02-22-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
February 22, 1984
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman
Mr. R. Garland Dodd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. William Diggs, Dir.
of Assessments
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
Countv Administrator
Mr. William Howell, Dir.
of General Services
Mr. Robert Masden, Dir.
of Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Environmental Engineer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir.
of Community Develop.
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of
Budget and Accounting
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exec. Asst. to Co. Adm
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.
of Utilities
Mr. George Woodal], Dir.
of Economic Develop.
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:00
a.m. (EST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Arthur Umbach, Pastor of Redeemer
Lutheran Church, who gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the minutes of February 8 and 9, 1984, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrick informed the Board ths~t Mr. Tom Callahan, Airpcrt
Manager, had recently been elected Treasurer of tke Virginia
Airport Operators Council.
4. REQUESTS FOR ITEMS TO BE DELETE~ OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE
It was generally agreed that 'the amends be approved as submitte~
The Chairman noted it was h~.s inte~tion to call Item 9.C.2.
~mmediately following Item ~.
~4-77
5. RESOLUTIONS
5.A. RECOGNIZING SAMUEL BURKHOLDER UPON HIS RETIREMENT
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. Samuel Burkholder, Warehouse Foreman,
Department of General Services, will retire from Chesterfield
County service on February 29, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Burkholder's nineteen years of service has
been of such merit as to have brought distinct credit not only
upon himself, but his Department and Chesterfield County as well;
and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will indeed miss Mr. Burkholder's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly
recognizes Mr. Burkholder and extends on behalf of its members
and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for
his many years of service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mr. Burkholder and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Burkholder with the framed resolution
and introduced members of his family who were present. Mr.
Burkholder expressed his appreciation to the Board for this
recognition.
5.B. DECLARING MAY 2, 1984 AS MODEL COUNTY GOVERNMENT DAY
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Students in the eleventh and twelfth grades in
Chesterfield County Schools have been studying local government;
and
WHEREAS, Some of these students have been selected to
represent their schools in portraying the roles of County
officials on the 2nd day of May, 1984; and
WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
recognizes the importance of young people having opportunities to
learn about their government, in order for them to become
responsible citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors, that the 2nd day of May, 1984, be declared
as Model County Government Day, 1984 and that this observance be
called to the attention of all citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS AND CLAIMS
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mrs. Eileen C. Rice who was present to
address the Board regarding leaf burning. Mrs. Rice stated she
had been bothered by leaf burning for years but now it is
affecting her child. She stated it is a health, fire and
environmental problem. She stated that she was present on behalf
of the children who cannot represept themselves as the smoke
causes severe itching, sends children to the hospital for
respiratory problems, etc. She requested that the Board protect
the many people who have allergies, emphysema, asthma, etc. and
not those people who cannot find. another way to take care of
84-78
their leaf problem and are polluting the environment. She stated
the existing laws have made some difference but it still affects
those who have allergies dramatically, that people are not aware
of the problem and more publicity is needed to make people aware
of the regulations, that the existing laws are not enforced, etc.
She stated she telt additional actions need to be made such as
informing the people that eventually the County will completely
ban leaf burning to help affect attitude changes; that people
should not be able to burn within 500 feet of a dwelling and this
could be a way to define populated areas; that a map be drawn and
used as in Henrico; change burning hours to after 6:00 p.m. so
the children can play outside; reduce the allowable burning days
per week; define "subdivision" to help define a populated area;
and cutting back to a month in the fall and spring. She stated
she had personally prepared a letter for distribution in her
neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhoods and her church
asking people not to burn as there are many children who are
adversely affected by it. She stated she felt she had affected
some attitude changes by talking to people and she had also
initiated an article in the Midlothian Gazette.
The Board expressed appreciation for Mrs. Rice comments. Mrs.
Girone stated the Board had tried to reduce the times and hours
for burning, has tried to educate the public to mulch and compost
and mentioned a bulletin from the Extension Office. She stated
the County also picks up bagged leaves.
9.C. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES
9.C.2. RELATING TO OPEN BURNING PERIODS FOR LEAVES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the
date of March 14, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to
consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by Amending Sections 10-22 and
10-23 Relating to Open Burning Periods for Leaves.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated the Board will only address the issues as
advertised at the Public Hearing which ordinance cannot be
modified and adopted at that time to be more restrictive.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
7.A. PARK BOND FUND ADJUSTMENTS AND PROJECT CLOSEOUTS
Mr. Hester discussed the existing deficit in the Park Bond Fund's
non-project account which covered such items as fencing,
lighting, consulting services, etc. Mr. Dodd mentioned his
desire for basketball courts at Point of Rocks Park with the
funds remainin~ in the Bermuda District account. On motion of
Mr. Mayes, sect ~ by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration
of the park b(~ ,nd adjustments and project closeouts until
March 14, 19D.~
Vote: Unanim,'".;
7.B. APPOINI~i
7. B 1. LAND~ 3.1,]., ~.iOMMITTEE
Mr. Mayes and Mr. Applegate nominated the following people for
consideration for appointment at the March 14, 1984 meeting to
the Landfill Committee: Mr. Cornelius Lively, Mr. Robert E.
Burton, Ms. Melody Gray, Mr. Fred Bott, Mr. Don Dickerson and Mr.
