04SN0205-Aug25.pdftx.., ~ 2OOa
.... j -g, , CPC
t .... !5, 2OOarm
August 25, 2004 BS
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
04SN0205
Theodore Balsamo
Matoaca Magisterial District
Grange Hall Elementary, Swift Creek Middle
and Clover Hill High School Attendance Zones
South line of Genito Road
REQUEST:
Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12). THIS REQUEST LIES
WITHIN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AREA (CASE WAS FILED
ON JANUARY 12, 2004, AND AMENDED ON MARCH 19, 2004).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single family residential subdivision with a minimum lot size of 15,000 and
25,000 square feet is planned (Proffered Condition 19). The applicant has
proffered to limit development to a maximum of 215 dwelling units, yielding a
density of approximately 1.55 dwelling units per acre. (Proffered Condition 4)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON
PAGES 2 THROUGH 11.
AYES: MESSRS. GECKER, LITTON AND WILSON.
NAYS: MESSRS. BASS AND GULLEY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
The proposed zoning and land use complies with the Upper Swirl Creek Plan
which suggests the property is appropriate for residential development of 2.0
dwelling units per acre or less.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service
Bo
The proffered conditions adequately address the impacts of this development on
necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the need for transportation, schools, parks,
libraries and fire stations is identified in the County's adopted Public Facilities
Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvement Program and the impact of
this development is discussed herein. The proffered conditions adequately
mitigate the impact on capital facilities, thereby insuring that adequate service
levels are maintained as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of
County citizens.
The Upper Swift Creek Plan suggests that corridors along the perennial tributaries
of the Swift Creek Reservoir be preserved to maintain natural vegetation, wildlife
habitats, natural drainage patterns and the water quality of the reservoir, while
also permitting passive recreation. Therefore, the Plan recommends the provision
of conservation: passive recreation areas along Otterdale Branch. Proffered
Condition 17 provides for such an area.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS
NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE
COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY
BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(NOTE: PROFFERED CONDITIONS 4, 19 AND 20 HAVE BEEN REVISED
SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST.)
(STAFF/CPC)
1. The public water and wastewater systems shall be used. (U)
(STAFF/CPC) 2.
The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to
Chesterfield County, for infrastructure improvements within the
service district for the property.
Prior to the time of issuance of a building permit for each
dwelling unit, the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall
pay to the County of Chesterfield the following amounts
for infrastructure improvements within the service district
for the property:
ao
if payment is made prior to July 1, 2004, $9,000.00;
or
if payment is made after June 30, 2004, the amount
approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$9,000.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
2 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
Index between July 1, 2003, and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made.
Bo
At the option of the Transportation Department exercised
pursuant to proffer no. 20 below, and in lieu of the
amounts set forth in proffer no. 2.A above, the applicant,
subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay to the County of
Chesterfield prior to the time of issuance of a building
permit for each dwelling unit, the following amounts for
infrastructure improvements (excluding transportation)
within the service district for the property:
a. if payment is made prior to July 1, 2004, $5,453; or
bo
if payment is made after June 30, 2004, the amount
approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$5,453 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any
increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index between July 1, 2003, and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the payment is made.
At the option of the Transportation Department the cash
proffer payment may be reduced for road improvements by
an amount not to exceed the amount that would be paid in
cash proffers for the road component, exclusive of those
road improvements identified in Proffered Condition 11,
performed by the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s), as
determined by the Transportation Department.
In the event the cash payment is not used for which
proffered within 15 years of receipt, the cash shall be
returned in full to the payor.
Eo
Should any impact fees be imposed by Chesterfield County
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)
(STAFF/CPC) 3.
A one hundred (100) foot buffer shall be provided along Genito
Road. This buffer shall be located within recorded open space and
shall comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
(P)
(NOTE: PROFFERED CONDITION 4 HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST. SHOULD THE BOARD
3 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
WISH TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT
PROFFERED CONDITION 4, AS MODIFIED AND NOTED AS RECOMMENDED BY
"STAFF.")
(STAFF/CPC) 4.
The total number of residential dwelling units allowed on the
Property shall not exceed 248 dwelling units. (P)
(STAFF) 4.
The total number of residential dwelling units allowed on the
Property shall not exceed 215 dwelling units.
(STAFF/CPC) 5.
All dwelling units shall have a minimum gross floor area of 2500
square feet. (BI & P)
(STAFF/CPC) 6.
All dwelling units that provide a garage shall employ rear or side
entry garage designs. (BI & P)
(STAFF/CPC) 7.
All exposed portions of the foundation and exposed piers
supporting front porches of each new dwelling unit shall be faced
with brick or stone veneer or exterior insulation and finishing
systems (EIFS) materials. (BI & P)
(STAFF/CPC) 8.
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 installed. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC) 9.
Direct access from the property to Genito Road shall be limited to
two (2) public roads. The exact location of these accesses shall be
approved by the Transportation Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 10.
In conjunction with the recordation of the initial subdivision plat,
forty-five (45) feet of right of way on the south side of Genito
Road, measured from the centerline of that part of Genito Road
immediately adjacent to the property, shall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. (T)
(STAFF/CPC) 11.
To provide an adequate roadway system at the time of complete
development, the owner/developer shall be responsible for the
following:
ao
Construction of additional pavement along Genito Road at
each approved access to provide right and left turn lanes, if
warranted, based on Transportation Department standards;
Widening/improving the south side of Genito Road to an
eleven (11) foot wide travel lane, measured from the
existing centerline of the road, with an additional one (1)
4 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
foot wide paved shoulder plus a seven (7) foot wide
unpaved shoulder, and overlaying the full width of the road
with one and a half (1.5) inch of compacted bituminous
asphalt concrete, with any modifications approved by the
Transportation Department, for the entire property frontage
except along the eastern part of the property that is
approximately forty-five (45) feet in width;
Co
Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted,
any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for the
improvements identified above. In the event the developer
is unable to acquire any "off-site" right-of-way that is
necessary for any improvement described in proffer
condition 11, the developer may request, in writing, that the
County acquire such right-of-way as a public road
improvement. All costs associated with the acquisition of
the right-of-way shall be borne by the developer. In the
event the County chooses not to assist the developer in
acquisition of the "off-site" right-of-way, the developer
shall be relieved of the obligation to acquire the "off-site"
right-of-way and shall provide the road improvements
within available right-of-way as determined by the
Transportation Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)
12.
Prior to any construction plan approval, a phasing plan for the
required road improvements, as identified in Proffered Condition
11, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation
Department. (T)
(STAFF/CPC)
13.
Public Roads shall be constructed with concrete curb and gutter,
with the exception of non lot frontage roads which shall be
permitted to be constructed with road side ditch. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC)
14.
