area Plan calls for R-88 zoning. She questioned the
need for land to be proffered for a park and stated that the
residents support staff's suggestion that a 30-foot easement be
recorded for a trail. She questioned why the County would
allow credit for land encompassed by floodplains and wetlands,
and stated that she feels the County would be better served by
collecting the recommended cash proffer.
There being no one else to speak to the deferral, the public
hearing was closed.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
deferred Case 01SN0201 until October 24, 2001.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0175 (Amended)
In Dale Magisterial District, COURTS OF PRAISE PENTECOSTAL
HOLINESS CHURCH requested rezoning and amendment of zoning
district map from Neighborhood Office (0-1) to Residential (R-
12), plus proffered conditions on adjacent property zoned
Agricultural (A). Residential use of up to 3.63 units per acre
is permitted in a Residential (R-12) District. The density of
such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for residential use of 1.0 to 2.5 units
per acre. This request lies on 5.7 acres fronting
approximately forty (40) feet on the east line of Iron Bridge
Road, approximately 290 feet north of Willowbranch Drive. Tax
ID 773-676-3007, 6622, 7904 and 8327 (Sheet 17).
9/26/01
01-727
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0175 and stated
that the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. He noted that the
request conforms to the Central Ar~ Land U$¢ Plan.
Mr. Douglas Blackburn, representing the applicant, stated that
the recommendation is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the case.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved Case 01SN0175 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
The uses permitted shall be limited to churches and other
places of worship, including parish houses, Sunday
schools, and temporary revival tents. (P)
The uses permitted on this property shall generate no
greater noise level than 65 d.b.a, measured at the closest
property line of Willowhurst Subdivision to the property.
(P)
The "Plan" referenced herein shall be the plan identified
as Courts of Praise Ministries Pentecostal Holiness Church
Expansion, Existing Site and Demolition Plan, dated
November 22, 1999, submitted with the application. Within
the areas identified as "A" on the Plan, a mixture of
evergreen trees and shrubs shall be planted. Within the
areas identified as "B" on the Plan, evergreen shrubs
shall be planted. The initial size of evergreen trees and
shrubs shall be as outlined in Section 19-518 (b) (3) and
(4) of the Zoning Ordinance. Evergreen trees shall be
planted in a lineal pattern and spaced at one (1) tree for
each thirty (30) lineal feet. Evergreen shrubs shall be
planted in a lineal pattern and spaced at one (1) shrub
for each ten (10) lineal feet. A landscaping plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval in conjunction
with site plan submission. (P)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0254
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE RESTAURANT COMPANY
requested amendment to Conditional Use (Case 91SN0286) and
amendment of zoning district map to permit restaurant use, in
addition to uses already permitted. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for mixed use corridor use. This request lies in
a Community Business (C-3) District on 0.7 acre fronting
approximately 150 feet on the east line of Bayside Lane,
approximately 350 feet north of Hull Street Road. Tax IDs 728-
674-Part of 8705 and 729-674-Part of 0215 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0254 and stated
that the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval
subject to the condition and acceptance of the proffered
conditions.
01-728
/2s/o
Mr. Walt Gard, representing the applicant, stated that the
recommendation is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the case.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
approved Case 01SN0254 subject to the following condition:
In addition to the uses permitted by Case 91SN0286,
restaurants, to include fast food and carry out, shall be
permitted.
And, further,
conditions:
the Board accepted the following proffered
Prior to any site plan approval, a contribution of
$10,000.00 shall be provided to the County of Chesterfield
towards the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Bayside Lane and Hull Street Road (Route
360). Upon a written request by the payer, if the signal
is not warranted at this intersection, as determined by
the Transportation Department, within 3 years from the
date of issuance of an occupancy permit for the
improvements shown on this site plan, the cash
contribution shall be returned in full to the payer. (T)
o
Any freestanding site lighting fixtures shall have a
maximum height of twenty-five feet. Plans depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval prior to or in conjunction with
lighting and landscaping plan review. (P)
Leyland Cypress trees, having an initial minimum height of
(8) eight feet, or a staff approved alternate judged to
achieve the same effect, shall be planted adjacent to the
north line of the property at ten feet on center. A
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to or in conjunction with the lighting and
landscaping plan review. (P)
Baffles shall be installed on any site lighting located
within fifty (50) feet of the northern property line, so
as to shield the light source from view by residents
located on residential zoned property north of Harbour
Pointe Parkway. At time of lighting and landscaping plan
review and approval, the exact treatment of the baffles
shall be approved. (P)
Prior to any site or architectural plan approval, the
Planning Department shall be provided with documentation
of the Brandermill Community Association's Architectural
Review Board's approval of such plans. (P)
Ail signs shall conform to the sign package dated February
10, 1993, revised October 20, 1993, and approved by the
Planning Department on February 10, 1993 and October 21,
1993 respectively. (P)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01-729
01SN0272
In Bermuda Magisterial District, WAWA, INC. requested amendment
to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 87S039) and
amendment of zoning district map relative to signs. The
density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for commercial use. This
request lies in a Residential (R-15) District on 0.9 acre
fronting approximately 175 feet on the north line of East
Hundred Road, approximately 350 feet west of Kingston Avenue.
Tax ID 818-651-7096 (Sheet 27).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0272 and stated
that the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval
subject to one condition.
Ms. Ramona Sein, representing the applicant, stated that the
recommendation is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the case.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved Case 01SN0272 subject to the following condition:
With the exception of signs, development shall conform to
Corridor Overlay District Standards, except as otherwise noted
in conditions of Case 87S039. (P)
(Note: This Condition supersedes Condition 2 of Case 87S039 for
the request property only.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0273
In Matoaca Magisterial District, OTTERDALEDEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
LLC requested rezoning and amendment of zoning district map
from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) with Conditional
Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to Ordinance
requirements on 7.0 acres, plus amendment of Case 00SN0218
relative to density on 343 acres. Residential use of up to
3.63 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-12)
District. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 2.0 units per acre or less.
This request lies on 350 acres fronting approximately 2,900
feet on the west line of Otterdale Road, across from Inchcape
and Benmore Roads. Tax IDs 709-684-Part of 1511, 709-685-5232
and 711-684-1303 and 2838 (Sheet 9).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0273 and stated
that the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval and
acceptance of the proffered conditions. He noted that the
request conforms to the Upper Swift Creek Plan.
Mr. John Easter, representing the applicant, stated that the
recommendation is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the case.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
approved Case 01SN0273 and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
9/2s/01
01-730
The property owner and applicant in this rezoning 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
development of the property under consideration will be
developed according to the following proffers if, and only if,
the rezoning request submitted herewith is granted with only
those conditions agreed to by the owner and applicant. In the
event this request is denied or approved with conditions not
agreed to by the owner and applicant, the proffers shall
immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect.
Proffered Condition i of Case No. 00SN0218 is hereby amended
and restated as follows:
Limitation on Number of Dwellings. The total number of
residential dwelling units on Tax IDs 711-684-1303,
711-684-2838, 709-684-1511 and 709-685-5232 shall not
exceed six hundred seventy-five (675) units. (P)
(Staff Note: This proffered condition supersedes Proffered
Condition 1 of Case 00SN0218.)
The following proffered conditions relate to the approximately
7.044 acres being rezoned to R-12 CUPD:
2. TransportatiQn
Dedications. In conjunction with the recordation of
the first subdivision plat, forty-five (45) feet of
right of way on the west side of Otterdale Road,
measured from the centerline of that part of
Otterdale Road immediately adjacent to the Property,
shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and
for the benefit of Chesterfield County.
be
Access. Except for the two existing private
driveways to and from Otterdale Road to the two
existing homes, there shall be no new accesses to
and from Otterdale Road upon development of the
Property.
Road Improvemen%s. To provide an adequate roadway
system, the developer shall be responsible for
relocation of the ditch line to provide an adequate
shoulder along the west side of Otterdale Road for
the entire property frontage.
Phasing Plan. Prior to any road and drainage plan
approval, a phasing plan for the required
improvements specified in proffered condition 2.c)
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
Transportation Department. (T)
Minimum Square Footage. Minimum gross floor area for
homes shall be as follows:
1 story
More than 1 story
1,800 square feet
2,000 square feet (P)
Public Utilities. The public water and wastewater systems
shall be used. (U)
9/26/01
01-731
Cash Proffer. Prior to the time of issuance of a building
permit for each new dwelling unit, the applicant,
subdivider, or its assignee, shall pay to the County of
Chesterfield the following amounts for infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the Property:
For all residential units except those designated as
age-restricted units in accordance with paragraph
b):
i) if payment is made prior to July 1, 2000,
$6,200; or
ii)
if payment is made after June 30, 2000, the
amount approved by the Board of Supervisors,
but not to exceed the $6,200 per dwelling unit
as adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between
July 1, 1999 and July 1 of the fiscal year in
which the payment is made; or
For all residential units designated for senior
housing, the units of which meet the occupancy
requirements for "age 55 or over" housing as set
forth in section 3607 of the Fair Housing Act, 42
USC Sections 3601 et seq., as amended by the Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and of 24 CFR
Section 100.304 in effect as of the date of the
rezoning, and which are subject to the occupancy
requirement that no person under 19 shall reside in
such unit:
i)
if payment is made prior to July 1, 2000,
$3,093, to be allocated among the facility
costs as follows: $660 for parks, $264 for
library facilities, $251 for fire stations, and
$1,918 for roads; or
ii)
if payment is made after June 30, 2000, the
amount approved by the Board of Supervisors,
but not to exceed the $3,093 per dwelling unit
as adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between
July 1, 1999 and July 1 of the fiscal year in
which the payment is made, to be allocated
pro-rata among the facility costs as specified
in b)i).
If any of the cash proffers are not expended for the
purposes designated by the Capital Improvement Program
within fifteen (15) years from the date of payment, they
shall be returned in full to the payor. Should
Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time during
the life of the development that are applicable to the
Property, the amount paid in cash proffers shall be in
lieu of or credited toward, but not be in addition to, any
impact fees, in a manner determined by the County. (B&M)
Senior Housinc. At the time of recordation of the
subdivision, any dwellings designated for senior housing
shall be noted on the record plat. Lots containing such
dwellings shall be grouped together as part of the same
development section(s). (P)
9/26/01
01-732
Lot Location. Lots containing less than ninety (90) feet
of lot width shall be grouped together as part of the same
development section(s) to promote a coordinated uniform
development pattern; however, at the time of tentative
subdivision review, lots containing less than ninety (90)
feet of lot width may be located within other parts of
this development provided they are integrated among other
lots so as to produce a visual blending whereby
differences in lot widths within the immediate vicinity of
such smaller lots are not readily perceived. (P)
Severance. The unenforceability,~elimination, revision or
amendment of any proffer set forth herein, in whole or in
part, shall not affect the validity or enforceability of
any of the other proffers or the unaffected part of any
such proffer. (P)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0278
In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS requested Conditional Use and Conditional Use
Planned Development and amendment of zoning district map to
permit indoor and outdoor recreational facility use and
exceptions to Ordinance requirements. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 1 - 5 acre lots. This
request lies in an Agricultural (A) District on 552.8 acres
fronting approximately 2,700 feet on the south line of Trents
Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 2,380 feet on the east
line of Exter Mill Road and is located in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax IDs 746-616-
5488, 746-619-5970 and 749-621-3742 (Sheets 39 and 43).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0278 and stated
that the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval
subject to conditions. He noted that the request conforms to
the Southern and Western Area Plan.
Mr. Kirk Turner, representing the applicant, introduced Mr.
Terry Kaufman, representing the Boy Scouts of America.
Mr. Kaufman expressed appreciation for the support received
from County staff and stated that the recommendation is
acceptable. He stated that the Boy Scout Council aspires to
honor the donors of the property by providing an outdoor place
for young people to grow in character, citizenship and personal
fitness.
No one came forward to speak to the case.
After brief discussion, on motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by
Mr. Warren, the Board approved Case 01SN0278 subject to the
following conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for the
Robert E. Lee Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America,
exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with
the land. Use of the facility shall be limited to the
Robert E. Lee Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America or
other organizations sanctioned by the Robert E. Lee
01-733
o
Council, Inc. or Boy Scouts of America. (P)
In addition to those uses permitted by right or with
restrictions in an Agricultural (A) District, permitted
uses shall be limited to the following:
Overnight campgrounds and
facilities such as parking,
improvements.
associated support
restrooms and similar
Outdoor playfields, hiking
courses and canoe access.
trails,
exploratory
Picnic shelters, pavilions, amphitheater and other
similar structures that facilitate Scout gatherings.
(m)
Except as stated herein, the maximum number of individuals
permitted on the site at any one time shall be 800.
Provided, however, that during any calendar year, a
maximum of four (4) events not to exceed three (3)
consecutive days each, shall be permitted during which the
maximum number of individuals on the site at any one time
shall be limited to 1,500 and bi-annually, a single event
not to exceed three (3) consecutive days shall be
permitted during which the maximum number individuals on
the site at any one time shall be limited to 4,000. (P)
Ail camping grounds and active recreational areas shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet from adjacent properties
zoned or designated on the County's Comprehensive Plan for
residential use and a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any
right of way. Mature vegetation, as determined by the
Planning Department, shall be maintained within these
setbacks. (P)
Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 19-573 of the
Zoning Ordinance. (P)
In conjunction with the granting of this request, an
exception to driveway and parking area paving requirements
shall be granted. Regularly used driveways and parking
areas shall have a minimum surface of six inches of No. 21
or No. 2lA stone, as determined by the Planning
Department. (P)
Except for timbering approved by the Virginia State
Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or
diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the
property until a land disturbance permit has been obtained
from the Environmental Engineering Department and the
approved devices have been installed. (EE)
Prior to any final site plan approval, thirty-five (35)
feet of right of way on the east side of Exter Mill Road
and on the south side of Trents Bridge Road, measured from
the centerlines of both roadways immediately adjacent to
the property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted,
to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. (T)
Direct access from the property to Exter Mill Road and to
Trents Bridge Road shall be limited to two (2)
entrances/exits onto each roadway. The exact location of
9/26/01
01-734
these accesses shall be approved by the Transportation
Department. (T)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0~79
In Matoaca Magisterial District, RICHMOND CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
requested Conditional Use and amendment of zoning district map
to permit a private school in an Agricultural (A) District.