Fred R. Myers.
84-79
7.B.2. COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appointed Mr. Harold Simmons to the Community Services Board
representing Dale District whose term is effective immediately
and will expire on December 31, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
7.B.3. KEEP CHESTERFIELD CLEAN CORPORATION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
appointed the following people to the Keep Chesterfield Clean
Corporation whose terms are effective immediately and will expire
on January 31, 1985:
Mrs. Willie Smith, Dale
Ms. Marilyn Kim, Bermuda
Ms. Melody Gray, Midlothian
Ms. Ann Belsha, Clover Hill
Ms. Avis W. Johnson, Matoaca
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board nominate~
Ms. Mary Cooper to fill the staff position that is not
anticipated to be filled on the Keep Chesterfield Clean
Corporation which formal appointment will be made at the March
14, 1984 meeting.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick stated that this position will be of a non-voting
capacity.
7.B.4. METROPOLITAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Micas indicated the Board should vote on the names
sequentially in the order nominated by the Board at the previous
meeting for the Operating Committee of the Metropolitan Economic
Development Council. He stated that the Board could determine
with the initial nomination the terms of the candidates.
Mr. Daniel called for the vote on Mr. L. Todd Lumadue to be
appointed to the Operating Committee of the Metropolitan Economi~
Development Council for a period of two years which term is
effective immediately and will expire in February, 1986:
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Mr. Daniel called for the vote on Mr. Robert A. Robertson to be
appointed to the Operating Committee of the Metropolitan Economi~
Development Council for a period of one year which term is
effective immediately and will expire in February, 1985:
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Mayes.
It was generally agreed that since two members were appointed
there was no need to vote on the third candidate, Mr. Gary K.
Johnson.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.A. WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION FEES FOR BUSINESSES AND OFFICES
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to water and
sewer connection fees for business and office establishments.
Mr. Welchons briefly reviewed the proposed amendment and stated
the Southside HomebuJlders and Richmond Homebuilders are
supportive of the change. Mr. John Slnith urged the Board to
84-80
consider those people who have a hard time paying their monthly
water and sewer bills. Mr. Hedrick stated this ordinance would
not have an impact on the monthly service charges. Mr. Welchons
and Mr. Hedrick reviewed the ordinance in detail.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 20-7, 20-10, 20-24.1 AND
20-27 RELATING TO CONNECTIONS AND CONNECTION
FEES TO THE SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
1. That Sections 20-7, 20-10, 20-24.1 and 20-27 of the
Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended
and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 20-7. Connection fees--Generally
Connection fees for water in the county shall be based on
meter size as determined by the county in accordance with the
following schedule:
o o o
(i) For a meter serving one unit or serving more than one
unit the connection fee shall be the basic meter charge plus:
Type Per Unit Fee
o o o
(7)
Commercial, business,
office, industrial and
public buildings
each
Water Meter Size
5/8"
1"
±½11
2"
3"
4 ii
11
11
Connection Fee
................................... $ 1,000
................................... 1,870
................................... 3,500
.................................... 4,750
................................... 9,000
Applicant pays cost
of installing meter
................................... 15,500
Applicant pays cost
of installing meter
31,250
............................. ~i~ant pays cost
of installing meter
................................... 56,250
Applicant pays cost
of installing meter
Above 8"
.......................... To be negotiated at
time of application
based upon projected
usage
The meter size shall be approved by the Utilities Department as
adequate to serve the projected usage.
o o o
84-81
Sec. 20-10.
bursements.
Water line extension requirements; costs~ reim-
The board of supervisors will authorize the installation of
water extensions to extend the county's water system at the
expense of developers and refund to developers the total cost or
part thereof, to the extent permitted by this section, out of
connection charges made on such lines in accordance with the
following policy.
o o o
(c) The entire cost, including the actual cost incurred and
paid out of the county, plus a fixed overhead charge of twenty
percent, of extending water mains shall be paid for by the person
or persons making the extension when work is performed by county
forces. When contract work is performed by an approved
contractor, an inspection fee of three percent will be charged
based on final actual cost. The estimated amount of such fee
shall be deposited at the time the contract is executed. The
county will pay the difference in cost between an eight-inch main
and a larger main installed for off-site extensions, except when
it is determined that a larger main is needed to serve property
being developed. The difference in cost between the eight-inch
main and the larger main installed shall be the difference in
material and labor costs~ as determined in accordance with this
section. The county will only refund the difference in material
costs for on-site oversizing of water lines unless the project is
bid in accordance with this section. Refunds from connection
fees shall be allowed for the cost of off-site and oversizing of
water lines in accordance with the requirements of this section.
The total amount eligible to be refunded shall be computed by the
utilities department based on an annual set price reimbursement
schedule developed in accordance with procedures adopted by the
utilities department. The person eligible for refunds may, upon
written notice to the county, choose to publicly advertise the
work for a sealed bid opening at a particular date and time. If
such a bid process is chosen, bids shall be opened at the
developer's engineer's o~fice. The engineer shall supply the
county with a certified bid tabulation and the potential refund
shall be calculated by using the bid most advantageous to the
county. The developer is obligated to use. the lowest responsible
bidder to complete the work in order to receive refunds. Prior
to receiving any refunds, the engineer must certify that all
applicable bid procedures have been followed and that the low
bidder has been paid the actual construction cost based on the
bid. Each bidder must sign an affidavit as a condition of
bidding that his bid was independently arrived at without
collusion or communication with other contractors or developers
and that he stands ready and willing to perform the work at the
bid price. The utilities department may adopt rules and
regulations further governing bid procedures.