At a minimum, the following restrictive covenants shall be
recorded for the development.
Architectural Board - The Architectural Board shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over all original construction, modifications,
additions or alterations made on or to all existing improvements,
and the open space, if any, appurtenant thereto on all property. It
shall prepare and, on behalf of the Board of Directors, shall
promulgate design and development guidelines and application and
review procedures, all as part of the design and environmental
standards. The standards shall incorporate all restrictions and
guidelines relating to development and construction contained in
this Declaration as well as restrictions and guidelines with respect
to location of structures upon property, size of structures, driveway
and parking requirements, foundations and length of structures,
5 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
and landscaping requirements. Copies shall be available from the
Architectural Board for review. The guidelines and procedures
shall be those of the Association, and the Architectural Board shall
have sole and full authority to prepare and to amend the standards
available to Owners, builders, and developers who seek to engage
in development of or construction upon property within their
operations strictly in accordance therewith. The Architectural
Board shall initially consist of three (3) members, all appointed by
the Declarant. At such times as fifty percent (50%) of all property
within subject property has been developed, improved, and
conveyed to purchasers in the normal course of development and
sale, the Board of Directors of the Association shall have the right
to appoint a maximum of two (2) additional members. At no time
shall the Architectural Board have fewer than three members nor
more than five (5) members. At such time as one hundred percent
(100%) of ail property has been developed, improved, and
conveyed to purchasers in the normal course of development and
sale, the Board of Directors shall appoint all members of the
Architectural Board. The declarant may, at his option, delegate to
the Board of Directors its fight to appoint one or more members of
the Architectural Board. At all times, at least one (1) member of
the Architectural Board shall be a member of the Association, and
at least one (1) member shall be an architect licensed to practice in
the State of Virginia, who shail also be the Chairperson.
Mailboxes - Every improved lot shall be required to have a
mailbox with supporting post and streetlight of design and
installation as specified in the standards. Each lot owner shall be
responsible for the maintenance and operation of the fixture,
support, and mailbox.
Parking - Each property owner shall provide space for the parking
of automobiles off public streets prior to the occupancy of any
building or structure constructed on said property in accordance
with the standards.
Signs - No signs shall be erected or maintained on any property by
anyone including, but not limited to, the owner, a realtor, a
contractor, or a subcontractor, except as provided for in the
standards or except as may be required by legal proceedings.
Residentiai property identification and like signs not exceeding a
combined total of more than one (1) square foot may be erected
without the written permission of the Declarant or the Association.
Condition of Ground - It shail be the responsibility of each
property owner and tenant to prevent the development of any
unclean, unsightly, or unkempt conditions of buildings or grounds
6 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
on such property, which shall tend to substantially decrease the
beauty of the neighborhood as a whole or the specific area.
Minimum Square Footage - No plan required under these
Covenants will be approved unless the proposed house or structure
has a minimum square footage of enclosed dwelling space as
specified in the standards. Such minimum requirement for each lot
will be specified in each sales contract and stipulated in each deed.
The term "enclosed dwelling area" as used in these minimum size
requirements does not include garages, terraces, decks, open
porches, and the like areas.
Residential Use -
All lots shall be used for residential purposes exclusively.
The use of a portion of a dwelling on a lot as an office by
the owner or tenants thereof shall be considered a
residential use if such use does not create customer or client
traffic to and from the lot. No structure, except as herein
after provided, shall be erected, altered, placed, or
permitted to remain on any lot other than one (1) detached
single family dwelling and one (1) accessory building
which may include a detached private garage, provided the
use of such accessory building does not overcrowd the site
and provided further that such building is not used for any
activity normally conducted as business. Such accessory
building may not be constructed prior to the construction of
the main building.
A guest suite or like facility without a kitchen may be
included as part of the main dwelling or accessory building,
but such suite may not be rented or leased except as part of
the entire premises including the main dwelling and
provided, however, that such suite would not result in
overcrowding of the site.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not prohibit the
Developer from using a house as a model as provided in
this Declaration.
Exterior Structure Completion - The exterior of all houses and
other structures must be completed within one (1) year after the
construction of same shall have commenced, except where such
completion is impossible or would result in great hardship to the
owner or builder due to the strikes, fires, national emergency, or
natural calamities. Houses and other dwelling structures may not
be temporarily or permanently occupied until the exteriors thereof
have been completed. During the continuance of construction the
7 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
owner of the lot shall require the contractor to maintain the lot in a
reasonable clean and uncluttered condition.
Screened Areas - Each lot owner shall provide a screened area to
serve as a service yard and an area in which garbage receptacles,
fuel tanks, similar storage receptacles, electric and gas meters, air
conditioning equipment, clotheslines, and other unsightly objects
must be placed or stored in order to conceal them from view from
the road and adjacent properties. Plans for such screened area
delineating the size, design, texture, appearance, and location must
be approved by the Architectural Board prior to construction.
Garbage receptacles and fuel tanks may be located outside of such
screened area only if located underground.
Vehicle Storage - No mobile home, trailer, tent, barn, or other
similar out-building or structure shall be placed on any lot at any
time, either temporarily or permanently. Boats, boat trailers,
campers, recreational vehicles, or utility trailers may be maintained
on a lot, but only when in an enclosed or screened area approved
by the Architectural Board such that they are not generally visible
from adjacent properties.
Temporary Structures - No structure of a temporary character shall
be placed upon any lot at any time provided, however, that this
prohibition shall not apply to shelter or temporary structures used
by the contractor during the construction of the main dwelling
house, it being clearly understood that these latter temporary
shelters may not at any time be used as residences or permitted to
remain on the lot after completion of construction. The design and
color of structures temporarily placed on the lot by a contractor
shall be subject to reasonable aesthetic control by the Architectural
Board.
Antennas - No television antenna, radio receiver or sender, or
other similar device shall be attached to or installed on the exterior
portion of any building or structure or any lot, except as permitted
by applicable law and except that should cable television services
be unavailable and good television reception not be otherwise
available, a lot owner may make written application to the
Association for permission to install a television antenna and such
permission shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Further Subdivision - No lot shall be subdivided or its boundary
lines changed, nor shall applications for same be made to
Chesterfield County, except with the written consent of the
Declarant. However, the Declarant hereby expressly reserves to
itself, its successors, or assigns the right to replat any lot or lots
owned by it and shown on the plat of any subdivision in order to
8 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
create a modified building lot or a replatted lot suitable and fit as a
building site including, but not limited to, the recreational
facilities, and other amenities to conform to the new boundaries of
said replatted lots, provided that no lot originally shown on a
recorded plat is reduced to a size smaller than the smallest lot
shown on the first plat of subdivision. However the interpretation
of the paragraph shall not prohibit the combining of two (2) or
more contiguous lots into one (1) larger lot, only the exterior
boundary lines of the resulting larger lot shall be considered in the
interpretation of these covenants.