The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2.0
units per acre or less. This request lies on 108.7 acres
fronting approximately 2,200 feet on the north line of Old
Hundred Road, also fronting in two (2) places totaling
approximately 100 feet on the east line of Otterdale Road. Tax
IDs 718-697-8687, 719-697-3447 and 8012 and 719-698-4752
(Sheets 5 and 9).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0279 and stated
that the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval
subject to one condition and acceptance of the proffered
conditions.
Mr. Jerry Hubbard, representing the applicant, stated that the
recommendation is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the case.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
approved Case 01SN0279 subject to the following condition:
Except as required in Proffered Condition 4, a minimum fifty
(50) foot buffer shall be provided along the perimeter of the
property, except where adjacent to public roads. This buffer
shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for
fifty (50) foot buffers. Sections 19-520(a), 19-521 and 19-
522. (p)
And, further, the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
Public Utilities. The public water and wastewater systems
shall be used. (U)
With the exception of timbering which has been approved by
the Virginia State Department of Forestry for the purpose
of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall be no
timbering until a land disturbance permit has been
obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department and
the approved devices have been installed. (EE)
Except where the requirements of the underlying
Agricultural (A) zoning are more restrictive, any new
development for school use shall conform to the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for Corporate Office
(O-2) Districts in Emerging Growth Areas. (P)
Recreational Facility Setbacks. The following setback
criteria shall apply to outdoor play fields, courts,
swimming pools and similar active recreational areas:
9/26/01
01-735
o
o
so
With the exception of playground areas which
accommodate swings, jungle gyms, or similar such
facilities, all active play fields, courts or
similar active recreational facilities which could
accommodate organized sports such as football,
soccer, basketball, etc., shall be located a minimum
of 100 feet from adjacent property in R Districts or
property currently zoned A and shown on the
Comprehensive Pla~ for residential uses. Within
this setback, landscaping shall be provided in
accordance with Section 19-522 (a) (4) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
bo
If outdoor play fields, courts, swimming pools and
similar active recreational areas are set back more
than one hundred (100) feet from adjacent property
in R Districts or property currently zoned A and
shown on the Comprehensive Plan for residential
uses, the landscaping or other design features
described in Condition 4.a. may be modified by the
Planning Department at the time of site plan review.
Such modification shall accomplish a mitigation of
the visual and noise impacts that sports or related
activities have on adjacent properties equivalent to
the one hundred (100) foot setback and landscaping
requirements described in Condition 2.a.
The one hundred (100) foot setback described in
Condition 4.a. may be reduced by the Planning
Commission if the resulting increased visual and
noise impacts that sports or related activities have
on area residents are mitigated. Mitigation may be
achieved through use of topography, fencing,
berming, walls and/or other devices and design
features, as approved by the Planning Commission at
the time of site plan review. (P)
Prior to any final si'te plan approval, forty-five (45)
feet of right-of-way on the east side of Otterdale Road
and on the north side of Old Hundred Road, measured from
the centerlines of both roadways immediately adjacent to
the property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted,
to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. (T)
No direct access shall be provided from the property to
Otterdale Road. Direct access from the property to Old
Hundred Road shall be limited to two (2) entrances/exits.
The exact location of these access shall be approved by
the Transportation Department. (T)
To provide an adequate roadway system, the developer shall
be responsible for the following:
a)
Construction of additional pavement along Old
Hundred Road at each approved access to provide left
and right turn lanes, based on Transportation
Department standards;
b)
Relocation of the ditch to provide an adequate
shoulder along the north side of Old Hundred Road
for the entire property frontage; and
c) Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
9/26/o~
01-736
unrestricted, any additional right-of-way (or
easements) required for the improvements identified
above. (T)
Prior to any construction plan approval or site plan
approval, whichever occurs first, a phasing plan for the
required road improvements, as identified in Proffered
Condition 7 shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Richmond
Christian School/Clover Hill Baptist Church exclusively,
and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P)
10.
The maximum total number of junior and senior students
(ie, eleventh and twelfth graders) enrolled during each
school year shall be 500. (P)
11.
Every enrollment agreement at the private school shall
include a provision that prohibits the use of Otterdale
Road from Old Hundred Road, north to Otterdale Road
Relocated (i.e., Otterdale Road Relocated that is part of
the Route 288 Project) in traveling to and from the
private school. This requirement shall be eliminated at
such time the restricted section of Otterdale Road is
reconstructed as a two (2) land roadway to VDOT Urban
Minor Arterial Standards (50 MPH), with design
modifications approved by the Transportation Department.
(T)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN02~7
In Matoaca Magisterial District, AMERICAN TOWER, L.P. requested
Conditional Use Planned Development and amendment of zoning
district map to permit a communications tower with height
exception in an Agricultural (A) District. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 1 to 5 acre lots. This
request lies on 7.5 acres fronting approximately twenty (20)
feet on the north line of Hickory Road, approximately 450 feet
east of Graves Road. Tax ID 770-624-Part of 0068 (Sheet 40).
Ms. Beverly Rogers presented a summary of Case 01SN0237 and
stated that originally the application was to permit a tower
site in one area, but because neighborhood concerns were
expressed relative to the location, the Planning Commission
deferred the case and an additional area was added to the
application. She further stated that the Planning Commission
imposed a condition at its public hearing that the tower be
located in the northern area of the request property. She
stated that, since the Commission's consideration and the
Board's deferral of the case, and following community meetings,
area residents now feel that the tower would best be located at
its original location. She further stated that, as a result,
the applicant has withdrawn the northern portion of the request
from the application and it will be necessary for the Board to
suspend its rules to allow for consideration of the amended
request. She stated that both locations are acceptable to
staff because they conform to the Board's policy for siting of
towers.
01-737
Mr. Brennen Keene, representing the applicant, stated that area
residents had opposed the original proposal, but after review
of the alternative location, felt more comfortable because the
original location would accommodate a 25 to 30-foot decrease in
height from the alternative site. He further stated that,
after community meetings, the residents agreed that a more
attractive tower on higher ground would be more beneficial for
co-location. He stated that Mr. Harry Marsh, Matoaca District
Planning Commissioner, is aware of, and comfortable with, the
proposed location change.
No one came forward to speak to the case.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
suspended its rules to allow for consideration of the amended
request.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion for the Board to acknowledge
the withdrawal of 3.5 acres, and to approve Case 01SN0237
subject to Conditions 1 through 9 and acceptance of the
proffered conditions on the remaining 4.0 acres submitted
subsequent to the Commission's consideration of the case.
Mr. Warren seconded the motion.
Mrs. Humphrey called for a vote on her motion, seconded by Mr.
Warren, for the Board to approve Case 01SN0237 subject to the
following conditions:
There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use.
(P)
The base of the tower shall be enclosed by a minimum six
(6) foot high fence, designed to preclude trespassing. A
detailed plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
The tower and equipment shall be designed and installed so
as not to interfere with the Chesterfield County Public
Safety Trunked System. At the time of site plan review or
prior to release of a building permit, whichever occurs
first, the owner/developer shall submit information as
deemed necessary by the Chesterfield County Communications
and Electronics staff to determine if an engineering study
should be performed to analyze the possibility of radio
frequency interference with the County system, based upon
tower location and height and upon the frequencies and
effective radiated power generated by tower-mounted
equipment. Prior to release of a building permit, the
study, if required, shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Chesterfield County Communications and Electronics
staff. (SS)
The developer shall be responsible for correcting any
frequency problems which affect the Chesterfield County
Public Safety Trunked System caused by this use. Such
corrections shall be made immediately upon notification by
the Chesterfield County Communications and Electronics
staff. (GS)
o
The color and lighting system for the tower shall be as
follows:
01-738
The tower shall be gray or another neutral color,
acceptable to the Planning Department.
If lighted, lighting during daylight hours shall be
limited to medium intensity strobe lights with
upward reflection and lighting during night time
hours shall be limited to soft blinking lights.
c. The tower shall be of a monopole design· (P)
o
Any building or mechanical equipment shall comply with
Sections 19-570 (b) and (c) and 19-595 of the Zoning
Ordinance relative to screening of mechanical equipment
and architectural treatment of building exteriors. (P)
(NOTE: Section 19-570 (b) and (c) would require the
screening of mechanical equipment and junction and
accessory boxes located on the building or ground from
adjacent properties and public rights of way. Screening
would not be required for the tower or tower-mounted
equipment.)
At such time that the tower ceases to be used for
communications purposes for a period exceeding twelve (12)
consecutive months, the owner/developer shall dismantle
and remove the tower and all associated equipment from the
property. (P)
A minimum 100 foot buffer shall be maintained around the
perimeter of the tower site. Except for access and
utilities which may extended generally perpendicular
through this buffer, existing healthy trees within this
buffer having a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches shall be
maintained. These trees shall be supplemented where
necessary to minimize the views of the tower and
associated equipment from adjacent properties and public
rights of way. Additional plantings shall consist of
species of trees having an average minimum mature crown
spread of greater than thirty (30) feet and a minimum
caliper of 2.5 inches at the time of planting, to achieve
a minimum density of one (1) tree for each 300 square feet
of cleared area. In conjunction with site plan
submission, or prior to the release of a building permit,
whichever occurs first, a landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a forty-
nine (49) foot exception to the 150 foot height limitation
for a communications tower shall be granted. (P)
And, further,
conditions:
the Board accepted the following proffered
The tower and tower compound shall be located in the area
designated as the "300' x 300' Lease area" on the plans
entitled "RI-R-497 E--Site Name: Hickory" dated April 6,
2001, last revised June 26, 2001, Sheet Number A-i, drawn
by BC Architects and Engineers (the "Plans"). (P)
Any antennas attached to the tower above the height of one
hundred eighty feet (180) above ground level shall be
"flush-mounted" as shown on Sheet A-3 of the Plans. This
condition shall not limit the design of the antenna arrays
9/26/01
01-739
on the tower below the height of one hundred eighty (180)
feet below ground level. (P)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0261
and
01SN0262
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BRANDYWINE OPERATING
PARTNERSHIP, LP requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Development (Cases 86S107 and 86S164) and amendment of zoning
district map relative to parking space size and Master Plan.
The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for light industrial use.
This request lies in a Corporate Office (0-2) District on 45.9
acres fronting 2,000 feet on the east line of Powhite Parkway,
also fronting approximately 1,200 feet on the south line of
Gateway Centre Parkway approximately 350 feet north of
Midlothian Turnpike. Tax IDs 756-706-2613, 3877 and 8160; 757-
705-0688; 757-706-2173 and 6118 (Sheet 7).
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BRANDYWINE OPERATING
PARTNERSHIP, LP requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Development (Cases 86S107 and 86S164) and amendment of zoning
district map relative to parking space size and Master Plan.
The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for light industrial use.
This request lies in a Corporate Office (0-2) District on 4.9
acres fronting approximately 650 feet on the east line of
Powhite Parkway, lying approximately 350 feet off the north
line of Gateway Centre Parkway. Tax ID 756-707-9978 (Sheet
7).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Cases 01SN0261 and 01SN0262
and stated that the Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval subject to one condition.
Ms. Brenda Hartless, representing the applicant, stated that
the recommendation is acceptable.
No one came forward to speak to the cases.
After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by
Mrs. Humphrey, the Board approved Case 01SN0261 subject to the
following condition:
With approval of these requests, deletion of Condition 1 of
Cases 86S107 and 86S164 and Conditions 20 and 18 of Cases
86S107 and 86S164, respectively, shall be granted. (P)
(Note: Condition 1 of Cases 86S107 and 86S164 and Conditions 20
and 18 of Cases 86S107 and 86S164 shall remain in effect for
that part of the property not included in this request. Ail
other conditions of zoning approval of Cases 86S107 and 86S164
shall remain in effect.)
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
approved Case 01SN0262, subject to the following condition:
01-740
With approval of these requests, deletion of Condition 1 of
Cases 86S107 and 86S164 and Conditions 20 and 18 of Cases
86S107 and 86S164, respectively, shall be granted. (P)
(Note: Condition 1 of Cases 86S107 and 86S164 and Conditions 20
and 18 of Cases 86S107 and 86St64 shall remain in effect for
that part of the property not included in this request. Ail
other conditions of zoning approval of Cases 86S107 and 86S164
shall remain in effect.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
02SN0111
In Matoaca Magisterial District, THE CHESDIN CO LLC requested
amendment to zoning (Case 95SN0161) to increase the allowable
number of lots on 2,170 acres and Conditional Use to allow a
private recreational facility on 2.0 acres of the 2,170 acres
and amendment of zoning district map in a Residential (R-88)
District. Residential use of up to 0.6 units per acre is
permitted in a Residential (R-88) District. The density of
such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for residential use of 1 - 5 acre lots.
This request fronts in two (2) places for a total of
approximately 5,000 feet on the south line of Ivey Mill Road,
also fronting Chesdin Landing Drive and includes all recorded
lots in Chesdin Landing Subdivision, Sections 1 through 6 and
resubdivided lots, Chesdin Shores Subdivision, Sections 1 and
3 and Tax IDs 728-627-0046; 728-631-0931; 729-624-7493; 730-
625-8623; 730-627-5010; 730-630-2225; 731-623-7418; 731-625-
6677; 732-623-0229, 1536 and 3456; 733-626-0761; 734-630-1881;
735-627-1212; 736-629-6435; 737-624-5558; 737-626-0331; 738-
626-6864; and 738-628-0881 and 7631 (Sheets 38 and 39).