A separate service shall be required for each house, each
unit of duplex homes or separate business establishment. Where
one meter to serve a trailer court, apartment or other property
has been approved by the utilities department, the county shall
require a minimum water service charge for each unit served on
such property. No more than one dwelling unit or business
establishment may be connected to a service line except those
approved by the utilities department upon written application and
compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the
utilities department. The utilities department shall permit
reductions in the number of connections when the number of units
or establishments cannot be determined at the time of application
for water service or where the applicant requests a reduced
number of connections and there is no basis for denying such
reductions.
o o o
84--82
Sec. 20-24.1. Sewer required.
o o o
(b) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section,
the plumbing, drainage and ventilation of every building or lot
shall be separate and independent of that of every other building
or lot and shall be separately and independently connected with
the public sewer system; and, in a townhouse, condominium, or
cooperative development providing separate exterior entrances for
each dwelling unit, each townhouse, condominium or cooperative
unit shall be deemed a separate building. Every building
containing apartments, condominiums or cooperative units without
separate exterior entrances, each unit in a horizontal duplex,
apartment house, hotel, church, theatre, industrial plan or
garage shall be considered a single building; provided, that
where a firewall in any such building divides the building, then
each part divided, although there be but one entrance, shall have
separate plumbing, drainage and ventilation facilities and a
separate and independent connection with the public sewer system.
Upon written application the utility department shall approve the
connection of more than one commercial, business or office
establishment to a single sewer line conditioned upon compliance
with any reasonable conditions. The utilities department shall
permit reductions in the number of connections when the number of
units or establishments cannot be determined at the time of
application for sewer service or where the applicant requests a
reduced number of connections and there is no basis for denying
such reduction.
o o o
Sec. 20-27. Same--Charges--Generally~
Connection charges for sewage treatment in the county shall
be as follows:
o o o
(g) Commercial, business, office, industrial and public
buildings.
Water Meter Size
Connection Fee
5/8" ................................... $ 1,500
1" ................................... 3,000
1½" ................................... 6,000
2" ................................... 12,000
3" ................................... 24,000
4" ................................... 50,000
6" ................................... 110,000
8 i!
Above ~ ................................. 275,000
.......................... To be negotiated at
tame of application
based upon projected
usage
The meter size shall be approved by the Utilities Department as
adequate to serve the projected usage.
This ordinance shall be effective March 15, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
8.B. RELATING TO ANNUAL REVALIDATION OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing relating to the annual revalidation of special
land use assessment applications. Mr. Diggs was present and
explained the ordinance and program. Mr. Applegate stated he
felt registered mail should be used when notifying the people of
the change. Mr. Mayes inquired if the person would be notified
who did not respond to the mailings, that he did not qualify.
Mr. Diggs stated they would contact each individual who did not
respond to ascertain their intentions and it would be only as a
last resort to take them off the program. Mrs. Harriett Horner
stated she felt what was attempted to be accomplished was vital
but was concerned about an annual revalidation as a year rolls
around fast and inquired if there was a fee involved. It was
indicated a fee was not involved. She also discussed her concern
regarding the roll back taxes. Mr. Micas explained the roll back
penalties and how it would be assessed. Mrs. Horner stated undei
the circumstances explained, she did not oppose the ordinance.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr.' Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board adopt the
following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE IV,
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED
BY ADDING SECTION 8-19.1 RELATING TO ANNUAL REVALIDATION OF
SPECIAL LAND USE ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Article IV, Chapter 8 of the Code of the County o~
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by adding the following section:
Sec. 8-19.1 Same--Annual revalidation.
(a) In addition to any other obligations imposed by law,
every owner of property, for which an application has been
approved under this article, shall revalidate such application
annually, on forms provided by the county assessor. Completed
revalidation forms shall be filed with the office of the county
assessor no later than November 1 of each tax year. Failure to
revalidate an application as provided in this section will
invalidate the application and will cause the real property
described in such application to be assessed at its fair market
value for the following tax year and for subsequent tax years
unless all owners of such real property shall submit and have
approved a new application in accordance with the provisions of
this article.
(2) That this ordinance shall be effective commencing with
the 1985 tax year.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board requested
for the first three years of the administration of this ordinance
that anyone taken off this master list on a purge basis, receive
notice by certified mail.
Vote: Unanimous
8.C. CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF DALE PARK
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time was scheduled for a Public
Hearing to consider the conveyance of a portion of Dale Park.
There was no one present to d~scuss this matter. On motion of
Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and
authorized the Chairman and County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents conveying 3.824 acre parcel of land in Dale
Woods Subdivision to the Salem Church Road LTD Partnership for
sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) with the understanding that
the developer agrees to extend Road "B" as shown on a plat filed
with the papers of this Board, at his own e×pense. It is noted
the proceeds from the sale of the County property would be used
to extend Dale Park Road for connection with Road "B".