Animals - Only common household pet animals shall be permitted.
All pet animals must be secured by a leash or lead, or be under the
control of a responsible person and obedient to that person's
command at any time they are permitted outside a residence or
other enclosed area upon a lot approved by the Architectural Board
for the maintenance and confinement of pet animals. No livestock
including cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, or poultry shall be
permitted upon any lot. After giving a lot owner written notice of
complaint and reasonable opportunity to remedy the situation, the
Board of Directors may order the removal of any pet, which has
been a nuisance or a danger.
Motor Bikes All Terrain Vehicles - No motor bikes, motorcycles,
or all terrain vehicles shall be driven upon the common area, lots,
or roads (unless properly licensed on roads) with the exception of
licensed vehicles and mopeds which shall be operated solely upon
the public streets for direct ingress and egress purposes only.
External Lighting -No external lighting shall be installed or
utilized on any property, which is of such character, intensity, or
location as to interfere with the use, enjoyment, and privacy of any
lot or owner in the near vicinity. No neon or flashing lights shall
be permitted. All external lighting shall be approved by the
Architectural Board as appropriate in size, location, color, and
intensity.
Swimming Pools - No swimming pool, whether in ground or
above ground, whether permanent or temporary, shall be installed
upon any lot without the prior written consent of the Architectural
Board. The Architectural Board shall require that all swimming
pools be adequately screened.
Rules and Regulations - The Board of Directors is granted and
shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations, from
time to time, governing the use of and activity upon the Common
Area and the Recreational Facilities (if the Recreational Facilities
are owned or leased by the Association). All rules and regulations
9 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
promulgated by the Board of Directors shall be published and
distributed to each member of the Association at least thirty (30)
days prior to their effective date. (P)
(STAFF/CPC)
15. The two (2) southern most existing ponds shall be retained. (EE)
(STAFF/CPC)
16. Development on the Property shall be phased as follows:
No lots shall be recorded prior to January 1, 2006
No more than one hundred (100) lots shall be recorded
prior to January 1, 2007.
No more than a cumulative total of two hundred (200) lots
shall be recorded prior to January 1, 2008.
The remaining lots shall be recorded after January 1, 2008.
(P)
(STAFF/CPC) 17.
The developer shall provide a trail along the length of Otterdale
Branch from the eastern to western parcel boundaries. The exact
length, width and treatment of the trail shall be approved by the
Parks and Recreation Department. The trail shall be dedicated to
the county or an easement granted to the county, or shall be owned
and maintained by the Homeowners Association. (P&R)
(STAFF/CPC) 18.
Temporary sediment basins shall remain in place and/or new
BMP's constructed to achieve the 0.22 phosphorous standard until
the downstream regional BMP into which the development will
drain has been constructed. (EE)
(NOTE: PROFFERED CONDITION 19 HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUBSEQUENT TO
THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST. SHOULD THE
BOARD WISH TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO
ACCEPT PROFFERED CONDITION 19 AS MODIFIED AND NOTED AS
RECOMMENDED BY "STAFF".)
(STAFF/CPC)
19. All lots shall have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. (P)
(STAFF) 19.
All lots shall have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet except
that any lot immediately adjacent to Genito Road and any lot along
the Western Property line adjacent to Tax ID# 698-689-6647 shall
have a minimum lot area of 25,000 square feet. (P)
(NOTE: PROFFERED CONDITION 20 HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUBSEQUENT TO
THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST. SHOULD THE
BOARD WISH TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO
ACCEPT PROFFERED CONDITION 20, AS MODIFIED AND NOTED AS
RECOMMENDED BY "STAFF".)
10 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
(STAFF/CPC) 20.
(STAFF) 20.
Location:
At the option of the Transportation Department, which option shall
be exercised in writing no earlier than the recordation of a
subdivision plat and no later than the issuance of a building permit,
the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall comply with the
obligations of proffer no. 2.B and, also, shall either: (i) pay to the
County of Chesterfield the sum of $880,000 for transportation
improvements describe below or (ii) provide the County with a
bond or surety, in a form acceptable to the County Attomey, in the
amount of $880,000 that shall provide for payment of the $880,000
to the County within thirty (30) days of written request by the
Transportation Department. In either event, the $880,000 payment
shall be used by the County for the construction of Genito Road
improvements within Traffic Shed No. 6. (T and B&M)
At the option of the Transportation Department, which option shall
be exercised in writing no earlier than the recordation of a
subdivision plat and no later than the issuance of a building permit,
the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall comply with the
obligations of proffer no. 2.B and, also shall either: (i) pay to the
County of Chesterfield the sum of $763,000 for transportation
improvements describe below or (ii) provide the County with a
bond or surety, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, in the
amount of $763,000 that shall provide for payment of the $763,000
to the County within thirty (30) days of written request by the
Transportation Department. In either event, the $763,000 payment
shall be used by the County for the construction of Genito Road
improvements within Traffic Shed No. 6. (T)
GENERAL INFORMATION
South of Genito Road, west of Mount Hermon Road.
4363 and 701-689-Part of 1119 (Sheet 8).
Existing Zoning:
Agricultural (A)
Size:
138.7 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single family residential and vacant
Tax IDs 699-690-5223, 700-688-
11 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North and West - A; Single family residential or vacant
South and East - A; Public/semi-public (Homer Park), single family residential or vacant
UTILITIES
Public Water System:
A sixteen (16) inch water line extends along the north side of Genito Road and terminates
700 feet west of Weatherbury Place, approximately 10,000 feet east of the request site.
Use of the public water system is intended and has been proffered. (Proffered Condition
l)
Public Wastewater System:
A twenty-four (24) inch wastewater trunk line extends along a portion of Otterdale
Branch and terminates adjacent to the western boundary of Summer Lake Subdivision,
Section 1, approximately 10,000 feet east of this site. Use of the public wastewater
system is intended and has been proffered. (Proffered Condition 1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The property drains south to Otterdale Branch to Swirl Creek Reservoir. There are
currently no on- or off-site drainage and erosion problems, with none anticipated after
development. The property is partially wooded and should not be timbered without first
obtaining a land disturbance permit from the Environmental Engineering Department
(Proffered Condition 8). This will insure adequate erosion control measures are in place
prior to any timbering.
Water Quality:
This portion of Otterdale Branch is a perennial stream and is therefore is subject to a one
hundred (100) foot conservation area in which there are very limited uses.