Ms. Rogers presented a summary of Case 02SN0111 and stated that
the applicant submitted proffered conditions that would address
commencing construction of an additional golf course or
recordation of open space in conjunction with the development
of the additional 100 lots. She further stated that the
proffered condition does not necessarily guarantee construction
of a golf course or recordation of open space. She stated that
the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to
conditions and acceptance of the proffered conditions. She
further stated that staff recommends approval subject to the
applicant fully addressing the impact on capital facilities.
When asked, Ms. Rogers stated that the proffered condition is
written so that, in order to acquire building permits for the
additional 100 lots, the applicant would need to submit plans
and commence construction of the golf course, but indicated
that it does not guarantee that the golf course be completed or
developed as a part of development of the additional 100 lots.
She further stated that the second part of the proffered
condition ensures that, if the developer does not commence
construction of the golf course, the area will be recorded as
open space.
Mr. Barber expressed concerns that the applicant could begin
construction with the intention of not completing construction
or maintaining an easement.
9/2s/ol
01-741
Mrs. Humphrey stated that neighborhood concerns were expressed
about maintaining open space primarily as a result of the
Brandermill pool issue.
Mr. John Cogbill, representing the applicant, stated that in
order to construct the additional golf course, it was necessary
for the developer to add an additional 100 lots to its
residential base. He further stated that it would cost at
least $250,000 for the developer to secure permits and meet the
necessary requirements before commencing development of the
golf course, and indicated that it would not be economically
feasible for the developer to not follow through with
construction of the course. He stated that, in the event the
golf course were not completed, the land would become open
space.
When asked, Mr. Cogbill stated that it was not possible to
craft language that would fully address staff's concerns based
on the legal relationship between The Chesdin Company and the
golf course developer.
Mr. George Beadles stated that he feels the developer should be
required to pay the full cash proffer for the additional 100
lots. He expressed concerns relative to additional proffered
conditions not being submitted until September 17, 2001, even
though the applicant was advised that additional proffered
conditions should be submitted no later than August 29, 2001.
There being no one else to speak to the case, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Cogbill stated that cash proffers are voluntary and are
based upon the impact of the community on the overall
infrastructure of the County. He further stated that, if cash
proffers are allotted based upon an average house price of
$198,348 and the average house price in Chesdin Landing is
$579,585, then the County actually receives a net revenue from
tax receipts on the homes in Chesdin Landing. He stated that
the developer has voluntarily reconstructed and paved over half
a mile of dirt road, is working with the County to participate
in construction of improvements on Ivey Mill Road, and has
therefore requested that the cash proffers be reduced from
$7,800 to $7,000 for the additional 100 units. He requested
that the Board approve the proposed development with the
modification of the cash proffer based on the demonstrated
difference between the impact normally associated with
development and the proposed development.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that cash proffers were discussed at the
community meeting, and indicated that the residents' request of
the developer to pave the remainder of Ivey Mill Road was taken
into consideration in the calculation of the cash proffer.
When asked, Mr. Cogbill stated that the area was intended for
a golf course in the original plans of the development, and
indicated that the additional 100 homes are necessary to
provide the necessary membership for both a private and semi-
private golf course. He noted that the applicant will be
required to return at a later date to request a Conditional Use
for a second golf course.
Discussion ensued relative to staff's comments that the golf
course might not be completed and the open space not be
recorded.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that the residents did not have a
preference as to golf course versus open space, but desired
that additional homes not be constructed in the area.
01-742
9/2s/01
Mr. Barber questioned the possibility of the open space being
granted until such time as the permits, site plan and other
issues have been resolved for construction of the golf course.
Mr. Cogbill stated that contractual relationships between The
Chesdin Company and the golf course developer might prohibit
the open space from being granted until the golf course is
constructed. He further stated that staff has indicated
support of the request, except for the impact on capital
facilities, and noted that the concerns expressed by residents
at the community meeting have been addressed by the developer.
Mr. Barber stated that he will support Mrs. Humphrey if she
chooses to approve the case, but expressed concerns that future
members of the Board will be held accountable by the residents
if a golf course is not developed on the subject property or
open space not dedicated.
Mr. Cogbill stated that the applicant will be back before the
Board within approximately six months to request a Conditional
Use for the golf course.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she feels comfortable that the
residents' concerns have been addressed.
Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for
the Board to approve Case 02SN0111, subject to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS - TWO (2) ACRE CONDITIONAL USE AREA FOR PRIVATE
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Outdoor public speaker or address systems shall not be
used between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Sunday
through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Friday and
Saturday. (P)
A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained between any
residential lot and any play field, courts or similar
active recreational uses to include, but not necessarily
be limited to, swimming pools and boat marina areas. This
buffer shall conform to the requirements of Sections 19.-
520(a), 19-521(a), (b), (e), (f), (h), (i) and 19-522(4).
(P)
And, further,
conditions:
the Board accepted the following proffered
The Applicants (the "Applicants") in this zoning case, pursuant
to Sections 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 development
of the Property known as all recorded lots in Chesdin Landing
Subdivision, Sections 1 through 6 and resubdivided lots,
Chesdin Shores Subdivision, Sections 1 and 3, and Chesterfield
County Tax Identification Numbers 728-627-0046; 728-631-0931;
729624-7493; 730-625-8623; 730-627-5010; 730-630-2225; 731-623-
7418; 731-625-6677; 732-623-0229, 1536 and 3456; 733-626-0761;
734-630-1881; 735-627-1212; 736-629-6435; 737-624-5558; 737-
626-0331; 738-626-6864; and 738-628-0881 and 7361 (the
"Property") under consideration will be developed according to
the following conditions if, and only if, the amendments to
rezoning 95SN0161 and Conditional Use Permit for private
recreational facilities are granted. In the event the request
is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the
Applicants, the proffers and conditions shall immediately be
9/26/01
01-743
null and void and of no further force or effect. If the zoning
is granted, these proffers and conditions will supplement and
amend any and all proffers and conditions now existing on the
Property.
The maximum density of this development shall be 635
single family residential lots. (P)
(Staff Note: This proffer supercedes Proffered Condition
1 of Case 95SN0161.)
Building permits shall not be issued for more than 535
single family residential lots on the Property until the
first to occur of either (a) construction plans for a golf
course in the area designated for a second golf course on
the Master Plan for Chesdin Landing and Chesdin Shores, by
Koontz-Bryant, P.C., dated January 23, 2001 (the "Master
Plan") have been completed; all environmental permits,
including but not limited to any wetlands permits,
required to commence construction of the second golf
course as shown on the Master Plan, have been obtained;
and a land disturbance permit has been issued for
construction of the second golf course as shown on the
Master Plan; or (b) the area designated for a second golf
course on the Master Plan is permanently dedicated for use
as open space, as defined in the Chesterfield County
Zoning Ordinance, for the benefit of the residents of
Chesdin Landing and Chesdin Shores. If, under alternative
(a), construction of the second golf course has not begun
within 180 days of issuance of the land disturbance
permit, then the area designated for a second golf course
shall be permanently dedicated for use as open space, as
defined in the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance, for
the benefit of the residents of Chesdin Landing and
Chesdin Shores. (EE)
For each of the 100 single family residential lots
developed in excess of 535 residential lots, the
Applicants shall pay the following to the County prior to
the time of building permit application for infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the Property:
$7,000 per lot if paid on or prior to June 30, 2002,
or,
The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not
to exceed $7,000 per lot adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index between July 1, 2001 and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made if paid after June
30, 2002. (B & M)
(Staff Note: Proffered Conditions 2 and 3 are in addition
to conditions approved with Case 95SN0161.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0238
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ERNEST BELVIN requested
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricultural
(A) to Community Business (C-3) with Conditional Use Planned
01-744
Development to allow General Business (C-5) uses. The density
of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the
property is appropriate for community mixed use uses. This
request lies on 6.3 acres and is known as 16716 Hull Street
Road. Tax ID 709-668-0844 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0238 and stated
that the Planning Commission and staff recommend denial because
the proposed General Business (C-5) uses do not comply with the
Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the property is
appropriate for community mixed use developments; the
application fails to address the recommendations of the Plan
which suggests that development should use public utilities;
and the application fails to address the impact on the
transportation system.
Mr. Ernest Belvin stated that all parcels from Otterdale Road
to Baldwin Creek Road are zoned C-5 except for his parcel and
an adjoining parcel owned by Chesterfield Baptist Church. He
further stated that, if he were to provide the right of way
requested by staff, he would lose the dwelling, septic field,
garage and new well. He stated that he is surrounded by C-5
zoning, and requested that the Board approve his request.
Mr. McCracken stated that, if the applicant would agree to
provide a public access, alignments could be made on the
property to avoid taking the dwelling and improvements.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that there are four to five crossover
accesses within 2,000 feet of the vicinity of the applicant's
property. She further stated that she feels access issues in
the area have been addressed, and does not feel it is necessary
to request that the applicant provide an access for the subject
six-acre parcel.
Mr. George Beadles stated that he feels the property should
have been developed many years ago and indicated that even if
the Board grants relief on the access issue, the applicant will
still have a number of other issues that need to be addressed.
He stated that he feels the Board should deny the request.
There being no one else to speak to the case, the public
hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she is comfortable with the proffered
conditions made by the applicant.
Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, for
the Board to approved Case 01SN0238 and accept the following
proffered conditions:
At such time as the public water system has been extended
to within 200 feet of the site, the owner/developer shall
extend a water line to the site and connect all existing
structures to the public water system. The necessary water
line extension shall be designed to provide flow and
pressure for fire protection purposes as deemed
appropriate by the Fire Department. In addition, if
deemed necessary, fire hydrants shall be provided at
locations to be approved by the Fire Department. (U)
At such time as any structure built on-site which,
incidental to that structure's use or operation, generates
wastewater, concurrent with the public wastewater system
having been extended to within 200 feet of the site, the
owner/developer shall extend a wastewater line to the site
9/26/01
01-745
and connect all structures to the public wastewater
system. (U)
Prior to any site plan approval, 100 feet of right-of-way
on the north side of Hull Street Road (Route 360),
measured from the centerline of that part of Route 360,
immediately adjacent to the property, shall be dedicated,
free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of
Chesterfield County. (T)
Direct access from the property to Route 360 shall be
limited to: t) one (1) access, which shall align the
existing Route 360 crossover adjacent to the property; and
2) one (1) entrance/exit, located towards the eastern
property line. The exact location of these accesses shall
be approved by the Transportation Department. (T)
To provide an adequate roadway system, the developer shall
be responsible for the following:
Construction of additional pavement along the
westbound lanes of Route 360 at each approved access
to provide a separate right turn lane, if warranted
based on Transportation Department standards;
Contribution of $10,000 towards the construction of
additional pavement along the eastbound lanes of
Route 360 at the western access for a left turn
lane; and
Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, of any additional right-of-way (or
easements) required for the improvement identified
above. (T)
Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan for
required road improvements, as identified in Proffered
Condition 3, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department. (T)
To accommodate runoff from development of the property and
to protect a pond on adjacent property from additional
runoff, the following measures shall be taken:
a. Retain the 10-year post-development storm and
release at a 2-year pre-development; or
b. Improve the dam to meet the county's current
criteria; or
Provide improvements that would bypass the pond and
dam and discharge at an adequate natural watercourse
with all iow flows entering the existing off-site
pond; or
Acquire the pond and incorporate it
development of the request site. (EE)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barlber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
into the
01-746
9/26/0~
01SNQ2~7
In Matoaca Magisterial District, TASCON GROUP, INC. requested
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricultural
(A) to Residential Multi-family (R-MF) with Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit exceptions to Ordinance
requirements. Residential use of up to 10 units per acre is
permitted in a Residential Multi-family (R-MF) District. The
Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for
community mixed use with residential densities of 8 to 14 units
per acre and for single family residential use of 2.0 units per
acre or less. This request lies on 37.3 acres fronting
approximately 1,350 feet on the west line of North Spring Run
Road, also fronting approximately 1,400 feet on the north line
of McEnnally Road and is located in the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of these roads. Tax ID 724-670-5538 (Sheet
iS) .
Ms. Rogers presented a summary of Case 01SN0267 and stated that
the Fire Department has expressed concerns relative to the lack
of provision of two public accesses into the proposed
development. She further stated that staff recommends denial
because although the proposed zoning and land use on the
northern portion of the property conform to the Upper Swift
Creek PI~ which suggests the property is appropriate for a
mixture of community-scale corporate office, commercial and
residential uses of eight to fourteen units per acre, the Plan
suggests the southern portion of the property extending from
this community mixed use node to McEnnally Road is appropriate
for residential development of 2.0 dwelling units per acre or
less; the application fails to provide for the typical
development standards necessary to ensure a quality higher
density development with amenities; the requested exceptions
for reduced building setbacks along major arterials are
insufficient to minimize the impact of these roads and future
commercial uses on the residential uses; the exception to the
second public access and the proposed provision of a restricted
second means of access does not ensure expeditious access
during an emergency; and the proffered conditions do not
adequately address the impacts of the proposed development on
necessary capital facilities. She stated that the Planning
Commission recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered
conditions, noting that the applicant's other projects in the
County represent quality development.
When asked, Ms. Rogers stated that the cash proffer does not
fully address the impact on the school system, but is
consistent with what the Board has accepted on the applicant's
similar projects.
Mrs. Humphrey expressed concerns relative to the accuracy of
information provided by the Schools as to school attendance
zones for the proposed development.
Mr. John Easter, representing the applicant, stated that,
although the zoning classification is multi-family, the
development includes only four units per building which are
designed to appear as single-family homes. He further stated
that the applicant has proffered architectural design,
conceptual elevations, internal landscaping, curb and gutter,
street trees and sidewalks on one side of the street. He
stated that statistics for area Tascon developments show the
likelihood of children is not good because the development is
geared towards ~'empty-nesters."