Vote: Unanimous
84-84
9. NEW BUSINESS
9.A. CABLE TELEVISION ITEMS
9.A.1. RESOLUTION OPPOSING CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1983
Mr. Daniel stated House Bill 4103 is under consideration by
Congress which takes away and preempts the right of any
municipality to hold a public hearing on rate increases, would
allow for automatic rate increases, would not allow for input
through the public body relating to programming, makes statements
regarding franchise renewal, etc. He stated the National League
of Cities is requesting that local governing bodies oppose the
proposed bill. Mrs. Girone stated that due to a Supreme Court
ruling, local governments could be sued by a cable vendor and
that is one reason Congress is moving toward deregulation by
local governments. She stated she supported the bill and would
like the County to get out of the cable business, not to regulate
rates and programming, etc.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt the County should retain control as
this was a franchise given by the County and it created a
monopoly. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the County should not be
involved in the rates but that it should have input into
programming and services. He inquired if an amendment could be
sent to Congressman Bliley regarding this matter. Mr. Micas
stated under the current ordinance, the Board could choose not to
be involved in rates, the issue in this legislation is if you
want Congress to take away your choice to regulate/deregulate
rates. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes stated their support of protecting
the residents in the County in this regard.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Telecon~unications Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce is currently considering legis-
lation entitled H.R. 4103 "The Cable Telecommunications Act of
1983"; and
WHEREAS, H.R. 41.03 will severely limit the ability of the
Board of Supervisors to regulate rates, programming and services
provided by the County's cable operator; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that H.R. 4103 in its present
form will adversely affect the County by limiting the ability of
localities to ensure the availability to consumers of quality
cable service at affordable rates; and
WHEREAS, cable television is a uniquely local medium and
local governments are in the best position to safeguard the
interests of consumers.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County, Virginia hereby opposes the enactment of
H.R. 4103 in its present form.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayeso
Abstention: Mrs. Girone.
9.A.2. REQUEST BY STORER CABLEVISION FOR RATE INCREASE
Mr. Dodd stated that Bermuda District has about 700 homes under
the original franchise agreement who have yet to be connected and
he could not vote for an increase for those people who were not
afforded the opportunity to connect. On motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of March 14, 1984 at
7:00 p.m. for a Public Hearing to consider rate increases by
Chesterfield Cablevision, T/A Storer Cablevision for services it
renders.
Vote: Unanimous
84-85
Mr. Micas stated that the rate would be advertised as requested
by the Cable Company and it can be approved up to that amount but
not exceeding it.
9,Be
9.B.1.
PARKS AND RECREATION ITEMS
PROPOSAL BY QUARTERHORSE ASSOCIATION TO BUILD STABLES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved the concept of the construction of 20 new stalls and
lease agreement for the Quarterhorse Association at the
Courthouse Stable Complex, set the date of March 28, 1984 at 9:0~
a.m. to consider the lease agreement; requested the County
Attorney's Office to prepare the necessary lease documents; and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the lease
documents upon appropriate action by the Board at the Public
Hearing.
Vote: Unanimous
9.B.2. APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR MARSH WALE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to apply and accept, if
approved, $30,500 in grant funds from the Virginia Commission of
Game and Inland Fisheries to construct a marsh walk, development
of interpretative signage for the walkway and Ashton Creek area
and building of a marsh tower to overlook the marsh and
Appomattox River at Point of Rocks Park which will be fully
funded by the State.
Vote: Unanimous
9.C. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.C.1. RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FOR ITINERANT MERCHANTS
Mr. App±egate stated he has been contacted by a number of high
school, middle school, church and boosters clubs regarding the
change in the license law. He stated he felt the existing law
was too excessive. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs.
Girone, the Board adopted, the following ordinance on an emergency
basis:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 12-138 OF THE COD~
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, RELATING TC
BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR ITINERANT MERCHANTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 12-138 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 12-138. Same--License required, amount of tax.
1. Every itinerant merchant shall obtain a license for the
privilege of doing business in the County and shall pay a license
tax of ten dollars per each event, not to exceed seven days;
provided that the total amount of the license tax paid by each
merchant shall not exceed $500 per taxable year.
2. This ordinance will be effective March 1, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
84-86
)n motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set
~he date of March 28, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. to consider an ordinance
~o amend and reenact Section 12-138 of the Code of the County of
~hesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to business license
~axes for itinerant merchants.
rote: Unanimous
CONTRIBUTION TO VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
)n motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
~pproved a donation of $1,000 from the General Fund Contingency
ko the Virginia Association of Counties for the 350th Anniversary
~elebration of County Government as permitted by Section 15.1-25
)f the Code of Virginia which permits contributions for
)rganizations who commemorate historical events.