The property must participate in the regional BMP program. A regional BMP is
proposed within Homer Park through which the entire property will drain prior to
entering Swift Creek Reservoir. Another regional BMP is located on the southwest
comer of the property through which a small portion of this property will drain.
Proffered Condition 18 requires temporary sediment basins remain in place and/or new
BMP's constructed to achieve the 0.22 phosphorus standard until the downstream
regional BMP into which the development will drain has been constructed.
Staff recommends that the larger pond in the middle of the property remain. Proffered
Condition 15 provides that the two (2) southern most existing ponds shall be retained.
12 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for fire, school, library, park and transportation facilities is identified in the Public
Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program. This development
will have an impact on these facilities.
Fire Service:
The Public Facilities Plan indicates that Emergency Services calls are expected to
increase forty-five (45) percent by 2015. Seven (7) new tire/rescue stations are
recommended for construction by 2015 in the Plan. Based on 215 dwelling units, this
request will generate approximately 39 calls for fire and emergency medical services
each year.
The Swift Creek Fire Station, Company Number 16, currently provides fire protection
and emergency medical service. The applicant has addressed the impacts of this
development on these facilities in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Policy.
(Proffered Condition 2)
When the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed for
fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review
process.
Schools:
Approximately 114 students will be generated by this development. This site lies in the
Grange Hall Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 828, enrollment - 628; Swift
Creek Middle School zone: capacity - 1,027, enrollment - 1,456; and Clover Hill High
School zone: capacity - 1,582, enrollment - 2,006.
This request will have an impact on the middle and high schools involved. There are
currently ten (10) trailers at Swift Creek Middle and seventeen (17) trailers at Clover Hill
High.
One (1) new high school is proposed that will provide relief for Clover Hill and
Manchester High Schools. The applicant has agreed to participate in the cost of
providing for area school needs in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Policy.
(Proffered Condition 2)
Libraries:
Consistent with Board of Supervisors' Policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed Countywide. Based on projected population growth, the Public
Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space throughout the County. Even
if the facility improvements that have been made since the Plan was published are taken
into account, there is still an unmet need for additional library space throughout the
County.
13 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
Development in this area would most likely impact the existing Midlothian or Clover Hill
Libraries. Continued development in this area will more likely impact a proposed new
facility in the Genito-Powhite area. The Public Facilities Plan indicates a need for
additional library space in this area of the County. The applicant has offered measures to
assist in addressing the impact of this development on library facilities in accordance
with the Board of Supervisors' Policy. (Proffered Condition 2)
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for four (4) new regional parks. In addition,
there is currently a shortage of community park acreage in the County. The Public
Facilities Plan identifies a need for 625 acres of regional park space and 116 acres of
community park space by 2015. The Plan also identifies the need for neighborhood parks
and special propose parks and makes suggestions for their locations and identifies the
unmet demand for greenways. This development will have an impact on parks and
recreation facilities. The applicant has offered measures to assist in addressing the
impact of this proposed development on these facilities in accordance with the Board of
Supervisors' Policy. (Proffered Condition 2)
The Upper Swift Creek Plan suggests that corridors along the perennial tributaries of
Swift Creek Reservoir should be preserved to maintain natural vegetation, wildlife
habitats, natural drainage patterns and the water quality of the reservoir, while also
permitting passive recreation for residents or employees in adjoining developments.
Therefore, the Plan recommends the provision of conservation: passive recreation areas
along Otterdale Branch. Proffered Condition 17 requires the developer to construct a trail
along Otterdale Branch.
Transportation:
The property (139 acres) is currently zoned Agricultural (A). The applicant is requesting
rezoning to Residential (R-12) and has proffered a maximum density of 215 units
(Proffered Condition 4). Based on single-family trip rates, development could generate
approximately 2,100 average daily trips. These vehicles will initially be distributed along
Genito Road, which had a 2003 traffic count of 4,483 vehicles per day.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Genito Road as a major arterial with a recommended
right of way width of ninety (90) feet. The applicant has proffered to dedicate forty-five
(45) feet of right of way on Genito Road, measured from the centerline, in accordance
with that Plan. (Proffered Condition 10)
Access to major arterials, such as Genito Road, should be controlled. The applicant has
proffered to limit direct access to Genito Road to two (2) public roads (Proffered
Condition 9). These accesses should be located towards the eastern and western property
lines, approximately one thousand (1000) feet apart.
The traffic impact of this development must be addressed. The applicant has proffered to:
1) construct additional pavement along Genito Road at each approved access to provide
left and right turn lanes based on Transportation Department standards; 2) improve
14 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
Genito Road along the property frontage to provide an eleven (11) foot wide travel lane, a
one (1) foot paved shoulder and a seven (7) foot unpaved shoulder; and 3) provide a full
width overlay of Genito Road along the property frontage (Proffered Condition 11).
Based on Transportation Department standards, both right and left turn lanes are
warranted at each access.
Constructing the turn lanes along Genito Road may require the developer to acquire some
"off-site" right-of-way. According to Proffered Condition 11, if the developer is unable
to acquire the off-site right-of-way for the mm lanes along Genito Road, the developer
may request the county to acquire the right-of-way as a public road improvement. All
costs associated with the acquisition will be borne by the developer. If the county
chooses not to assist with the fight-of-way acquisition, the developer will not be obligated
to acquire the "off-site" right-of-way and will only be obligated to construct road
improvements within available right-of-way.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires that subdivision streets conform to the Planning
Commission's Stub Road Policy, which suggests that traffic volumes on those streets
should not exceed an acceptable level of 1,500 vehicles per day. In accordance with the
Stub Road Policy, residential collector streets may be required through parts of the
property; especially those streets that will serve future development on adjacent
properties. Specific recommendations regarding the need for these residential collector
streets will be addressed at time of tentative subdivision review.
Most area roads in this part of the county have little or no shoulders, fixed objects
adjacent to the edge of pavement, and poor vertical and horizontal alignments. The roads
need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic generated
by this development. Genito Road will be directly impacted by development of this
property. Sections of this road have approximately twenty (20) feet of pavement with no
shoulders. Genito Road can accommodate (Level of Service C) the volume of traffic it
currently carries. As development continues in this part of the county, traffic volumes on
area roads will substantially increase. The applicant has proffered to contribute cash, in
an amount consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Policy, towards mitigating the
traffic impact of this development (Proffered Condition 2). According to Proffered
Conditions, at the option of the Transportation Department, the applicant will pay a
reduced cash proffer amount for each dwelling unit and provide payment to the County in
the amount of $763,000 for the construction of Genito Road improvements within Traffic
Shed 6 (Proffered Conditions 2, 20). Cash proffers alone will not cover the cost of the
improvements needed to accommodate the traffic increases. There are no public road
improvements for this area currently included in the Six-Year Improvement Plan.