Discussion ensued relative to average sale price of units
within the development.
9/26/01
01-747
Mrs. Humphrey expressed concerns that the applicant has not
agreed to pay the full cash proffer for the school system.
Mr. Easter stated that the applicant has proffered ten percent
of the normal school proffer, indicating that the applicant
feels this will more than compensate for the very limited
number of children in the proposed development according to
statistics.
Mr. Barber stated that a risk was taken when the applicant's
development in the Midlothian District was approved with a
reduced school cash proffer and noted that when the entire 88
units had been sold, there was not one child in the entire
development. He further stated that he feels the proposed
development would be more advantageous for the subject property
than a single family development that would have a greater
impact on the already crowded schools in the area.
Mr. Easter stated that the applicant has proffered a large
clubhouse; development of the pond as an amenity; pedestrian
trails; density of four acres per unit; and dedication of 70
feet for development of McEnnally Road as a thoroughfare road.
He further stated that the applicant has proffered a 35 foot
setback because the residents preferred more right of way than
buffer.
Ms. Diane Mayes, a resident of McEnnally Road, stated that she
supports the proposed development.
Dr. Walter Beam stated that, in conjunction with the Committee
on the Future's study on aging, there are a number of
infrastructural elements other than schools that the Board
should consider, and indicated that a ten percent cash proffer
is probably not realistic for the required infrastructure.
Mr. Easter stated that the full cash proffer has been offered
in all areas other than schools.
There being no one else to speak to the case, the public
hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she is not comfortable because of a
possible discrepancy in the information furnished by the School
System relative to school attendance of residents of the
proposed development.
Mr. Easter stated that the applicant has privately agreed to
extend utility lines to McEnnally Road residents.
After brief discussion, Mrs. Humphrey made a motion, seconded
by Mr. Warren, for the Board to defer Case 01SN0267 until
October 24, 2001.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barlber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
01SN0275 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, MARTIN MARIETTA requested
amendment of Conditional Use (Case 80S044) and Conditional Use
and Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 97SN0229) and
amendment of zoning district map relative to hours of
operation, number of concrete trucks, use of Genito Road in
transporting bulk materials and buffers. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for light industrial use. This request lies in
9/26/01
0~-?~8
Agricultural (A) and Light Industrial (I-l) Districts on 119.8
acres fronting approximately 1,400 feet on the west line of
Warbro Road, approximately 1,600 feet north of Hull Street
Road. Tax IDs 735-683-Part of 0636, 735-684-7967, 736-684-Part
of 4944 and 737-683-Part of 2003 (Sheets 10 and 16).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 01SN0275 and stated
that concerns have been expressed relative to buffering of the
western side of the property from future industrial
development. He further stated that staff recommends that the
buffer be maintained and encroachment be allowed only for the
design of the internal road. He stated that the Planning
Commission recommends approval of both requests and acceptance
of the proffered conditions, indicating that they felt the
proffers provide for adequate buffering. He further stated
that staff recommends the imposition of Condition 2 and not
accepting Proffered Condition 3.e., indicating that they feel
Condition 2 provides for a better buffer to provide for
appropriate future economic development of the parcel to the
west. He noted that the applicant has indicated that a berm
will be installed on adjacent property to provide for
transition; however, there is no guarantee that the berm will
be maintained long-term.
Mr. John Cogbill, representing the applicant, stated that the
Planning Commission's recommendation is acceptable. He further
stated that the berm on the adjacent property will be 200 feet
wide and 25 feet high and will run for the life of the quarry.
He summarized a statement from an area resident, Ms. Tracey
Williamson, who indicated that she feels the applicant has done
a good job in responding to the community's concerns.
Mr. George Beadles expressed concerns relative to the
aesthetics of shopping centers in the area of the proposed
development, and stated that he feels noise barriers should be
erected instead of berms.
Mr. Cogbill stated that berms will provide additional sound
protection and ensure no impact on future development.
There being no one else to speak to the case, the public
hearing was closed.
After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by
Mr. McHale, the Board approved Case 01SN0275 and accepted the
following proffered conditions:
The Owners and the Developer (the "Developer") in this zoning
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 development of the Property known as Tax
Identification Number 735-684-7967, part of 735-683-0636, part
of 736-684-4944, and part of 737-683-2003 {the" Property")
under consideration will be developed according to the
following conditions if, and only if, the amendments to the
conditional use and conditional use planned development
request are granted. In the event the request is denied or
approved with conditions not agreed to by the Developer, the
proffers and conditions shall immediately be null and void and
of no further force or effect.
This application contains two exhibits described as follows:
~ - The plan titled "Martin Marietta Berm Project,
Existing Conditions Plan" dated October 13, 2000, last revised
December 8, 2000, prepared by Timmons, showing the existing
9/26/01
01-749
facilities located on the site.
Exhibi~ B - The plan titled "Martin Marietta, Zoning Map" dated
August 14, 2001, prepared by Timmons, showing the areas of
proposed buffer modifications.
Until such time as the primary crusher is relocated from
its current position in the work area o f the quarry as
shown on Exhibit A (current elevation 220 feet - 225 feet
above sea level) to a location at an elevation of not
greater than 185 feet above sea level (which location
shall be approximately 45 feet below the existing grade of
the quarry work area), the hours of operation for the
primary crusher between the dates of June 26 - September
16 shall be limited to between 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday
through Saturday and between 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sundays.
Once the primary crusher is relocated as set forth above,
the limitation on hours of operation shall terminate;
provided, however, the limitation with respect to Sunday
hours of operation (as set forth above) shall continue in
full force and effect. [Note: this condition replaces
condition 11 of case 80S044 and deletes condition 15.D.
and E. of case 97SN0229.] (P)
Ail equipment requiring backup warning devices shall be
equipped with both audio and strobe light warning devices
with the exception of individual customer trucks. The
strobe light warning devices shall be used between the
hours 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the period of time that
"daylight savings" is in effect. During the remainder of
the year, the strobe light warning devise shall be used
between the hours 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. During the periods of
time when the strobe light is being utilized, as set forth
above, the audio devices shall be shut off. (P)
o
Eliminate Condition 6 of case 97SN0229 as it applies to
Areas A, B, C, and D of Exhibit B and replace as follows:
If berms are constructed they shall be provided in the
areas shown on Exhibit ~ and as further described herein.
The berm or berms may be constructed in the buffers as
described below and are to be phased as specified below.
The slope of the berms shall not exceed 3:1 unless
approved by the Planning Department and Environmental
Engineering. If the berms are not constructed, landscaped
buffers shall be provided in the areas shown on Exhibit B
and planted in accordance with as the Zoning Ordinance and
as specified below.
Construction of the berms (if so desired by the
Developer) shall begin in the area designated "A" on
Exhibit B (hereinafter "Area A"). The berm in Area
A shall be completed before work is commenced on
other portions of the berms (as hereinafter
described) except that the berming specified in
paragraphs "d" and "f" below may commence
independently of this phasing. When and if a berm
is begun in Area A, it shall be completed in
sections of at least 50 feet in length and each such
segment shall be seeded and landscaped as
hereinafter set forth.
Within the 150-foot buffer noted as Area A, the
Developer may install up to 50-foot high landscaped
01-750
9/26/01
de
berms. If installed, this berm shall be a minimum
height of 7-feet. The plantings on the berms within
the 150-foot buffer shall comply with Zoning
Ordinance Sections 19-520(a); 19-521(a), (c), (e),
(f), (h); t9-522(a) (4); and 19-518(g) (5) or, if
landscaping only, in accordance with the same Zoning
Ordinance Sections, provided however, that 19-
518(g) (4) shall be applicable in lieu of 19-
518(g) (5). The berming and landscaping, or the
landscaping alone, shall be provided within 60 days
of the first final site plan approval for that part
of Tax Map Parcel 736-684-4944 noted on Exhibit B as
the "Pond Parcel."
Within the 50-foot buffer noted as area "B"
(hereinafter "Area B") the Developer may install up
to 50-foot high landscaped berm. If installed, this
berm shall be a minimum height of 7-feet. The
plantings on the berm within the 50-foot buffer
shall comply with Zoning Ordinance Sections 19-
520(a ; 19-521(a), (c), (e), (f), (h); 19-522(a) (2);
and 19-518(g) (5) or, if landscaping only, in
accordance with the same Zoning Ordinance Sections,
provided however, that 19-518(g) (4) shall be
applicable in lieu of 19-518(g) (5). Except as
provided in paragraph "d" below, the berming and
landscaping, or the landscaping alone, shall be
provided within 60 days of the first final site plan
approval for that part of Tax Map Parcel 736-684-
4944 noted on ~ as the "Pond Parcel."
In the northernmost section of Area B (approximately
200 feet in length) that is generally parallel to
the ninety (90) foot wide new access road right-of-
way (the "New Access") the existing vegetation shall
remain in place until the New Access is extended to
serve other development (the "New Access Extension")
unless this portion of the buffer has already been
completed in accordance with paragraph "c" above.
Within 60 days of the construction of the New Access
Extension either the landscaped berm or the
landscaping shall be installed as required in
paragraph "c" above.
In area "C" (hereinafter "Area C") the Developer
proposes to construct access roads, a new office
building, scales, scale house, and parking area
(hereinafter "Facilities"). Within Area C the
Developer may eliminate the buffer, as needed, for
the construction of any or all of the Facilities.
In Area C a row of evergreen trees with a minimum of
height of five feet and planted at a density of at
least one for each thirty lineal feet shall be
installed along the western edge of Area C, if
necessary to minimize the view from other
development to the Facilities and except in the
areas where such plantings cannot be accommodated as
determined by the Planning Department at the time of
site plan approval. If the evergreen trees cannot
be accommodated, other types of plantings or a fence
may be provided as needed to minimize the views as
approved by the Planning Department. The
landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed in
conjunction with the construction of any of the
Facilities.
9/26/01
01-751
fo
Within the 50-foot buffer noted as area "D"
(hereinafter "Area D") the Developer may install up
to a 12-foot high undulating landscaped berm. If
installed, this berm shall be a minimum height of 7-
feet. The plantings on the berms shall comply with
Zoning Ordinance Sections 19-520(a); 19-521(a), (c),
(e), (f), (h); 19-522(a) (2); and 19-518(g) (5) or, if
landscaping only, in accordance with the same Zoning
Ordinance Sections, provided however, that 19-
518(g) (4) shall be applicable in lieu of 19-
518(g) (5). This buffer shall be installed either as
part of the construction of any of the Facilities
outlined in paragraph "e" above or when the New
Access Extension is constructed as described in "d"
above, whichever occurs first. (P)
(STAFF NOTE: WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, CONDITION 8 OF
CASE 97SN0229 IS DELETED.)
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey requested a ten minute recess.
Reconvening:
16, HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matter or
claims at this time.
17, PUBLIC HEARINGS
17,E,
TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES
Mr. Stegmaier stated that this date and time has been
advertised for a public hearing to consider the appropriation
of up to $500,000,000 from the Department of Medical Assistance
Services.
No one was present to speak to the issue.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
approved the appropriation of up to $500,000,000 from the
Department of Medical Assistance Services, and authorized the
County Administrator to execute documents, subject to approval
to form by the County Attorney, and complete the transaction.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
17,D,
TO CQNSIDER PROPOSED AMeNDMeNTS TO THE COUNTY CODE
RELATING TO REGULATION OF ADULT USES
Mr. Micas stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to adult
uses. He further stated that staff is recommending a number of
changes to enhance the County's regulation of adult businesses
by improving the licensing procedure; imposing juvenile
9/26/01
01-752
sensitive regulations which will separate sexually explicit
material from juveniles and also from displays visible to the
public; require the segregation of sexually explicit videos in
separate areas; and impose additional physical requirements on
exotic clubs. He stated that companion regulations being
considered by the Planning Commission because they impact
zoning aspects to adult uses will als0 provide additional
regulations which will separate sexually explicit material from
juveniles. He further stated that staff recommends adoption of
the proposed ordinance.
No one came forward to speak to the ordinance.
Mr. Miller stated that concerns have been raised by his
constituents relative to businesses having R-rated materials in
the proximity of children's materials. He further stated that
it is his desire to require that establishments with R-rated
materials keep them segregated from young people in some
fashion, but indicated that the County Attorney is of the
opinion that the Board does not have the ability to segregate
materials based on a rating system.
Mr. Micas stated that the MPAA rating system is a voluntary
rating system that is nationally accepted for commercially
available materials that do not cross the line of being
sexually explicit or obscene which would be necessary in order
to allow regulation of materials by local governments. He
further stated that the materials are protected by the First
Amendment so long as they do not exceed the R-rating. He
stated that any X-rated materials or similarly sexually
explicit materials would be segregated from juveniles under the
proposed ordinance.
Discussion ensued relative to case law involving segregation of
PG-13 and R-rated materials from juveniles because of violence,
language, etcetera.
Mr. Micas stated that case law indicates that localities cannot
impose a restraint on the use or sale of materials unless they
go beyond a certain point, and R-rated materials do not go
beyond that point. He further stated that the proposed
ordinance prohibits outside advertising to induce patrons based
on the sexual explicitness of the content of materials inside
the business. He stated localities cannot impose a prior
restraint on R-rated visual images because they are protected
by the First Amendment and the courts have not accepted any
"secondary impacts" such as increased crime or declining
property values from R-rated images.
Mr. Miller questioned the possibility of precluding adult
entertainment clubs involving dancers from the sale of
alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Micas stated that it could be addressed as part of the
Conditional Use zoning process on a case by case basis.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that the type of clothing a dancer
can wear is addressed in the public nudity ordinance.