;ote: Unanimous
.E. PROCEEDINGS OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
.E.1. CHRISTINE L. MODROW AND UF DISTRIBUTORS
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
~dopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
)f Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application
)f Christine L. Modrow and UF Distributors (the Company) for the
issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds
in an amount not to exceed $865,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the
~inancing of the Company's acquisition, construction and
~quipping of a warehouse, assembly and distribution facility (the
Project) to be located at proposed Johnston Willis Drive,
extension South of Route 60 in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and
has held a public hearing thereon January 24, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Chesterfield, Virginia (the County),
to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section
103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD
~OUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield
for the benefit of Christine L. Modrow and UF Distributors, to
~he extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to
assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the
Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by
Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
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 nor the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
84-87
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.2. JAMES RIVER BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application
of James River Building Supply Company (the Company) for the
issuance ~of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds
in an amount not to exceed $900,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the
financing of the Company's construction and equipping of a
facility for truss and component manufacturing, warehouse and
other related storage facilities (the Project) to be located at
10501 Hull Street Road in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has
held a public hearing thereon on January 24, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Chesterfield, Virginia (the County),
to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section
103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield,
for the benefit of James River Building Supply Company, to the
extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to
assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the
Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by
Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
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 nor the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
9.F. CONSENT ITEMS
9.F.1. BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits from the Chester
Moose Lodge No. 1980, the Optimist Club of James River and the
Pocoshock Valley Youth Soccer League for calendar year 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
9.F.2. FIREWORKS DISPLAY AT BELLONA ARSENAL
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
the request from George F. Hoover for a fireworks display at
Bellona Arsenal on July 4, 1984 with a rain date of July 7, 1984
84-88
subject to the rules and regulations of the Chesterfield County
Fire Department.
Vote: Unanimous
9.F.3. MACKE COMPANY DONATION OF 1974 VAN FOR POLICE SWAT TEAM
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting, on behalf of the County, a 1974 van donated
by the Macke Company for use by the Police Department SWAT Team.
Vote: Unanimous
It was requested by the Board that the County Administrator write
a letter of appreciation to the Macke Company for this donation.
9.F.4. VIRGINIA NATIONAL GUARD MOBILIZATION AREA
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to notify the Virginia
National Guard based at the Defense General Supply Center that
the County will permit them to utilize the County fair
buildings/warehouses as an alternative assembly area in the even~
of a mobilization.
Vote: Unanimous
9.F.5. RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute a right of
agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation providing for the payment of right of way costs sc
that the Department can begin acquiring right of way for
Chinaberry Drive from Route 60 to Jahnke Road. It is noted that
the developer of the Boulders Office Park has entered into an
agreement to reimburse the County any right of way expenses and
cost of completing the road.
Vote: Unanimous
9.F.6. HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT FOR SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board accepted
a grant from the Division of Motor Vehicles in the amount of
$29,449 for the Police Department for selective enforcement and
increased expenditures and revenues in the amount of $29,449 for
this program.
Vote: Unanimous
9.G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
9.G.1. ROBIOUS SCHOOL ACCESS ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board:
Accepted the parcel of land for the Robious School Access
Road which was declared surplus by the School Board on
February 8, 1984;
e
Authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contrac~
with the Belgrade developer for the transfer of the two
residue parcels in exchange for said improvements to the
access road after the required Public Hearing; and
Set the date of March 14, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for a Public
Hearing to consider the conveyance of the two residue
parcels to the developer of Belgrade in exchange for all
84-89
necessary improvements to the access road from Robious Road
north to serve the existing schools and for the transfer of
right of way for the Robious School Access Road to the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Vote: Unanimous
9.G.2. BRANCHWAY ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted by the following resolution:
Whereas, the existing intersection of Branchway Road and
Courthouse Road is in need of improvements; and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
allocated County Revenue Sharing Funds pursuant to Section
33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia for the purpose of
reconstructing Salisbury Drive and Robious Road; and
Whereas, Surplus funds remain in the Salisbury Drive Revenue
Sharing Project Account and, a balance remains in the Robious
Road Project Revenue Sharing Account.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation to transfer $34,994.28 of State matched funds
from the Salisbury Drive Revenue Sharing Project and $17,500 of
unmatched County funds (matched fund would total $35,000) from
the Robious Road Revenue Sharing Project to the Branchway Road
project for relocation of the Branchway Road/Courthouse Road
intersection.
And Further Be It Resolved that Chesterfield County shall
obtain all necessary right of way for this reconstruction project
at no cost to the State Highway Department.
Vote: Unanimous
9.G.3. ROUTE 10 CENTRAL AREA CONSULTANT STUDY
Mr. Balderson stated the Route 10 Central area study would
involve the central area of the County--the Route 10 corridor as
well as the Jefferson Davis Highway corridor. Mrs. Girone stated
she was in favor of this study but wanted the Board to look at
all the pockets of planning that are being done and try to
realize what is going on in the County. She stated the entire
County should be planned. Mr. Daniel stated that when a crisis
comes about, this is the way to look at the problem on a short
term basis. He stated he would not want to slow the project down
but he could support a long term commitment to planning. Mrs.
Girone inquired how this involves the Roads Committee. Mr.
Daniel stated the Roads Committee should exercise any role they
feel necessary. Mrs. Girone stated that if this had come to the
Roads Committee first, they may have had a recommendation
regarding another project that might also be important, realizing
we are already doing three or four, etc. in the way of a
comprehensive plan. Mr. Daniel stated this situation needs
immediate attention.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized negotiation of a scope of work and fee for services to
review the County Comprehensive Plan for the Central Planning
Area which involves the Route 10 Corridor and the Jefferson Davis
Corridor.
Vote: Unanimous
9.G.4. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
84-90
approved street lights at the following intersections with any
necessary funds to be expended from the district street light
funds as indicated:
1. Intersection of Reams Road and Mistywood Road, Clover Hill;
2. Intersection of Reycan Road and Courthouse Road, Dale; and
3. Intersection of Midlothian Turnpike and Winterfield Road,
Midlothian.