At time of tentative subdivision review, specific recommendations will be provided
regarding access locations, stub roads to adjacent properties, and the proposed internal
street network.
15 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER UNIT
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units 215' 1.00
Population Increase 584.80 2.72
Number of New Students
Elementary 51.60 0.24
Middle 27.95 0.13
High 36.55 0.17
TOTAL 116.10 0.54
Net Cost for Schools 1,042,105 4,847
Net Cost for Parks 148,995 693
Net Cost for Libraries 80,625 375
Net Cost for Fire Stations 86,215 401
Average Net Cost for Roads 883,435 4,109
TOTAL NET COST 2,241,375 10,425
*Based on a proffered maximum number of units. (Proffered Condition 4)
As noted, this proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has
calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, roads, parks, libraries, and
fire stations at $10,425 per unit. The applicant has been advised that a maximum proffer of
$9,000 per unit would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed
development.
The applicant has offered cash to assist in defraying the cost of this proposed zoning on such
capital facilities (Proffered Condition 2). The cash proffer provides for the option to accept a
lump sum payment for the transportation impact in lieu of a per dwelling unit cash payment
while still adequately addressing the impact of this development on the schools, parks, libraries,
and fire station facilities. Under either option, the proffer adequately addresses the impact of this
development on capital facilities consistent with the Board of Supervisors policy.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 2.0 dwelling units per acre or less. Staff has begun the
process of amending the Upper Swift Creek Plan. Given the pending amendment, the
Board of Supervisors has indicated its intent to defer final action on residential cases filed
after February 11, 2004, which are located within the area of the Upper Swift Creek Plan
16 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
for a period of up to one (1) year. Such deferral would allow the Board time to review
recommendations or changes to the Plan and evaluate new zoning proposals accordingly.
This application was filed on January 12, 2004, on 115 acres. The case was amended on
March 19, 2004, to increase the acreage proposed for rezoning to a total of 138.7 acres.
Area Development Trends:
Area properties are zoned Agricultural (A) and are occupied by public/semi-public uses
(Homer Park), single family residential dwellings on larger acreage parcels or are vacant.
Residential development at densities consistent with the Plan is expected to continue in
this area.
Site Development:
Proffered Condition 4 limits the total number of dwelling units allowed on the property to
215 dwelling units, yielding a density of approximately 1.55 dwelling units per acre.
Proffered Condition 19 requires all lots have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,
except that lots adjacent to Genito Road and any lot adjacent to the western property
boundary will have a minimum lot area of 25,000 square feet.
House Size and Architectural Treatment:
Proffered conditions address minimum house size, foundation treatment and garage door
orientation. (Proffered Conditions 5, 6 and 7)
Phasing:
In response to concerns of the Matoaca District Commissioner relative to the impact of
the development on area roads and schools, a proffered condition requires phasing of the
development. Ultimate build out will not occur until January 1, 2008, or later. (Proffered
Condition 16)
Buffers:
Proffered Condition 3 requires that a 100 foot buffer be maintained along Genito Road.
To preserve the integrity of this buffer, the proffered condition requires this area be
located within recorded open space, thereby becoming the responsibility of the
homeowners' association. (Proffered Condition 3)
Restrictive Covenants:
Proffered Condition 14 provides that restrictive covenants shall be recorded for the
development. It should be noted that the County will only insure the recordation of the
covenants and will not be responsible for their enforcement. Once the covenants are
recorded, they can be changed. (Proffered Condition 14)
17 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed zoning and land use complies with the Upper Swirl Creek Plan which suggests the
property is appropriate for residential development of 2.0 dwelling units per acre or less
(Proffered Condition 4). In addition, a proffered condition establishes a conservation: passive
recreation area along Otterdale Creek as recommended by the Plan. (Proffered Condition 17)
The proffered conditions adequately address the impact of this development on necessary capital
facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, in accordance with
the Board of Supervisors' Policy. The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations and
transportation facilities is identified in the County's adopted Public Facilities Plan, the Capital
Improvement Program and the Thoroughfare Plan and the impact of this development is
discussed herein. The proffered conditions adequately mitigate the impact on capital facilities in
accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Policy and thereby ensure that adequate service levels
are maintained as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of County citizens.
Given these considerations, approval of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (5/18/04):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation, providing that the alternative payment
schedule for the cash proffer was made at the request of the Matoaca District
Commissioner.
There was opposition present. Citizens expressed concerns relative to increased traffic
on existing roads, over-crowded schools, potential environmental impacts, Plan
recommendations to control growth and rural character of area. One (1) person spoke in
support of the request.
Mr. Bass stated he disagrees with staff and finds the request does not comply with the
phasing recommendation of the Plan as he interprets it. He believes the development is
premature since the current Plan is being revised. He added that there is a lack of
infrastructure in the area to support the development and he is concerned with inadequate
road conditions and schools impacts.
Mr. Gulley agreed that the request does not comply with the Plan and that the County
needs to manage growth in this area. He stated that roads are dangerous and fire and
EMS response times are not acceptable. He stated that he could not support the case
based on health and safety issues.
A motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Gulley, to deny the request did not carry. There
was no alternate motion, therefore the case was deferred to the Commission's June 15,
2004, public hearing.
18 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
AYES: Messrs. Bass and Gulley.
NAYS: Messrs. Litton and Wilson.
ABSENT: Mr. Gecker.
Staff (5/19/04):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than May 24, 2004, for consideration at the Commission's
June 15, 2004, public hearing.
Applicant (5/24/04):
The applicant submitted a revision to Proffered Condition 14 relative to antennas.
Applicant (6/15/04):
The applicant submitted revisions to Proffered Conditions 3 and 4 increasing the buffer
along Genito Road and reducing the permitted number of lots. In addition, at the request
of the County Attorney's Office, the applicant revised Proffered Condition 2 and
submitted an additional proffered condition to address the impact of the development on
capital facilities. (Proffered Conditions 2 and 20.)
Planning Commission Meeting (6/15/04):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was opposition present. Citizens
expressed concerns relative to increased traffic on existing roads, emergency service
response times, school overcrowding, environmental impacts, a need to control growth
and rural character of the area. One (1) person spoke in support of the request.
Mr. Bass stated the proposed development does not comply with the Plan and is
premature. He stated he is concerned there is a lack of infrastructure to support the
development and that area roads and schools are inadequate.
Mr. Gulley stated the request should be denied because of health, safety and welfare
concerns citing poor road conditions and inadequate emergency response times.
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Litton provided the request does comply with the Plan and the cash
proffer provided addresses the impact on capital facilities.