Mr. Barber referenced a zoning case where the Board imposed a
restriction on the sale of alcohol, and the facility decided to
serve alcohol anyway. He questioned the Board's ability to
regulate the sale of alcohol.
Mr. Micas stated that the Circuit Court's decision relative to
the case referenced by Mr. Barber was that the locality could
not regulate the use of alcohol. He further stated that the
case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and he is
optimistic that the Board's ability to restrict the sale of
alcohol will be re-established.
9/26/01
01-753
Mr. Miller stated that it is his desire to regulate the
segregation of R-rated materials from children. He further
stated that he supports the proposed ordinance and indicated
that he does not feel there are controlling precedents in the
area that dictate that the County cannot regulate the
materials.
Mr. Micas stated that he is persuaded that there is overriding
legal authority indicating that R-rated visual images do not
create any secondary affects that would allow a local
government to impose a prior restraint on their sale or
otherwise restrict their commercial use.
Mr. Warren stated that he supports the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Miller stated that he supports the proposed ordinance, and
indicated that he would like to expand upon the restrictions in
the future.
Mr. Barber stated that he is not comfortable with segregating
all R-rated materials. He further stated that the proposed
ordinance strengthens the public nudity ordinance, and
indicated that he will support it.
Mr. Miller stated that he will continue to explore the
possibility and legality of segregating R-rated materials.
Mr. Miller then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barber, for the
Board to adopt the proposed ordinance relating to the
regulation of adult uses.
Mr. McHale stated that consumers can effect change by not
visiting businesses that they feel are contrary to community
decency.
Mr. Miller stated that he hopes retailers will listen to the
Board's message and take a voluntary approach to protecting
children through their marketing of R-rated materials.
Mrs. Humphrey called for a vote on the motion of Mr. Miller,
seconded by Mr. Barber, for the Board to adopt the following
ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY
AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 3-1, 6-1, 6-7 and 15-121
AND ADDING SECTIONS 6-41.1, 15-122.1, 15-122.2, 15-122.3,
15-122.4, 15-122.5, 15-122.6, 15-122.7, 15-122.8,
15-122.9 and 15-122.9A RELATING TO ADULT USES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1)
That Sections 3-1, 6-1, 6-7 and 15-121 of the Code
of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, are
amended and re-enacted and Sections 6-41.1, 15-
122.1, 15-122.2, 15-122.3, 15-122.4, 15-122.5, 15-
122.6, 15-122.7, 15-122.8, 15-122.9 and 15-122.9A
are added to read as follows:
Sec. 3-1. Defined.
For this article, a dance establishment means any place
open to the public where dancing is permitted by the public.
0 0 0
01-754
Sec. 6-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
shall have the following meanings, unless the context requires
a different meaning:
o o o
Nightclub means any commercial establishment which serves
alcoholic beverages and has live entertainment and dancing by
the public. Live entertainment shall mean entertainment
provided by live artists including, but not limited to, musical
performances, disk jockeys, public speaking, dramatic
performances, dancers or comedy. A nightclub is a dance
establishment within the meaning of chapter 3.
o o o
Sec. 6-7. Certain permits or certificates required.
Every person subject to licensure for acting as a
bondsman, fortune-teller, massage therapist, massage clinic
operator, nightclub operator, taxi driver or solicitor, or
adult business operator shall first obtain a permit or
certificate as required by Chapter 15.
o o o
Sec. 6-41.1. Adult Business operator.
Every person operating an adult business as defined in
Chapter 19 shall pay a license tax of $100.00, which shall be
in addition to any other taxes or fees required for the sale of
food and drinks or the provision of services.
o o o
Sec. 15-121. Nightclub permit required from chief of police
--Application; issuance.
(a) Every person desiring a business license to operate
a nightclub, as defined in chapter 6, shall first apply to the
chief of police, or his designee, for a permit to conduct such
activity. Each such application shall be accompanied by a fee
in the amount of $25.
o o o
15-122.1. A~ult Business Permits Required from Chief of Police
- Application.
(a)
Every person desiring a business license to operate
an adult business, as defined in Chapter 19, shall
first apply to the chief of police, or his designee,
for a permit to conduct such activity. Each such
application shall be accompanied by a fee in the
amount of $25. The permit shall be valid for a
period of twelve months and may be renewed subject
to the same requirements as the initial permit.
(b)
Information required on the permit application shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
9/26/01
01-755
(1
The applicant's full name, age, sex, race, weight,
height, hair and eye color, address, telephone
number, date and place of birth and social security
number;
(2 Names and addresses of references;
(3
Whether the applicant has been convicted of any
felony or misdemeanor and, if so, the nature of the
offense, when and where convicted, and the penalty
or punishment assessed;
4 Photograph and fingerprints of applicant; and
Name, including any fictitious names, and address of
the business for which a permit is sought.
Written authorization to conduct a background
investigation of the applicant, including a criminal
records check, and to investigate whether the
information provided by the applicant is true.
(7)
Written declaration, dated and signed by the
applicant, certifying that the information contained
in the application is true and correct.
(8)
Whether the applicant holds or has held any other
permits under this ordinance or other similar adult
use ordinance provisions from another locality
within the past 5 years and, if so, the names and
locations of such other permitted businesses.
(9)
A description of the intended business activity and,
if adult entertainment as defined in Chapter 19 is
to be provided, a description of such entertainment.
(c)
For a corporation, partnership or other legal entity,
"applicant" includes each officer, director, partner,
investor or principal of the entity and any managers of
the business.
(d)
Any changes in the ownership or principals of the business
entity to which the permit is issued or in the managers of
the business itself will automatically make the permit
void. Such changes shall be reported to the chief of
police or his designee, and a new application may be
submitted for review.
15-122.2. Adult Business Permits Required from Chief of
Police-Issuance.
(a)
The chief of police or his designee shall grant or deny an
application within 30 days of its proper filing, unless
information requested from other law enforcement agencies
is not received within that 30 day period, in which case
the Chief of Police or his designee shall have an
additional 30 days to act on the application. Upon the
expiration of the applicable time period, unless the
applicant requests and is granted a reasonable extension
of time, the applicant shall be permitted to begin
operating the business for which the permit is sought,
unless and until the chief of police or his designee
notifies the applicant of a denial of the application and
states the reasons for that denial.
9/26/01
01-756
(b)
If the application is denied, the chief of police or his
designee shall notify the applicant of the denial and
state the reasons for the denial.
(c)
The chief of police or his designee shall deny the
application for any of the following reasons:
(1) An applicant is under eighteen years of age.
(2)
An applicant has failed to provide information
required by this Chapter or has falsely answered a
question.
(3)
The premises to be used by the adult business have
not been approved as being in compliance with
health, fire and building codes.
(4) The application or permit fees have not been paid.
(5) The business does not have proper zoning.
(6)
The applicant has a permit under this ordinance
which has been suspended or revoked.
(d)
The applicant shall not be issued a permit if the county's
investigation or the information furnished in compliance
with this article shows that the applicant has been
convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral
turpitude, has been denied a permit or has had a permit
revoked under any statute or ordinance similar in
substance to the provisions of this article, or is not of
good moral character. In addition, each application shall
be reviewed by the county departments charged with
enforcing the business license, zoning, building,
plumbing, utility, health, electric and fire prevention
codes, as needed, and no permit shall be issued if the
applicant's business in the county does not comply with
these and any other applicable county or state laws or
regulations.
15-122.3. Inspection.
In addition to any existing legal authority,
representatives of county departments may inspect those areas
of each adult business which are open to the public or in plain
view for the purpose of determining compliance with these
provisions. Inspections shall be made during the adult
business' regular business hours.
15-122.4. Revocation.
(a)
The chief of police or his designee, may revoke or suspend
a permit issued pursuant to this article upon determining
that:
A permittee gave false or misleading information in
the material submitted during the application
process; or
o
A permittee or an employee has knowingly allowed
possession, use or sale of illegal controlled
substances in or on the premises; or
01-757
A permittee or an employee has knowingly allowed
prostitution on the premises; or
The permittee refused to allow an inspection of the
adult business premises as authorized by this
Chapter; or
On two or more occasions within a twelve (12) month
period, a person or persons committed an offense,
occurring in or on the permitted premises,
constituting (1) aiding, abetting or harboring a
runaway child; (2) prostitution or promotion of
prostitution; (3) exposing minors to harmful
materials; (4) dissemination of obscenity; (5)
sexual assault for which a conviction has been
obtained, and the person or persons were employees
of the adult business at the time the offenses were
committed. The fact that a conviction is being
appealed shall have no effect on the revocation of
the permit; or
A permittee is convicted of tax violations for any
taxes or fees related to the adult business; or
A permittee has demonstrated inability to operate or
manage an adult business in a peaceful and law-
abiding manner, thus necessitating action by law
enforcement officers; or
A permittee or an employee has knowingly allowed any
act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation,
masturbation, or any other sexual activity to occur
in or on the permitted premises.
o
A permittee has been operating an adult business not
approved under the applicable permit.
10.
A permittee has failed to comply with the provisions
of this article.
11.
A permittee's business fails to comply with
applicable county or state laws or regulations.
(b) If the chief of police or his designee revokes or
suspends a permit, he shall notify the permittee in writing of
such action and the reasons for the action, and the permittee's
right to request a hearing. To receive a hearing, the
permittee must make a written hearing request which must be
received by the chief of police, or his designee within ten
days of the date of the revocation notice. If a hearing is
properly requested, it shall be held within ten days of receipt
of the hearing request. The hearing shall be presided over by
the chief of police or his designee. The permittee shall have
the right to present evidence and argument or to have counsel
do so. Within 5 days of the hearing, the chief of police or
his designee shall render a decision. The permittee must
discontinue operation of his business if the chief of police or
his designee renders a final decision revoking or suspending
the permit.
15-122.5. Transfer of Permit.
(a)
A permittee shall not operate an adult business under the
authority of a permit at any place other than the address
01-758
designated in the approved permit.
(b)
A permittee shall not transfer his permit to another
person.
15-122.6. Judicial Review of Adult Use Permit Denial or
Revocation.
After denial of an application, denial of a renewal of an
application, or revocation or suspension of a permit,
Chesterfield County will facilitate the applicants' obtaining
prompt review of the decision from the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County.
15-122.7. Regulations Pertaining to Adult Businesses Providing
Adult Entertainment.
For purposes of this Section, "adult entertainment" is
defined as dancing, modeling or other live entertainment
if the performers' performance is characterized by an
emphasis on "specified anatomical areas" or "specified
sexual activities" as defined in Chapter 19, or violates
Section 14-33 of the County Code.
No person shall perform adult entertainment for patron(s)
of an adult business except upon a stage at least eighteen
(18) inches above the level of the floor which is
separated by a distance of at least ten (10) feet from
the nearest area occupied by patron(s). No patron shall
be permitted within ten (10) feet of the stage while the
stage is occupied by a performer.
The adult business shall provide separate dressing room
facilities for female and male performances which shall
not be occupied or used in any way by any one other than
performers.
The adult business establishment shall provide access for
performers between the stage and the dressing rooms which
is completely separated from the patrons. If such
separate access is not physically feasible, the
establishment shall provide a minimum of four (4) foot
wide walk aisle for performers between the dressing room
area and the stage, with a railing, fence or other barrier
separating the patrons and the performers which prevents
any physical contact between patrons and performers.
No entertainer, either before, during, or after a
performance, shall have physical contact with any patron
and no patron shall have physical contact with any
entertainer either before, during or after a performance.
This subsection shall only apply to physical contact while
in or on the premises of the establishment.
Fo
Fixed rail(s) at least thirty (30) inches in height shall
be maintained establishing the separation between
performers and patrons required by this section.
No patron shall directly pay or give any gratuity to any
entertainer. A patron who wishes to pay or give a
gratuity to a performance shall place the gratuity in a
container that is at all times located separately from the
performers for the purpose of preventing any physical
contact between a patron and a performer. No performer
shall solicit any gratuity from any patron.
9/26/01
01-759
H. Patrons must be at least 18;
I. Owners, managers, entertainers must be at least 18;
Jo
The adult business shall not operate between the hours of
2:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on any particular day.
No operator of an adult business shall cause or allow a
performer to contract or engage in any entertainment such
as a "couch" or a "straddle" dance with a patron while in
or on the establishment premises. No performer shall
contract to or engage in a "couch" or "straddle" dance
with a patron while in or on the establishment premises.
For purpose of this subsection, "couch" or "straddle"
dance is defined as an employee of the establishment
intentionally touching or coming within ten (10) feet of
any patron while engaged in the display or exposure of any
"specified anatomical area", or any "specified sexually
activity".
This section shall not apply to an employee of an
establishment who, while acting as a waiter, waitress,
host, hostess, or bar tender, comes within ten (10) feet
of a patron. No employee shall engage in any "specified
sexual activity" or display or expose any "specified
anatomical area" while acting as a waiter, waitress, host,
hostess, or bar tender.
o o o
Sec. 15-122.8.
Regulations Pertaining to Adult Businesses
Not Providing Adult Entertainment.
(a)
Wide angle mirrors and/or video systems must be used to
provide the manager with continuous monitoring of all
areas of the establishment.
(b)
Youth-oriented merchandise must be kept separate from the
sexually oriented merchandise.
(c)
To the extent booths are provided for viewing of videos,
movies, DVDs, or other media, the booths must meet the
following criteria:
(1 minimum size of 500 square feet.
(2
no doors on booths so that manager may have visual
access to the booth.
(3 Firewalls must be provided between booths.
(4
The premises shall be equipped with overhead
lighting fixtures of sufficient intensity to
illuminate every place patrons are permitted access
and an illumination of not less than two foot
candles as measured at the floor level.
Sec. 15-122.9. Regulations Pertaining to All Adult Businesses.
(a)
Sexually explicit material shall not be displayed in
the windows of adult businesses.