Vote: Unanimous
9.G.5. FUNDING SOURCE FOR RIVER ROAD SCL RAILROAD GRADE
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, both the State Legislature'and this Board are in
the process of addressing the critical road needs throughout the
County; and
Whereas, the need for immediate road improvements impacts
orderly economic growth, the tax base, and the tax rate
throughout the County; and
Whereas, Chesterfield County is one of the fastest growing
areas in the United States, and has for years faced a situation
of ever-increasing traffic on insufficient and inadequate County
roads; and
Whereas, the need for a railroad underpass on Route 36 at
Ettrick has long been recognized and documented by VDH&T as one
of the critical needs in the County; and
~ ~her~s~ this critical need for road improvements is not
inclt~led in the present VDH&T Six Year Improvement Program.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby authorizes the County Administrato~
to request a design for a railroad underpass or an appropriate
grade separation for Route 36 at Ettrick at the earliest
practicable date.
And Be It Further Resolved that the Board authorizes that
the funding for the above stated design will be allocated from
the primary road funds otherwise funds shall be appropriated fro~
the Unappropriated Surplus of the General Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS
9.H.1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.H.l.a. VACATION OF EASEMENT IN SMOKETREE SOUTH~ SECTION B
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
Public Hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a 16 ft.
easement across lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, amended plat of Smoketre~
South, Section B. There was no one p~esent to discuss this
matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, th,
Board adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 16' easement across Lots 16, 17,
18, and 19, Block B, amended plat of Smoketree South,
Section B, Clover Hill 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 41, st pages 42 and 43.
WHEREAS, J. Ko Timmons and Associates has petitioned the
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate
16' easement across Lots 16~ 17, 18~ and 19, Block B, amended
84-91
plat of Smoketree South, Section B, Clover Hill Magisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown
on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
said County in Plat Book 41, pages 42 and 43, made by J. K.
Timmons and Associates, dated May 28, ].982. The easement
petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows:
A 16' easement across Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19, Block B,
amended plat of Smoketree South, Section B, as shown on a
plat made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated November 9,
1983, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of
this ordinance.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the easement sought to be vacated and the vacation will not
abridge the rights of any citizen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described easement is
hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482 (b) 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, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is
to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion
of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title
in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lots
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 Robert B. Mendoza,
Nancy Lockerman, Midlothian Enterprises, Incorporated, William B.
Edwards, and Tracy L. Edwards, his wife, Scott E. Laidlow, and
Renee L. Schoelles, or their successors in title, as grantees.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.l.b. VACATION OF EASEMENT IN HARBOUR BLUFF
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of an
easement across Lot 11, Harbour Bluff. There was no one present
to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by
Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of an easement across Lot
11, Harbour Bluff, Clover Hill Magisterial District,
Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof
duly recorded in the Clerk's Off~ce of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County in Plat Book 37, at page 11.
WHEREAS, J. K. Timmons and Associates has petitioned the
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate
portion of an easement across Lot 11~ Harbour Bluff, Clover Hill
Magisterial D~strict, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more
particularly shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 37, page 11, made
by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated August 27, 1980. The
84-92
portion of easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully
described as follows:
A portion of an easement across Lot 11, Harbour Bluff, as
shown on a plat made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated
January 5, 1984, and revised February 6, 1984, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of easement sought to be vacated and the vacation
will not abridge the rights of any citizen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of
easemen{ is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public
use.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) 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, Virginia pursuant to Section
15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is
to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion
of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title
in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lot
free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the names of
the County of hesterrleld as grantor and Austin-Davidson,
Incorporated, or their successors in title, as grantees.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.2. REPORTS
9.H.2.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer
financial reports.
9.H.2.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
9.H.3. SEWER ITEMS
9.H.3.a. RESULTS OF SEWER SURVEY IN ROCK SPRING FARMS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the Utilities Department to proceed with the Rock
Spring Farms sewer project, that $730,000 be appropriated from
574 Surplus to 380-1-73021-4393 and further that another
statement be sent to the residents of Rock Spring Farms informing
them of the action that the Board took today, that the sewer is
going to be available on a specific date and they have two weeks
to either sign on at this rate or they will be liable for any new
rates which may be in e~fect.
Vote: Unanimous
84-93
9.H.3.b. SETTLEMENT AGRER~ENT WITH EDWIN F. AND LAURA UBER
Mr. Daniel submitted a letter from Mr. Edwin Uber agreeing to the
staff recommendation for the settlement between the County and
Mr. and Mrs. Uber. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr.
Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County
Administrator to execute a settlement agreement in the amount of
$3,500 for Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Uber, Hopkins Road and Kingsland
Creek, for restoration of the easement along the Kingsland Creek
Trunk Sewer.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4. CONSENT ITEMS
9.H.4.a. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC WATER ON ELMART LANE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board req
the Utilities Department to conduct a survey of the homes on
Elmart Lane that would connect to public water and a survey by
the Health Department to determine the quality of wells in the
area with the results and recommendation to be brought back to
the Board for further consideration.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.b. AWARD OF CONTRACT W84-10B/6 (8) 4107
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for Richard L. Crowder Construction, Inc. who submi~
the bid of $15,140.04 for installing an 8 inch pressure regulato~
and vault on Centralia Road and further the Board appropriated
$26,000 from 567 surplus to 380-1-64107-4393 which includes a 107
contingency and material installed by County forces.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.c. APPROVAL OF SEWER CONTRACT S83-92CD/7(8)3922
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following sewer contract:
S83-92CD/7(8)3922, Mistwood Forest Off-Site, Phase II
Developer: Roper Development Corporation
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Total Estimated Cost: $54,547.34
Estimated County Cost: $46,364.30 - Refund through connection
fees when Mistwood
Subdivision is developed.