Mr. Gecker stated the case is consistent with the policies established by Board of
Supervisors and the Commission must act in accordance with those policies. He added
19 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
that new homes are going to be built and he felt it was better for them to be constructed
where cash proffer can be selected to assist with capital facilities.
A motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Gulley, to deny the request, did not carry.
AYES: Messrs. Bass and Gulley.
NAYS: Messrs. Gecker, Litton and Wilson.
On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Litton, the Commission recommended
approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 through 11.
AYES: Messrs. Gecker, Litton, and Wilson.
NAYS: Messrs. Bass and Gulley.
Applicant (7/19/04):
The applicant submitted revisions to Proffered Conditions 4 and 20 to reduce the number
of lots permitted within the development and an additional proffered condition to increase
the minimum lot area for lots adjacent to Genito Road and along the western property
boundary. (Proffered Condition 21).
Applicant (7/21/04):
The applicant withdrew Proffered Condition 21 and revised Proffered Condition 19 to
increase the minimum lot area for lots adjacent to Genito Road and along the western
property boundary.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (7/28/04):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to August 25, 2004.
Staff (7/29/04):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than August 2, 2004, for consideration at the Board's August
public hearing.
Staff (8/13/04):
To date, no new information has been presented.
20 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, August 25, 2004, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
21 04SN0205-AUG25-BOS
I
I
I
I
/IMT. HER/140N
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
%
%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It
I ~
I
I
I
Z
0
n,'
0
!
!
~OI/X,I
I
I
!
I
I
1
~ NOIAI}:I3H
0
LLI
Z
/
SENATE Of VIRGINIA
STEPHEN H. MARTIN
March 5, 2004
COMMI~rEE ASSIGNMENTS:
Ms. Jodie Felice
15507 Fox Club War
Midlothian, Virginia 23112
Dear Ms. Felice:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter expressing your concern for growth in our community without adequate public
facilities being provided to support the growth. You specifically asked that I support SB393.
I do share your concern for roads and schools not keeping pace with growth. There are two major problems with
SB393. Rmt, it provided no requirement or incentive to build adequate facilities. It only provided authority to the local
governments to deny development of property already zoned. It allowed the applicants to re-file but provided no
assurance that it would not be denied again.
The second problem is that the zoning of a piece of property is an asset of value in and of itself in that it tells you that
you now have a right to do a certain thing with the properly you own. The property owner has a vested right in that
approved use which is protected by Virginia's constitution (Article !, Section 2). To deny that right once zoned, would
constitute a taking of property which requires compensation be paid to those who are denied.
The discussion in Chesterfield about what a local Board of Supervisom can or cannot do has been confusing at best.
It has been represented that our Board cannot deny zoning on the basis of "inadequate public facilities". The property
right does not exist for a zoning not yet attained. Their only restriction is that they cannot be "arbitrary or capricious"
in their decision to deny zoning. It is this Attorney General's opinion lhat to deny zoning solely on the grounds that the
local government has not done their job in meeting infrastructure needs is prohibited.
Some have asked citizens to encourage me and other legislators to support SB 393 on the grounds that it would
allow local governments to deny zoning (something they can already do). SB393 has nothing to do with zoning. That
bill would allow Iocalitios to deny the development of properly already zoned (a vested property right) on the grounds
that the denying entity has failed to do its own job. I cannot support that. The bill garnered no real support in
committee even though it was the chairman's bill.
I do thank you for your input and share your concern but local geveming bodies need to keep up with what they zone
and when they might need a new school end/or road improvement and then get it done. If cost versus revenues is a
problem, then local ofrmials must exercise their judgment as
to spending priorities within that community and how
much, in taxes, the citizens am willing to bear to support those priorfties, Citizens then need to hold them
accountable at the ballot. I am confident we will get the work done with the help of our local Board.
Even though your letter did not refer to the specific problem of transportation and traffic on Rt. 360, I do want to
address it. It is a serious problem. When Rt. 288 was approved for construction it required so much of the
Page 2
March 5, 2004
construction money that other projects were cut back. Later on Govemor Wamer, upon identification of additional
' funding issues, cut further projects. It was at that point that the scheduled work on Rt. 360 was cancelled. I, along
with my House and Senate colleagues from the area, am working with the local Board of Supervisors to address this
and other transportation needs.
Again, I thank you for your input and encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts, ideas and positions on issues
that come before me in the legislative process,
August 5, 2003
Honorable Jerry Kilgore
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Jerry:
We were gratified to meet with you and Christopher Nolan on Monday, July 21, 2003.
We appreciated the time and expertise you brought to our discussion on the issues
pertinent to "responsible growth" in our Commonwealth, as well as those issues
specifically affecting Counties experiencing high growth and sprawl in our state.
We realize the growth/development issue is complex. Several points were made that were
interesting to us. The fact that the General Assembly has provided tools for counties,
such as Level of Service Standards, which can be implemented through Comprehensive
Plans and County ordinances provide reassurance. As mentioned, Counties have the
unique opportunity to manage growth particularly at the rezoning level using measures
such as fiscal impact analysis, level of service standards and denial of rezoning cases.
Our discussion of Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) was also important to
understand. Often, County officials and planners feel the lack of APFO's limits the
ability to manage growth. The present and future costs associated with growth have now
forced many Counties to reexamine their planning strategies, examine proffers fees,
revise their plans and most importantly, make hard political decisions necessary to
address managing growth. It is here that we see the need for additional information at the
local level as well as leadership from the State.
As further mentioned, the states of Florida, Pennsylvania and Maryland have taken steps
to initiate programs to move towards "Smart Growth". Specific programs have been
developed to acquire and preserve conservation areas. Much attention is also being given
to open spaces and conserving natural resources. Many suburban areas concerned with
the impact from urban sprawl are now beginning to understand the important aspects of
balancing growth and land preservation. We encourage these types of initiatives to create,
maintain and enhance livable communities.
We look forward to hearing from Chris regarding past and current legislation and the
information/recommendations from the Commission on Growth and Economic
Development. The Upper Swift Creek Taskforce for Responsible Growth will continue to
work with our representatives in Chesterfield County. As we see growing support from
other "smart growth and high growth coalitions", we envision a Commission with
representatives from local and state agencies, interested individuals, developers and
professionals with the background and expertise to provide recommendations to the
General Assembly and local governing entities on responsible growth.