(b) Signs advertising the adult business shall not
01-760
display sexually explicit pictures or language.
(c)
Ail off-street parking areas of the adult business
shall be illuminated from dusk to closing hours of
operation with a lighting system which provides an
average maintained horizontal illumination of one
foot candle of light on the parking surface and
walkways.
(d)
Adult businesses shall not employ any person under
the age of 18.
(e)
Wide angle mirrors and/or video systems must be used
to provide the manager with continuous monitoring of
all areas of the establishment.
Sec. 15-122.9A.
If any part of this section of the ordinance shall be
deemed unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of
the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby.
o o o
(2) That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon adoption.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
17.A.
TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMRNDMENTS RELATING TO BUSINESS
LICENSE FEES
Ms. Dickson stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider ordinance amendments relating
to business license fees. She further stated that staff
recommends maintaining the current $100,000 exemption for
businesses with gross receipts over $100,000 and reducing tax
rates in most of the license categories. She noted that, under
the staff proposal, retailers would receive a reduction from
$0.20 to $0.18 per $100 of gross receipts. She stated that
other proposed ordinance amendments further economic
development by exempting gross receipts from software
development from BPOL taxation and by establishing new BPOL
categories and rates for research and development,
biotechnology and information service businesses to be taxed at
$0.10 per $100 of gross receipts.
Mr. George Peyton, Vice President of the Retail Merchants
Association of Greater Richmond, stated that the Association
supports the reduction and eventually the elimination of the
BPOL tax. He further stated the Chesterfield Chamber of
Commerce's proposal for reduction of the BPOL tax provides a
more immediate value to small retailers, but does little to
stimulate additional retail growth and thereby expansion of the
County's tax base. He requested that the Board adopt staff's
recommendation because it benefits all categories of retail and
will stimulate future economic development.
Mr. David Rubin, representing the Richmond Home Builders
Association, stated that the Association supports staff's
recommendation.
Mr. Roger Habeck stated that he is pleased that the Board is
continuing to commit to reduction of the BPOL tax. He further
9/26/01
01-761
stated that concerns have been expressed relative to the
economic development benefits of the proposed rate
manipulations. He stated that the County does not have an
adequate number of businesses and must export a tremendous
number of its workers. He further stated the County is losing
businesses into Powhatan, Amelia and Prince George. He stated
that small businesses benefit from locating in jurisdictions
without a BPOL tax. He described advantages of employment with
small businesses, and stated that the County has a unique
opportunity to create a competitive advantage by offering the
same tax rate for small businesses as other localities such as
Amelia, Powhatan and Prince George. He stated that large
merchants locate because of demographic numbers, regardless of
the tax rate. (It is noted that Mr. Habeck's organization
proposed a $300,000 gross receipts deduction with no rate
reductions in any category.)
Mrs. Humphrey questioned the amount that would not be collected
in BPOL if every small business had a $300,000 cap as proposed
by the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Habeck stated that the revenue would remain the same under
both staff's proposal and the Chamber of Commerce's proposal.
Mr. Miller expressed concerns relative to taxing professional
services higher than retail merchants.
Mr. Habeck stated that BPOL is a very old tax based on an
obsolete business model that does not make sense with the way
businesses operate today.
Mr. Bill Baxter, President of the Retail Merchants Association,
stated that the professional service category is taxed higher
than a retailer because it has no cost for carrying an
inventory.
Mr. Chris Andreano stated that he supports Mr. Habeck's
proposal because he feels it will encourage younger people to
start new businesses.
Mr. Dickie King, small business owner, read a statement on
behalf of Mr. Michaele Zajur, Chairman of the Virginia Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, indicating that the Hispanic business
community supports the promotion of small business growth in
the County.
Mr. Gary Thomson, Vice Chairman of the Chesterfield Business
Council and Chairman of the County's Tax Structure Committee,
stated that he feels staff's proposal is the best solution
because the decreased tax rates will benefit the County's
economic development. He further stated that he feels staff's
proposal to reduce all BPOL tax categories sends a strong
message in the area of business retention because all business
owners will benefit from it, and urged the Board to adopt
staff's recommendations.
When asked, Mr. Thomson stated that, although he feels it is a
contributing factor, he does not feel the County's BPOL tax is
a predominant factor in businesses relocating to other
jurisdictions.
Mr. Miller expressed concerns relative to struggling small
businesses that might benefit greatly by the Chamber of
Commerce's proposal.
Mr. Thomson stated that approximately 10,000 businesses are
exempt from BPOL taxation by the $100,000 cap, and an
additional 1,000 businesses would benefit by raising the cap
to $300,000. He further stated that both proposals send an
9/26/01
01-762
important message, but indicated that he feels staff's proposal
to make the tax rates more attractive will put the County in a
better position in a broad economic development sense.
Mr. Albert Meyer, Director of the Southport Association, read
a letter from the Association indicating that its Board of
Directors adopted a resolution opposing the County's BPOL tax.
Mr. Vernon LaPrade, who owns a number of businesses in the
County, stated that he supports staff's proposal.
There being no one else to speak to the ordinance, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Barber stated that the Board began a course to
systematically lower the BPOL tax for all businesses which he
feels was well thought out and done in such a way that it would
not produce a harsh impact on the budget. He further stated
that he feels the BPOL tax will be eliminated over time if the
Board stays on course. He stated that he is prepared to make
a motion to adopt staff's recommendation.
Mr. Miller stated that he sympathizes with small business
owners who would benefit from the Chamber's proposal. He
further stated that small businesses represent the backbone of
the County's economy. He questioned the possibility of a
$200,000 exemption accompanied by smaller rate reductions.
Mr. McHale stated that he has similar concerns as Mr. Miller.
He further stated that he concurs with Mr. Thomson relative to
staying on course with tax rate reductions. He stated that the
Board has been working hard, particularly in the Jefferson
Davis Corridor, to encourage the formation and thriving of
small businesses. He further stated that he feels raising the
exemption to $200,000 and reducing most categories above $0.10
by five percent and professional/personal services by eight
percent is a viable alternative, and indicated that he is
prepared to make a motion that the Board adopt this
alternative.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she will also support the alternative
suggested by Mr. McHale.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY
AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 6-1, 6-8, 6-23, 6-25,
6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 6-30, 6-31, 6-32, 6-34 AND 6-35
RELATING TO REDUCTION OF BPOL TAX RATES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
That Sections 6-1, 6-8, 6-23, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-
28, 6-29, 6-30, 6-31, 6-32, 6-34 and 6-35 of the
Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as
amended, are amended and re-enacted to read as
follows:
Sec. 6-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
shall have the following meanings, unless the context requires
a different meaning:
o o o
9/26/01
01-763
Biotechnology or biomedical research and development means the
use of various processes to develop, improve, modify, or test
products for human health care, animal health, food production,
food safety, food nutrition, or environmental improvement.
O O O
Information service means the offering of a capability for
generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing,
retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via
telecommunications and includes electronic publishing but does
not include any use of such capability for the management,
control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the
management of a telecommunications service.
0 0 0
Research and development means the application of procedures
within one of the following four areas: (1) basic research, (2)
applied research, (3) development, and (4) systems and other
concept formulation studies. Research and development does not
include market research, research in social services,
psychology, or other non-technical activities; routine product
testing; service activities; sales; or research and development
of a public utility. "Basic research", "applied research",
"development", and "systems and other concept formulation
studies" shall have the meaning attributed in Section 31.205-18
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
0 0 0
Sec. 6-8. Exclusions and deductions from gross receipts.
O O O
(b) The following shall be deducted from gross receipts or
gross purchases that would otherwise be taxable:
o o o
(6)
Gross receipts from the design, development or other
creation of computer software for lease, sale, or
license.
O O O
Sec. 6-23. imposition of taxes generally.
No tax shall be levied pursuant to this article on any
business whose base year gross receipts, or gross purchases in
the case of wholesale merchants, were less than $200,000.00. If
the base year gross receipts of the licensable business
activity are greater than or equal to $200,000.00, the amount
of such gross receipts shall be reduced by $200,000.00 for the
purpose of calculating the applicable tax and the business
shall pay the tax on the reduced amount or a license fee of
$10.00, whichever is greater. The $200,000.00 reduction shall
not apply to any estimates made under section 6-24 but shall
apply to the correction of such estimates.
0 0 0
Sec. 6-25. Contractors.
(a)
Every contractor shall pay a license tax of $0.14 per
$100.00 of base year gross receipts.
01-764
9/26/01
o o o
Sec. 6-26. Retail merchants.
(a)
Every retail merchant shall pay a license tax of $0.19 per
$100.00 of base year gross receipts.
o o o
Sec. 6-27. Financial services.
Every person engaged in a financial service shall pay a license
tax of $0.53 per $100.00 of base year gross receipts.
Sec. 6-28. Real estate services.
Every person engaged in a real estate service shall pay a
license tax of $0.53 per $100.00 of base year gross receipts.
Sec. 6-29. Professional services.
Every person engaged in a professional service shall pay a
license tax of $0.53 per $100.00 of base year gross receipts.
Sec. 6-30. Miscellaneous services.
(a)
Every person engaged in a personal or business service
shall pay a license tax of $0.33 per $100.00 of base year
gross receipts.
(b)
Every person engaged in a repair service shall pay a
license tax of $0.27 per $100.00 of base year gross
receipts.
(c)
Any person, firm, or corporation designated as the
principal or prime contractor receiving identifiable
federal appropriations for research and development
services as defined in Section 31.205-18 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation in the areas of computer and
electronic systems, computer software, applied sciences,
economic and social sciences, and electronic and physical
sciences, shall be subject to a license tax rate of $0.03
per $100.00 of such federal funds received in payment of
such contracts upon documentation provided by such person,
firm, or corporation to the Commissioner of the Revenue
confirming the applicability of this section.
(d)
Every person engaged in a research and development,
biotechnology, or biomedical research and development
businesses shall pay a license tax of $0.10 per $100.00 of
base year gross receipts.
(e)
Every person engaged in an information services business
shall pay a license tax of $0.10 per $100.00 of base year
gross receipts.
Sec. 6-31. Amusements/admissions.
(a)
Every person owning or operating an athletic stadium,
field, park, coliseum or auditorium, or any facility
devoted to general amusement or entertainment, which is
open to the public and where admission is charged for
viewing a public show, athletic event or contest,
exhibition or performance of any kind, or where there is
operated any amusement rides, games, or other amusement
devices, shall pay a license tax of $0.19 per $100.00 of
base year gross receipts.
9/26/01
01-765
(b)
Every person presenting or conducting a public show,
dance, exhibition or performance of any kind, or operating
any amusement rides, games, or other amusement devices,
shall pay a license tax of $0.19 per $100.00 of the gross
receipts generated by such activities.
o o o
Sec. 6-32. Commission merchants.
Every person engaged in business as a commission merchant shall
pay a license tax of $0.33 per $100.00 of base year gross
receipts.
o o o
Sec. 6-34. Direct sellers.
(a)
Every person engaged in business as a direct seller at
retail shall pay a license tax of $0.19 per $100.00 of
base year gross receipts.
o o o
Sec. 6-35. Slot machines.
o o o
(b)
Every person selling, leasing, renting or otherwise
furnishing or providing a coin-operated amusement machine,
as defined in Code of Virginia, § 58.1-3720, and Code of
Virginia, § 58.1-3721, shall pay a license tax of $0.33
per $100.00 of base year gross receipts of such operator
from amusement machines operated within the county. This
section shall not apply to any person owning less than
three coin machines and operating such machines on
property owned or leased by such person.
o o o
(2)
That this ordinance shall become effective January
1, 2002.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
suspended its rules to consider items after 11:00 p.m.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
17,B, TO CQNSIDER .AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19-5 OF THE COUNTY
CODE RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Mr. Micas stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.
No one came forward to speak to the ordinance.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
01-766
9/26/01
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY
AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-5 RELATING
TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1)
That Section 19-5 of the Code of the ~o~nty of
Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-
enacted to read as follows:
Sec. 19-5.
Enforcement.
(b)
o o o
Penalties for violation; right of entry.
(i)
Any person who violates this chapter or fails to
comply with any conditions of zoning and development
approvals and substantial accord approvals for which
a public hearing does not occur, other than those
provisions set forth in section 19-6, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof, shall be fined not less than $10.00 and not
more than $1,000.00.
(2)
If the violation is uncorrected at the time of the
conviction, the court shall order the violator to
abate or remedy the violation in compliance with the
zoning ordinance, within a time period established
by the court. Failure to remove or abate a zoning
violation within the specified time period shall
constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable
by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000,
and any such failure during any succeeding ten-day
period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor
offense for each ten-day period punishable by a fine
of not less than $100 nor more than $1,500.
(3
In addition to the requirements and penalties
specified above, the director of planning may invoke
any other lawful procedure available to the county,
such as injunction or abatement, as may be necessary
to prevent, restrain, correct or abate any violation
of this chapter.
(4
The director of planning or his agents may enter
upon or search any real estate or improvements
thereon only after first obtaining a valid search
warrant unless either:
a. The entry or search is made after the property
owner's knowing and intelligent consent;
b. A violation of this chapter is in plain view; or
c. A violation of this chapter occurs in the
presence of the director.
(5
If the director of planning determines that any
person has violated this chapter or failed to comply
with any condition of a zoning or development
approval or of a substantial accord approval for
which a public hearing does not occur, then he shall
serve upon that person a notice to comply by either:
9/26/01
01-767
(2)
a o
Delivering the notice to the person by hand; or
Mailing the notice by first class mail to the
last known address of the person.
The notice shall set forth the nature of the
violation or failure to comply. Upon failure of the
person to remedy the violation, comply with the
condition or receive an extension within ten days
after the date of delivery or mailing of the notice,
the person shall be subject to the penalties set
forth above. With respect to violations or failures
to comply involving portable signs or the parking or
display of motor vehicles, the person shall remedy
the violation or comply with the condition within 24
hours of service of the notice or receive an
extension, or the person shall be subject to the
penalties above.