Number of Connections: 0
Code: 574-1-00556-0000
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.d. WATER EXTENSION TO SERVE PORTION OF ROCK SPRING FARMS
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the Utilities Department to extend public water to
those homes in Rock Spring Farms whose residents have signed
contracts agreeing to connect to public water which cost is
estimated st $31,000.
Vote: Unanimous
84-94
9.H.4.e. WATER EXTENSION TO OMAHA, CARSWELL AND KINGSDALE AREA
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the Utilities Department to survey the Omaha, Carswel~
and Kingsdale Road area to determine the number of residents that
will sign a contract to connect to public water and who will
dedicate the necessary easements. It is understood the Health
Department will be requested to furnish a report on the conditior
of the wells at the same time with the results of the survey and
a recommendation to be brought to the Board for further
consideration.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.f. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REFUNDS FOR GLEN TARA.,. SEC.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
the request of Mr. Earl S. Patterson for an extension of time fo~
refunds through connections on Contract W78-124CD, Glen Tara,
Section 1, until February 28, 1985, which is a one year
extension.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.g. DEEDS OF DEDICATION ON BELDON DRIVE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to accept, on behalf of
the County, two deeds of dedication for a permanent cul-de-sac at
the end of Beldon Drive in Chesdin Heights Subdivision from
Morris F. and Shelia M. Robertson and Chesdin Heights
Corporation, Tax Map 159-9.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.h. DEED OF DEDICATION ON GROVE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to accept, on behalf of
the County, a deed of dedication from Lewis T. Smith and Jane
McGavock Smith for a five foot wide strip of land on the west
side of Grove Road, Tax Map 16-16.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.i. DEED OF DEDICATION ON ROBIOUS ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to accept, on behalf of
the County, a deed of dedication from Colonial Piedmont I, a
North Carolina General Partnership, for a 12 foot strip of land
on the south line of Robious Road, Tax Map 17-7.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd inquired.about the water extension from Bermuda Distric~
to Matoaca District on Branders Bridge Road. Mr. Welchons stated
a meeting was held regarding this matter and he would be bringin~
this to the Board in the near future. ~
9.I. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of
the General Fund Contingency and a report on the
Parham/Chippenham Connector Statement to be presented at the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Public Hearin,
on February 23, 1984.
84-95
9.J. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went
into Executive Session to discuss and consider acquisition or use
of real property for public purposes, discussion concerning the
investing of public funds, consultation with legal counsel on
legal matters relating to submission of a bond referendum and
consultation with legal counsel relating to the Botany Woods
Development pursuant to Sections 2.1-344(a) (2), (5), (6) and
(6), respectively of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
The Board recessed to the Airport Restaurant for lunch.
excused himself from the meeting after lunch.
Reconvening:
Mr. Dodd
Mr. Daniel explained the rules and procedures for the zoning
cases to be heard. He stated that Mr. Applegate would be the
presiding officer during the zoning session.
9.K. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES
83S209
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Walter and Emma Singleton
requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property
which belongs to William Rowlett, cousin of the applicant. Tax
Map 115-11 (2) Chester, Block K, Lot 135A, and better known as
3922 Curtis Street (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated Mr. Dodd had requested that this case be
deferred for 30 days and all parties had been notified of this
request. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred
consideration of this case until March 28, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84SR035
In Midlothian Magisterial District, Ronald and Sharon Hawkins
requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which they own. Tax Map 71 (1) Parcel 33 and better
known as 21306 Hull Street Road (Sheet 18).
Mr. Balderson stated this case should be withdrawn from the
agenda as it was inadvertently place on the Board of Supervisors'
agenda and should be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals since
it is in an agricultural district and not in a residential
district. He stated the applicants had been notified of this
situation. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board withdrew
this case from the agenda.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84SR034
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Carol D.. Quick requested renewal
of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
she owns. Tax Map 163-7 (3) Kovac Acres~ Lots 116-118 and better
known as 2508 Mansion Drive (Sheet 49).
84.-96
Ms. Quick was present· There was no opposition present· On
motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
no__t be placed on a permanent foundation·
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or .relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84SR036
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Wesley G. Gregory, Jr. requested
a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to Walter Osborne, son-in-law of the applicant. Tax Map
82-5 (3) Kingsland Heights, Lot 9 and better known as 2402 Willis
Road (Sheet 23).
Mr. Gregory was present. There was no opposition present. Mr.
Applegate stated Mr. Dodd had recommended approval of this
request. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the
Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to
the following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
84-97
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
'es: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
: Mr. Dodd.
84S037
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Mr. George B. Hyde requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he
owns. Tax Map 98-5 (3) Belmeade, Block 9, Lots 63-65 and better
known as 2310 Maywood Street (Sheet 32).