Sincerely,
Marleen K. Durfee
Greg Blake
Cc: Christopher Nolan, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors - Art Warren,
Chairman, Jack McHale, Vice Chair, Renny Humphrey, Ed Barber, Kelly Miller, Senator
John Watkins, Delegate Lee Ware, Senator Steve Martin, Delegate Sam Nixon, Lane
Ramsey, Tom Jacobson, and Taskforce members
August 24, 2004
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Courthouse Complex
Chesterfield, Virginia
Dear Madam and Sirs:
My name is George C. Marshall and I am the former owner of the Balsamo property. I
have lived in Chesterfield County fbr most of my life, and I maintain a residence in the
Brandermill community where I have lived fbr many years with my wife, Eleanor. Prior
to Mr. Balsamo, I owned the subject property fbr over 40 years, and over the years I have
witnessed a majority of the growth that exists today. I remember when the reservoir was
just a series of connecting swamps, in a time when very few people lived in this part of
the County.
While I reflect fbndly on all the years that i have lived in this area, I also understand that
growth is inevitable and in the best interests of the County. I have seen many other rural
areas become developed into communities that provide homes fbr a majority of the
County's residents~ including most of the people in this part of the County. In fact, I
hunted for many years in the area that is now' Brandermill and Woodlake.
Regarding the future, most people in this area are aware of the plans to extend the
Powhite Expressway very near this property. Further, I watched as the County planned,
and then constructed, the parks on the fbrmer Horner properties that bordered our
property. I listened carefully as plans to construct a regional BMP, intended to
accommodate growth from our property westward to the County line, were presented to
me, and I agreed to consider the request because in knew that growth would, and should,
soon come to this area.
Therefore, based upon the fbregoing, coupled with my understanding that Mr. Balsamo's
request confbrms to the Comprehensive Plan, has the support of the Planning Staff and
the approval of the Planning Commission, I ask that you vote to support this case.
Finally, 1 also would like to note that Mr. Balsamo has proven himself to me to be a man
of excellent character, and has always been honest and straightfbrward in our dealings.
Respectfully Submitted,
· George C. Marshall
Mr. Chairman and members of the Board:
My name is Nat Wooding. I live at 1000 Hallsboro Road which is in the Midlothian district just north of
Mt. Hermon Road. I am opposed to the Balsamo proposal and to any similar development in the Upper
Swift Creek area until the road network is improved considerably. Whenever I cite traffic volumes, I will
refer to 2003 statistics from the county web site.
The planning commission staff report of early July estimates some new 2400 trips per day from the
Balsamo tract. This is about 50% of the traffic currently traveling on Genito Road in the Mt. Hermon
Church area.
If this were the only development proposed for the Moseley area, I would be concerned but not alarmed.
However, as I'm sure you know, there has been a proposal to develop the nearby 146-acre Lacey Farm
tract and that a representative of owners of some 850 nearby acres has spoken twice at Planning
Commission meetings in favor of this zoning change. If these tracts are developed at similar rates, we can
easily estimate an additional 17,000 trips per day. If this traffic were to only use Genito east of Mt.
Hermon Road, the new levels in that vicinity would be around 21,000 trips per day and this segment
would be the ninth most heavily traveled secondary road in the county. Only parts of Courthouse Road,
Hopkins Road and Robious Road have higher volumes. Traffic on Genito would have to travel more than
five miles to reach four lane highway.
The slide "Traffic Count by Year" shows the daily traffic level along segments of Genito Road for the last
13 years. As you can see, new traffic volume such as I suggest will more than double overall traffic and
that western traffic levels will resemble those now seen near Hull Street.
As Mr. Martin suggests, I believe that some of the traffic will use Mt. Hermon Road. If 30% of the new
traffic or some 6000 new trips per day uses Mt. Hermon, then traffic levels will rise by about 30-fold on
some segments. Again, traffic will travel on a poorly built road for more than five miles before reaching
adequate roadways.
Weight-limit restrictions on Genito and Mt. Hermon (10 and 12 tons) will make at least some
construction traffic approach the developments from the west which will mean that all of the two-lane
parts of Genito Road will need improvement and/or more frequent maintenance.
What do these traffic volumes mean in construction dollars for improvements to existing roads? At a
rough figure of $5,000,000 per mile, the 8 miles of Genito from the Powhatan County line to Old
Hundred Road intersection would cost some $40,000,000 (ignoring the proffered road improvements).
Add another $25,000,000 for Mt. Hermon Road and the cost rises to $65,000,000. When will Chesterfield
have access to this much money, especially in view of other needed road construction? I know that
discussions about extending Rt. 76 are ongoing but I know of no guarantee that this road will be built in
the near future.
I hope that you will agree with me that the western Chesterfield roads are inadequate for the probable new
traffic levels and that until these roads are improved, dense development in the Upper Swift Creek area is
unwise. Please deny this zoning request.
Respectfully submitted,
N. H. Wooding
__0
0
__0
C~
0
Members of the Board
My name is Peter Martin and I live at 2401 Mount Hermon Road and I would like to
speak tonight in opposition to rezoning case # 04SN0205 Balsamo. The impact of this
development for Mt Hermon Road seems sketchy at best. The fact that Mt. Hermon
Road will become a major connector road to Route 60 is not even addressed in the
Planning staffs report. Its impact on the traffic safety has not been factored into this
plan. Mt Hermon Road from Genito to Old Hundred is a narrow curvy road with no
shoulders and high banks, the distance is 4.1 miles. On Mt Hermon Road a neighbor's
daughter was killed in a car crash on the heavily traveled Old Hundred. This past month
the sister of a good friend was killed on Otterdale Road in a car crash when her vehicle
was struck by a truck carrying construction material. Each house that is built in this
project will generate 37 trips one way of heavy construction type trucks. That is 74 trips
per house and a total of 15910 for the Balsamo project and this is just the tip of the
iceberg. What you are proposing is going to create a more heavily traveled road which
will become one of the most dangerous in the county. Currently approximately 200 cars
a day travel Mt Hermon and if only 1/3 of 2100 trips a day from the Balsamo project
travel to route 60 that will more than triple the traffic. I hope you are willing to face the
moral responsibility for the deaths and injuries that will occur if this proposed
development occurs.
The distance from the edge of Balsamo property to the entrance ramp for 288 going to
the West End and jobs in the West Creek is approximately 6.5 miles and this is a toll free
road. The distance from the Balsamo property to where you can go to either rt 288 east
(free)~i~lll~ or Powhite (toll) is 6.8 miles.
Improving the roads in this area is not in the six year plan and is not in the foreseeable
future. It's strange that the proposed Powhite Extension is only a line on a map and is
going to provide traffic relief when it not funded in any transportation plans in the
foreseeable future. When built it will be a toll road.
R-12 density became an issue when the Upper Swift Plan was revised and the reason
that it occurred according to a conversation that Mr. Lushch had with Mrs. Humphrey on
May 26,2004 was because of a water agreement between Powhatan and Chesterfield. I
spoke with Mr. Bob Cosby, chairman, Powhatan County Board Supervisors, who has
been on the board since 1972 and he did not know of one. He called me back after
checking with both counties planning departments and said no water agreement existed.