That this ordinance shall
immediately upon adoption.
become effective
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
17,C,
TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CQUNTY'S MASSAGE CLINIC
ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO
MASSAGE CLINICS
Mr. Micas stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to
regulation of massage clinics and certified massage therapists
and also to consider an ordinance relating to zoning of massage
clinics and certified massage therapists. He further stated
that highlights of the proposed ordinance include cross-gender
massages permitted in designated settings, but not at
residences; stand-alone massage clinics permitted in designated
settings, but not at residences; certain workplace massages
would be permitted; massages would be permitted in hotels and
motels, but only with a license and not conducted in a guest
room; the equipment and physical plant of massage clinics must
be consistent with Health Department regulations; and the
Police Department would continue to administer a permitting
process with renewal on a two-year basis. He stated that the
Health, Police and Planning Departments have reviewed the
recommendations and support the amendments.
Ms. Judy Castleman, legislative liaison for the Virginia
Chapter of the American Massage Therapy Association, reviewed
the education and licensing standards required for licensed
massage therapists. She stated that the Association supports
the proposed ordinance, but still has concerns that she hopes
can be addressed. She further stated that massage therapists
are uncomfortable with being the only health professional
required to apply for a permit and have a background check
prior to receiving a business license. She expressed concerns
that, under the proposed ordinance, cross-gender massages are
not allowed in clients' homes, and stated that the Police
Department was not opposed to cross-gender massages in homes,
but indicated that prohibiting cross-gender home massages was
a Planning Commission decision. She also expressed concerns
relative to the prohibition of massage therapy as a home
occupation and stated that: massage therapy is a strenuous
profession and typically only three to four massages can be
performed in a day.
01-768
9/26/01
Ms. Brenda Griffith, Vice President of the National American
Massage Therapy Association, stated that she has practiced as
a massage therapist for 13 years and was recently deployed, as
a part of the Massage Emergency Response Team (MERT), to the
Pentagon to work with the personnel who were recovering bodies
from the building. She expressed concerns that massage
therapists can be deployed to national disaster sites, but are
required to have permits and background checks to conduct their
profession in Chesterfield County.
Dr. William Torres, an emergency physician at Henrico Doctor's
Hospital as well as a certified massage therapist, stated that
certified massage therapists are responsible for conducting
themselves in a professional manner and are an integral part of
the existing alternative healthcare delivery system. He stated
that he feels the Board should adopt the proposed ordinance and
allow County citizens to fully benefit from massage therapy
services. He further stated that massage therapists are
certified and regulated by the Board of Nursing and in no way
relate to the individuals for whom the County's massage laws
were originally written, and requested that the Board repeal
any language in the ordinance that treat certified massage
therapists differently from any other health care professional.
Ms. Gloria Rose, co-owner of His and Hers Salon and Spa, stated
that she supports the proposed ordinance. She further stated
that because she operates under a County business license, she
does not feel her employees should be required to receive an
additional permit.
Ms. Heather Umburger, expressed concerns relative to the
discriminatory message being sent by requiring certified
massage therapists to apply for a permit and have a background
check.
Ms. Castleman referenced the County's recently adopted policy
for background checks of volunteers who work with juveniles and
stated that massage therapists do not practice on County
property or work alone with juveniles. She further stated that
certified nurses aides who have only eight weeks of training go
to people's homes and provide some very personal services with
no permitting requirement or prohibition as far as the gender
of patients they can treat.
Ms. Elizabeth Page, a certified massage therapist, stated that
she is proud of her profession and does not want to explain to
her son that she has to have a background check to perform her
profession.
Ms. Indigo Smith, an esthetician who operates a small business
in the County, stated that she is currently a massage therapy
student and wants to integrate it as a part of the service she
currently offers. She further stated that she does not feel
she should be required to receive a permit and have a
background check to conduct massage therapy.
Ms. Rachel Mandarino stated that she is a partner in a small
physical therapy business in the County. She further stated
that when a patient's insurance benefits expire, massage
therapy can be a much less expensive alternative to physical
therapy in the treatment of soft tissue disorders.
Dr. Walter Beam stated that his wife who is a cancer patient is
currently treated with massage therapy by a male massage
therapist in her home, and requested that the Board adopt
language making cross-gender massage legal.
There being no one else to speak to the ordinances, the public
hearing was closed.
9/26/01
01-769
Mr. Barber stated that he feels cross-gender massage should be
allowed in private residences.
When asked, Major Jim Bourque stated that the Police Department
would like to keep the background check provision in the
ordinance and revisit it in another year.
Mr. Barber questioned the possibility of simplifying the
background check process and fee.
Major Bourque stated that the permitting fee is being
significantly reduced from $150 to $50.
Mr. Barber expressed concerns relative to the fee for the
background check of massage therapists being more than the fee
for volunteers who work with juveniles, and questioned the
possibility of reducing the fee to $25. He stated that he does
not agree with excluding massage therapy from home occupations
and also feels cross-gender massages should be permitted in the
home.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that the proposed ordinance
prohibits massage therapy as a home occupation.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she does not think of massage
therapists as less than professional. She further stated that
the ordinance was designed to fit the massage therapy community
back into the County ordinances.
When asked, Mr. Jacobson stated that home occupations are
defined for certain professions and services and only one
person at a time is permitted on the property.
When asked, Major Bourque stated that the Police Department
does not have an opinion relative to massage therapy as a home
occupation or cross-gender massage therapy in the home. He
further stated that neither Henrico nor Richmond require
background checks for massage therapists. He stated that he is
not aware of any incidences of abuse of massage therapy
ordinances in neighboring jurisdictions.
Discussion ensued relative to requirements for massage therapy
as a home occupation.
Mr. Barber made a motion for the Board to adopt the ordinances,
eliminating the restrictions on cross-gender massage therapy in
the home and massage therapy as a home occupation, and
maintaining the permitting fee and criminal background check,
but reviewing this in one year after data has been collected
relative to any incidences involving massage therapists.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she wants to encourage residents to
work in the County, and seconded the motion made by Mr. Barber.
Mr. Barber clarified that his motion would include reducing the
permitting fee to $25 rather than $50.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that, if the Police Department deems that
background checks are not necessary, an ordinance amendment
will be brought to the Board to repeal the requirement.
Mrs. Humphrey then called for a vote on the motion of Mr.
Barber, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, for the Board to adopt the
following ordinance:
01-770
9/26/01
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY
AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 15-91, 15-92, 15-93,
15-94, 15-95, 15-96,15-97, 15-98, 15-99, 15-102,
15-103, 15-104, 15-105, 15-106; BY ADDING
AND ENACTING SECTION 15-99.1; AND BY REPEALING
SECTIONS 15-100 AND 15-101, RELATING TO REGULATION
OF MASSAGE CLINICS AND CERTIFIED MASSAGE THERAPISTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1)
That Sections 15-91, 15-92, 15-93, 15-94, 15-95, 15-96,
15-97, 15-98, 15-99, 15-102, 15-103, 15-104, 15-105 and
15-106 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as
amended, are amended and re-enacted; that Section 15-99.1
is added and enacted; and that Sections 15-100 and 15-101
are repealed, as follows:
Sec. 15-91. Definitions.
For this article, the following words and phrases shall
have the following meanings:
Barber shop: An establishment which provides one or more
of the following services in exchange for consideration: hair
care, makeovers, facials, manicures, pedicures, or body waxing.
Beauty salon: An establishment which provides one or more
of the following services in exchange for consideration: hair
care, skin care, makeovers, facials, manicures, pedicures or
body waxing.
Care Facility: A hospital, nursing home, convalescent care
facility, assisted living facility, life care facility, or
group care facility.
Certified massage therapist: Any person who administers a
massage to another person, in exchange for consideration, and
who has qualified as a certified massage therapist pursuant to
the requirements of Code of Virginia, §§ 54.1-3000 and
54.1-3029, including but not limited to a massage clinic
operator.
Chief of police: The Chesterfield County Police Chief or
his designee.
Client: A person receiving a massage.
Consideration: Anything of value given in exchange for
services rendered, including, but not limited to, money, goods,
services or advertising.
Health club: An establishment which provides health and
fitness equipment and programs for its client's use in exchange
for any form of consideration. A health club may be located in
a hotel or motel but not in a guest room in a hotel or motel.
Massage: The treatment of soft tissues for therapeutic
purposes by the application of massage and body work techniques
based on the manipulation or application of pressure to the
muscular structure or soft tissues of the human body. Massage
shall not include the diagnosis or treatment of illness or
disease or any service or procedure for which a license to
practice medicine, nursing, chiropractic therapy, physical
therapy, occupational therapy, acupuncture or podiatry is
required by law.
9/26/01
01-771
Massage clinic: A fixed place of business where a
certified massage therapist gives a client a massage. A
massage clinic shall either be freestanding or located within
a health club, tanning salon, hotel or motel (but not in a
guest room in a hotel or motel), beauty salon or barber shop.
Massage clinic operator: The person who files and signs
the application for a massage clinic permit and who is
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the clinic. The
massage clinic operator need not qualify as a certified massage
therapist if he or she does not intend to administer massage.
Public gathering: Any event occurring in the County that
is open to the general public and involves more than fifty
persons.
Seated massage: A massage of the upper body or feet when
the massage client is fully clothed and seated in a chair.
Tanning salon: An establishment which has as its primary
business the provision of tanning services in exchange for
consideration.
Sec. 15-92.
Permit required.
No person shall administer or perform or permit to be
administered or performed a massage in exchange for
consideration in or upon any premises within the county unless:
(a)
The massage is performed for medical, relaxation,
remedial or hygienic purposes; and
(b)
The person performing the massage is a certified
massage therapist and holds a valid county permit.
(c)
If a massage is performed in a massage clinic, a
valid county massage clinic permit has been issued
for the premises.
Sec. 15-93. Exclusions.
Section 15-92 shall not apply to massages administered for
medical, relaxation, remedial or hygienic purposes by (i) a
physician, surgeon, chiropractor, osteopath or physical
therapist duly licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia; (ii)
a licensed nurse acting under the prescription or direction of
any such physician, surgeon, chiropractor, osteopath, or
physical therapist; or (iii) a certified massage therapist
acting on the premises of any such physician, surgeon,
chiropractor, osteopath or physical therapist and under his
prescription or direction. Section 15-92 shall not apply to
barber shops or beauty salons in which massage is given to the
scalp, face, neck or shoulders only.
Sec. 15-94.
Permit application.
(a)
No person shall operate a massage clinic or act as a
certified massage therapist in the county without
having obtained a permit from the county. Permit
applications shall be made to the chief of police,
who shall investigate all permit applications.
Applicants shall pay to the county treasurer $100.00
for a massage clinic permit and $25.00 for a
certified massage therapist permit, to cover the
costs of investigation by the police, health and
other departments, as needed. The treasurer's
01-772
9/26/0
(b)
(c)
receipt of payment shall accompany the permit
application. Ail permits shall expire every two
years on the anniversary date of the issuance of the
original permit. Permits issued prior to September
26, 2001, shall expire on the next anniversary date
of the issuance of the original permit and every two
years thereafter. Failure to file a renewal
application at least 30 days prior to the expiration
date of the permit shall be grounds for revoking or
suspending the permit. A renewal application shall
be completed and filed as required below. Renewal
applicants shall pay $50.00 for a massage clinic
permit renewal and $25.00 for a certified massage
therapist permit renewal to the county treasurer to
cover the costs of investigation by the police,
health, fire and other departments, as needed. The
treasurer's receipt of payment shall accompany the
renewal application. A permit application shall not
be considered within 12 months of denial of a
substantially similar permit request.
The certified massage therapist permit application
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1
(2
(3
(4)
(5
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(lO)
(11)
(12)
The full name, age and present address of the
applicant.
The applicant's social security number.
The applicant's addresses for the ten years
immediately preceding the date of the
application.
The applicant's height, weight, race, sex and
eye and hair color.
The applicant's portrait photograph, which
gives a clear view of the applicant's face.
The applicant's business, occupation or
employment for the five years immediately
preceding the date of the application.
The applicant's previous experience as a
massage clinic operator, a massage practitioner
or a certified massage therapist.
The applicant's criminal convictions, other
than traffic offenses, and the date and place
of the applicant's conviction.
A list of all other professional licenses held
by the applicant from any jurisdiction and
whether or not the applicant has had any such
license suspended or revoked.
Written proof that the applicant meets the
requirements contained in Code of Virginia, §§
54.1-3000 and 54.1-3029, for a certified
massage therapist.
Written authorization for the county, its
agents and employees to conduct a background
investigation of the applicant, including a
criminal records check, and to investigate
whether the information provided by the
applicant is true.
Written declaration, dated and signed by the
applicant, certifying that the information
contained in the application is true and
correct.
The application for a massage clinic permit shall
contain:
(i)
The full legal name and any trade name of the
applicant and the applicant,s business address
and telephone number.
9/26/01
01-773
(d)
(2) The applicant's social security or employer
identification number.
(3) The applicant's related employment or business
experience for the five years immediately
preceding the date of the application,
including all previous experience as a massage
clinic operator, massage practitioner or
certified massage therapist.
(4) All criminal convictions, other than traffic
offenses, of the applicant and, if applicable,
the applicant's owners, officers, directors,
partners and managers and the date and place of
the conviction.
(5) A list of all other professional licenses held
by the applicant from any jurisdiction and a
statement of whether or not the applicant has
ever had any such license suspended or revoked.
(6) Written authorization for the county, its
agents and employees to conduct a background
investigation, including a criminal records
check, of the applicant and, if applicable, the
applicant's owners, officers, directors,
partners and managers and to investigate
whether the information provided by the
applicant is true.