In between these conversations on Monday Mrs. Humphrey called me and she didn't
know anything know about this agreement. Because of this so called agreement R-12
had to be in place to make running the water lines to the Powhatan County line
economically feasible.
Please deny this development until the County has the roads to accommodate the
increased traffic generated for this area and the Upper Swift Creek Plan is revised. The
fact that Mt Hermon Rd has not been factored in as a connector road to route 60 shows
how flawed the report by planning is at this point. That is why you need to deny case #
04SN0205 until the Upper Swift Creek Plan is revised.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I am Ki~. Mr. Barber was quoted
saying you will look to Ms. Humphrey for direction on this case. I ask you to listen to
your citizens and look to your conscience. The issue of schools has been difficult to
address because of conflicting information from various county staff. Our specific
concems have focused on Swift Creek Middle School, which is at 143% enrollment and
Grange Hall, currently under capacity but an impossible situation !f the proposed cases
are approved. One of our major arguments against allowing the proposed development is
that the infrastructure is not in place with no funds to provide it. We are told the bond
referendum will pay for needed schools but that will not be voted on until November and
may not pass. So, our first problem is that Dr. Owens-Bailey assured us these facilities
will be funded with money that is not guaranteed. It is possible there may not be funds for
schools in any'location. But, if approved, the subdivision will be built. Children will live
there and need classrooms no matter what.
Conditions at Swirl Creek Middle are appalling. Backpacks are forbidden because of
injuries in overcrowded halls. Students travel between trailers and main building in rain
and snow. Picture YOUR child soaking wet and cold. Add to the picture a full bladder
because the bathroom line is long and time between classes short. Not conducive to
leaming, is it? If the bond issue passes, even when the board determines location, it takes
a minimum of three years under ideal conditions and normally longer to build a middle
school. Where will the additional students from the proposed subdivisions go to school?
Remember, Swift Creek is already at 143%. Bailey Bridge is already at 100%. Today.
Before the new subdivision is built. Grange Hall is a great school and presently is under
capacity. However, it's on well and septic and cannot accommodate trailers. New
development would bring additional student enrollment. The county estimates only 158
new students in this case. In a subdivision of 1,000 bedrooms, I find it naive to estimate
only 158 school children. Perhaps the school administration assumes the subdivision's
families will practice better birth control than my family did.. Ms. Humphrey assured us
last week our fears were unfounded because a new elementary school would be
completed in 2007 in Hampton Park. However, that assurance lacks credibility.
According to School Administration, an elementary school IS planned in that area
(assuming bond approval) but the land has not even been purchased. The Public Facilities
Plan promises it by 2012. However, it's designated as relief for Spring Run Elementary,
already at 136% capacity, as well as Grange H_a!l. This ,school will immediately be at or
above capacity. Today s excess enrollment at ~~ is approximately 347, nearly
half the capacity of the proposed school. What about Grange Hall's additional kids from
the new subdivisions? What do we do about them?
I went to school here when we were on half-day shifts and the county rented space in
area churches. Yes, I survived but I don't want our county's children to repeat that
experience. My children are nearly grown with my youngest in Clover Hill High School
so my fears are for our neighbors' children. Plan for the desperately needed schools, have
the funds approved for these schools and THEN consider approving rezoning. Until then,
deny this case. Thank you.
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Bruce Moseley
August 25, 2004
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ramsey, Members of the Board. My name is Bruce Moseley and I am here tonight to speak
about the Moseley area and the impact that dense development will have on our community. Our family lives on
a 157-acre cattle farm on Mt. Hermon Road that has been in continuous operation by our family for 7
generations. Moseley got its name from a general store at the train tracks operated by our Great Grandfather
during a time when mail was delivered by train.
The Moseley area is the only remaining rural area in the upper Swift Creek basin. Our area provides the
watershed that feeds most of the Swift Creek Reservoir. To allow this developer's request for rezoning at this
time may not only affect the water quality for the citizens of Chesterfield but also establishes a very dangerous
precedent. You see, several other large farms in our area have been sold to a local developer in the last 6
months. Another property owner that has approximately 850 acres is just waiting for this case to win approval.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle once you let him out. If this case is approved this will be the first of
many requests for rezoning to follow.
Mr. Balsamo has made some generous proffers and I want to thank him, Mr. Scherzer, and Mrs. Humphreys for
meeting with our group for the first time last week. Unfortunately, as generous as his proffers may be, this is
only a very small amount of the money that will be needed in the next 5 - 10 years. You see, we have a problem
NOW. Fire, police, and EMS response in our area is very slow at best and this will get a lot worse before it gets
better at some unknown time in the future. According to Police Planning and Information Services there have
been 84 reported accidents on roads feeding our neighborhood since January 1 st. One of my neighbors has seen 3
accidents at just one intersection since Mr. Balsamo's plan was approved by the planning commission on June
15th. The 2005 - 2010 Capital Improvement Program addresses a Courthouse/Rt. 288 Fire & Rescue Station in
2010, but nothing for our area. According to Chief Jim Graham the earliest we can expect a station close to our
area is 2022.
When my mother passed away last January it took EMS approximately 35 minutes to respond. The response
time to a serious chain saw accident in our area was 30 minutes. Fire response to my house is 20 minutes at best.
The county's target time is 6 minutes. What will the response time be when you add more traffic and degrade
our roads further? More residents will mean more incidents requiring emergency services. I believe that to allow
ANY rezoning in our area without a £nxn plan to accompany the population growth would be irresponsible.
Some of you may remember lily late father and mother, Ed and Lucille Moseley. Our parents were very active
volunteers in Chesterfield County. The many honors our family has received from this Board and other county
organizations are a source of great pride to our family. Recently Mr. Ramsey spoke very eloquently of my
mother's powers of persuasion. It's times like these that I wish I could call on those powers; but all I can do is
try to impress upon you the importance of denying and thus delaying this application until the new Upper Swift
Creek Plan is formulated. Mr. Balsamo can always come back, and I believe he would under the NEW plan.
Even if you believe that this application "technically" meets the current plan, do you really believe that the
county is ready for a development of this type in the Moseley area? Think of all the successful developments in
Chesterfield where roads and emergency services were appropriately constructed in CONJUNCTION with the
development, not years and years later. Please remember, Mr. Balsamo is just the f'n:st of many to come, and
SOON. You have the power to slow down this snowball. I urge you to consider ALL of the ramifications
involved and vote with the overwhelming majority of the citizens of our area.
I thank you for your consideration, and your dedication and service to Chesterfield County.
Bruce E. Moseley
2202 Mt. Hermon Road
Moseley, VA 23120
(804) 794-7820