(7) Written declaration, dated and signed by the
applicant, certifying that the information
contained in the application is true and
correct.
(8) A description of the massage clinic, including
the number and location of rooms to be used,
the number and names of certified massage
therapists to be employed and the hours of
operation.
(9) If applicable, a list of the applicant's
owners, officers, directors, managers and
partners, including the name, address and title
of the person filing the application on the
applicant's behalf.
A renewal application for a massage therapist permit
and a massage clinic permit shall contain:
(1
(2
(3
(4
(5
(6)
The full name, age and present address of the
applicant or, for a massage clinic, the full
legal name and any trade name of the applicant
and the applicant's business address and
telephone number.
The applicant's social security number or
employer identification number.
The applicant's existing permit number.
All criminal convictions, other than traffic
offenses, of the applicant and, if applicable,
the applicant's owners, officers, directors,
partners and managers and the date and place of
the conviction.
Written authorization for the county, its
agents and employees to conduct a background
investigation, including a criminal records
check, of the applicant and, if applicable, the
applicant's owners, officers, directors,
partners and managers and to investigate
whether the information provided by the
applicant is true.
Written declaration, dated and signed by the
applicant, certifying that the information
contained in the renewal application is true
and correct.
01-774
Sec. 15-95. Referral of application.
The chief of police shall refer permit applications, as
needed, to the county departments charged with enforcing the
business license, zoning, building, plumbing, utility, health,
electric and fire prevention codes for their recommendations.
Sec. 15-96. Granting of permit.
Within 60 days of the date of the permit application, the
chief of police shall issue the permit if he shall find all the
following:
(a) Any massage clinic to be used or constructed meet~
all zoning, building, plumbing, utility, health,
electric and fire prevention codes, as reported by
the applicable departments.
(b) The applicant complies with all requirements of this
article.
(c) The applicant is of good moral character and
reputation in the community and does not pose any
threat to the community's health and safety. Any
past felony or misdemeanor convictions of the
applicant, including a conviction pursuant to this
article, shall be considered in making this
determination.
(d) The applicant is at least 18 years old and complies
with the requirements of Code of Virginia, §§
54.1-3000 and 54.1-3029.
(e) The applicant has not made any false, misleading or
fraudulent statements in the permit application nor
in any other related document required by the
county.
Sec. 15-97.
Display of permit.
Every person who receives a massage clinic permit shall
display the permit in a conspicuous place so that it may be
seen by anyone entering the massage clinic premises. Each
certified massage therapist shall post his or her current
certificate issued by the State Board of Nursing in a public
area at the massage clinic premises.
Sec. 15-98. Necessary facilities.
(a)
Each massage clinic shall have and maintain the
following facilities or equipment in a clean,
sanitary and workable condition:
(~.)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing
nondisposable instruments and materials if used
in performing massage.
Hot and cold water and soap, which shall be
provided at all times.
Towels and linens for each of the clinic's
clients or each client receiving massage
services. Common use of towels or linens shall
not be permitted.
A custodial service sink located in the
building in which the massage clinic quarters
are located.
(b)
Each massage clinic operator shall maintain any
walls, ceilings, floors, pools, showers, bathtubs,
steam rooms and any other physical facilities for
the clinic in good repair and in a clean and
sanitary condition. Any heat, steam or vapor rooms
or cabinets shall be cleaned each day the clinic is
9/26/01
01-775
in operation. Batlhtubs shall be thoroughly cleaned
after each use.
(c)
Massage tables, bathtubs, shower stalls and steam or
bath areas shall have nonporous surfaces which may
be readily disinfected.
Sec. 15-99.
individual health requirements.
(a)
No massage clinic operator or certified massage
therapist shall be permitted to give massage or come
in contact with a massage clinic client unless the
operator or certified massage therapist shall be
free of any contagious or communicable disease. The
director of public health or his designee may, for
cause, prohibit an operator or certified massage
therapist from giving massage unless and until the
person provides him with a certificate from a
licensed physician that the person has been examined
within the previous ten days and found to be free of
all contagious or communicable diseases.
(b)
No certified massage therapist shall knowingly serve
any client infected with any fungus or other skin
infection; nor shall massage be performed on any
client exhibiting skin inflammation or eruption
unless a licensed physician has certified that any
such person may be safely served and has prescribed
any necessary conditions on the service.
Sec. 15-99.1 Permissible ]Locations for massage.
A certified massage therapist may give a massage in the
county only at the following locations and under the following
conditions:
(1 At a permitted massage clinic;
(2
At the regular place of business, not located in a
residence, of the massage client during the regular
hours of such business; provided, that a certified
massage therapist may only give a seated massage at
such location;
(3 At a care facility;
(4
At a public gathering; provided that a certified
massage therapist may only give a seated massage at
such location;
(s)
Except as otherwise prohibited by this article, at a
client's residence; provided that a certified
massage therapist shall possess his or her current
certificate issued by the State Board of Nursing and
his or her current county permit, and
(6)
At a massage therapist's home provided that the
therapist meets the requirements of a home
occupation as set forth in Chapter 19 of the County
Code.
Sec. 15-100. Repealed.
Sec. 15-101. Repealed.
01-776
9/26/01
Sec. 15-102. Massage clinic and therapist responsibilities.
A massage clinic shall not be operated under any name or
at any location except the name and location specified in the
permit. The massage clinic operator shall be responsible for
maintaining the premises in accordance with this article's
requirements and for insuring that all agents and employees
comply with this article's requirements. No person granted a
certified massage therapist permit shall operate under any name
except the name specified in the permit. No massage clinic
operator shall allow on his premises any activity or behavior
prohibited by the laws of the United States, the Commonwealth
of Virginia, or this county~ and no certified massage
therapist shall engage in any such behavior.
Sec. 15-103. Revocation and suspension of permit.
The chief of police may revoke or suspend any permit upon
the violation of this article. No permit shall be revoked until
the chief of police holds a hearing to determine just cause for
the revocation or suspension. At the hearing, the permittee
shall be able to present evidence and argument against
revocation or suspension. The permittee shall be provided with
notice of the hearing by mail, at least five days prior to the
hearing, to the address on the permit. Notice shall include a
written statement setting forth the grounds for revocation or
suspension. After the hearing the chief of police shall
determine whether a violation has occurred and if so whether
the permit should be suspended or revoked. Upon finding a
violation, the chief of police may suspend the permit for not
more than 60 days or revoke the permit. The chief of police's
decision shall be final.
Sec. 15-104. Transferability of permit.
If a massage clinic is sold or transferred to a new owner,
the clinic's permit shall no longer be valid. Unless prior
approval shall have been obtained from the chief of police, the
enlargement or alteration of the massage clinic's business
structure shall automatically revoke the permit.
Sec. 15-105. Right of inspection.
The police or health department may inspect those areas of
each massage clinic which are open to the public for the
purpose of determining compliance with this article.
Inspections shall be made at reasonable times and in a
reasonable manner.
Sec. 15-106. Penalty.
Any person who violates this article shall, in addition to
being subject to the provisions of section 15-103, and to the
provisions of any other applicable ordinance or statute, be
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by confinement in jail for
a period not exceeding one year, either or both.
Secs. 15-107--15-120. Reserved.
(2) That this ordinance
immediately upon adoption.
shall become effective
And, further, the Board adopted the following ordinance:
9/26/01
01-777
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIEI.D, 1997, AS AMENDED BY
AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-68, 19-130, 19-144
AND 19-301 RELATING TO ZONING OF MASSAGE CLINICS
AND CERTIFIED MASSAGE THERAPISTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Sections 19-68, 19-130, 19-144 and 19-301 of the
Code of ~he County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is
amended and re-enacted to read as follows:
Sec. 19-68.
Special exceptions.
The following uses may be allowed by special exception,
subject to the provisions of section 19-21:
o o o
(g)
A business operated on a lot or parcel inside or
outside of a dwelling unit or accessory building and
not a home occupation, not to include a massage
clinic and certified massage therapist; provided
that the owner or operator of the business resides
on the premises.
o o o
Sec. 19-130. Permitted uses by right.
Within any O-1 District, no buildings, structures or
premises shall be used, arranged or designed to be used except
for one or more of the following uses:
o o o
(1)
(m)
(n)
Massage clinics.
Underground utility uses except as provided
section 19-131(g), when such uses are located in
easements or in public road rights-of-way.
Access to any land which is located in an
agricultural, office, business or industrial
district or used for agricultural, office, business
or industrial purposes.
o o o
Sec. 19-144. Permitted uses by right.
Within any C-1 District, no buildings, structures or
premises shall be used, arranged or designed to be used except
for one or more of the following uses:
o o o
(w)
(x)
(¥)
Massage clinics.
Underground utility uses when such uses are located
in easements or in public road rights-of-way, except
as provided in section 19-145(a) .
Video rental and sales store.
o o o
01-778
9/26/01
Sec. 19-301. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the following meanings:
o o o
Home occupation: Any occupation, profession, enterprise or
activity conducted solely by one or more members of a family on
the premises which is incidental and secondary to the use of
the premises as a dwelling, including the home office of a
member of a recognized or licensed profession, such as an
attorney, physician, dentist, certified massage therapist as
defined in County Code § 15-91, musician, artist, real estate
salesperson or broker, or engineer; provided that:
(1) Not more than the equivalent area of one-quarter of
one floor shall be used for such purpose;
(2) Such occupation shall not require external
alterations;
(3) No commodity is stored or sold, except those made on
the premises;
(4) There shall be no group instruction, assembly or
activity, and no display that will indicate from the
exterior that the building is being used in part for
any purpose other than that of a dwelling; and
(5) Only one motor vehicle used in conjunction with the
home occupation is parked on the premises.
Permitted home occupations shall not include animal hospitals
or kennels, beauty parlors, barbershops, nursing homes,
convalescent homes, rest homes, tourist homes or similar
establishments offering services to the general public.
o o o
Massage clinic: The definition set forth in County Code § 15-
91 shall apply.
o o o
(2) That this ordinance
immediately upon adoption.
shall become effective
Ayes: Humphrey, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: Miller.
Mr. Miller stated that he is reluctant to override the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
17
TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION QF
SIXTEEN FOOT ALLEY WIThiN PLAN OF CEAVfRAL PARK,
Mr. Stith stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a
portion of a 16-foot alley between Lots 16 through 24 and Lots
40 through 48, Block 13, Plan of Central Park.
Mr. George Stigall stated that he supports vacation of the
entire alley rather than just a portion. He expressed concerns
relative to his belated notification of the issue, and
requested that the Board vacate the entire alley.
9/26/01
01-779
Mr. Stith stated that staff is reluctant to request that the
Board vacate the entire alleyway because it would add property
to current landowners who would then be required to pay a cost
for replatting as well as additional property taxes, and also
be required to maintain the alleyway. He further stated that,
if Mr. Stigall and the other property owners want the entire
alley vacated, they should all apply for the action.
Mr. Steve Morgan stated that he would not have applied for
vacation of the alley behind his property if his neighbor had
not made numerous complaints against him.
There being no one else to speak to the ordinance, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. McHale stated that Mr. Harmon has had discussions with
residents and there was disagreement as to whether the property
owners wanted to take responsibility for maintaining the alley.
Mr. McHale then made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, for
the Board to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to STEVEN CASH MORGAN,
KAREN R. STURGILL, BELINDA DIANE MORGAN, SHANNON
MCCRACKEN, ALAN D. TRENTHAM, EVA P. TRENTHAM and
DANIEL L. TURNER, ("GRANTEES"), a portion of a 16'
alley between Lots 16 thru 24 and Lots 40 thru 48,
Block 13, Plan of Central Park, BERMUDA Magisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on
a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat
Book 4, at Pages 114 and 115.
WHEREAS, STEVEN CASH MORGAN, petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a
portion of a 16' alley between Lots 16 thru 24 and Lots 40 thru
48, Block 13, Plan of Central Park, BERMUDA Magisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown
on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of said County in Plat Book 4, Pages 114 and 115, by J. TEMPLE
WADDILL, dated JANUARY 10, 1928. The portion of alley
petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows:
A portion of a 16' alley between Lots 16 thru 24 and
Lots 40 thru 48, Block 13, Plan of Central Park, the
location of which is more fully shown on the
aforesaid plat.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section
15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by
advertising; and,
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of alley sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of alley be
and is hereby vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
01-780
9/26/01
accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to
Section 15.2-2276 of the CO~ of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2-2274
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee
simple title to the centerline of the portion of alley hereby
vacated in the owners of Lots 16 thru 24 and Lots 40 thru 48,
Block 13, within Plan of Central Park, free and clear of any
rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names
of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and STEVEN CASH
MORGAN, KAREN R. STURGILL, BELINDA DIANE MORGAN, SHANNON
MCCRACKEN, ALAN D. TRENTHAM, EVA P. TRENTHAM and DANIEL L.
TURNER, or their successors in title, as GRANTEE.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
Mr. Stith stated that staff will continue to work with Mr.
Stigall in an effort to address his issue.
17 .G.
TO CONSIDER A REOUEST TO OUITCLAIM A 0.461 ACRE PARCEL
OF LAND TO HORNER INVESTMENTS, LLC
Mr. Stith stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider a request to quitclaim a 0.461
acre parcel of land to Horner Investments, LLC.
No one came forward to speak to the issue.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to convey a
0.461 acre parcel of Horner Investments, LLC.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
18. REMAINING MOBILE HOME PERMITS AND ZONING REOUEST~
There were no remaining mobile home permits or zoning requests
at this time.
19, ADJOURN~
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
adjourned at 12:19 a.m. until October 10, 2001 at 4:00 p.m.
Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren.
Nays: None.
EaSe B~ Rams-.e~ /
County Administra~r
Renny Bush Humphrey
Chairman
01-781