Mr. Hyde was present. There was no opposition present. Mr.
Applegate stated Mr. Dodd had recommended approval of this
request. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the
Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to
the following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
e
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
9.L. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
83S148
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ROLLING HILL DEVELOPMENT COR-
PORATION requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Residential
Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) plus a Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance on a 17.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 600
feet on the southeast line of Old Buckingham Road approximately
150 feet northeast of Southwick Boulevard. Tax Map 16-10 (1)
Parcel 15 (Sheet 7).
84-98
· Balderson stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of
request. There was no one present to discuss the matter.
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
)roved the request of the applicant for withdrawal.
res: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
: Mr. Dodd.
83S168
In Midlothian Magisterial District, CHARLES L. CHANDLER requested
a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a motel in a
y Business (B-2) District on a 3.2 acre parcel fronting
approximately 50 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike
approximately 600 feet southeast of Robious Road. Tax Map 17-12
(1) Parcels 26 and 33 and Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant has requested a 30 day
deferral of this request. There was no one present to discuss
the matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel,
the Board deferred consideration of this request until March 28,
1984.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S180
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 40 acre parcel
fronting approximately 1,400 feet on the north line of Centralia
Road approximately 300 feet east of Chester Road. Tax Map 97-2
(1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated Mr. Dodd, Supervisor of the District, had
requested that this case be deferred until March 28, 1984 when he
would be present at the meeting. Mr. Rowe stated he was not
aware that the deferral would be requested. Mr. Applegate stated
Mr. Dodd indicated all parties were aware that the request for
deferral would be made. Mr. Paul Barr stated he had told Mr.
Rowe at a meeting on Monday that a request for deferral would be
made. He stated at that meeting certain square footages and
proffers were considered but it was understood that the entire
community would have to be contacted regarding these items. Mr.
Applegate apologized for the misunderstanding but since it was a
controversial case, he felt the Board should honor Mr. Dodd's
request.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until March 28, 1984.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayeso
~Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S206
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOL AXEL AND B.R. FREASIER,
JR., ET AL, requested an amendment to a previously granted
Conditional Use (Case 79S173) to modify Condition 4, relative to
buffers, in a Community Business (B-2) District on an 11.16 acre
parcel fronting approximately 800 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,500 feet west of Grove Road.
Tax Map 16-11 (1) Parcel i0 (Sheet 7).
Mrs. Girone stated the applicant's representative had contacted
her and was going to be late and she requested that this be
deferred until the end of the meeting. On motion of Mr. Mayes,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred consideration of this
request until the end of the agenda.
84-99
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes
Absent: Mr. Dodd. ·
$2S022 (Amended)
In Dale and Clover Hill Magisterial Districts, PAVELL AND COMPANY
LIMITED requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential
(R-9) of 94.64 acres; from Residential (R-7) to Residential (R-9)
of 1.35 acres; plus a Conditional Use Planned Development
encompassing a 111.93 acre tract to permit use (i.e.,
construction office) and bulk (i.e., lot width) exceptions.
Properties lie north and south of West Road between Newbys Bridge
and Old Creek Roads. Tax Map 40-13 (2) Belmont Farms, Part of
Lot 43 and Tax Map 40-14 (1) Belmont Farms, Lots 15, 16 17, 18,
19, 42 and Part of Lot 14 (Sheet 15). '
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended that
the proffered conditions not be accepted; recommended approval of
the zoning, Conditional Use Planned Development and temporary
construction office; and denial of the lot width exceptions,
subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Wilham presented the Board with a handout on the Virginia
Construction Company and presented slides of homes similar to
those to be constructed. He reviewed five issues which they
would like changed with regard to the conditions for housing
square footage, building permits, collector road, lot size and
the construction office, a copy of which is filed with the papers
of this Board. Mr. Balderson stated the request for "average
square footage" would present an enforcement problem unless it is
changed to a minimum square footage per unit. Mr. Pavell stated
he believes 'that a proper mix, street elevation, etc. is
necessary and should be acceptable. Mr. Balderson stated with
regard to the traffic, staff felt 239 was a reasonable number of
lots to be recorded without going to an additional collector
street but the Planning Commission felt 239 was too high and
changed the requirement to 150 lots. He suggested a compromise
of approximately 195-200 lots might be reasonable. With regard
to the request to reduce the cul-de-sac lots from 75 ft. to 60
ft., he stated the homes would be very close together and the
problem is not with setback but with lot width. He stated if the
lot width were reduced, it would necessitate going to a curb and
gutter road section at the time of subdivision approval. Mr.
Pavell stated that he felt the 70-75 ft. requirement for lot line
is an excessive design. He stated he felt they could build a
very nice area without curb and gutter on those lots.
Mrs. Girone stated that it seemed to her that all the issues
addressed lessen the quality of this project and she was
concerned. Mr. Pavell stated he felt they were enhancing the
quality with open spaces and parks and had proffers which were
turned down. Mrs. Girone stated that she was concerned with what
was to be there which a conditional use should tell you and not
"average", etc. and each issue cuts back on the standards and
there is a surrounding neighborhood to consider. Mr. Pavell
promised this will be an attractive neighborhood.
Mr. Charles Blevins, a resident of Belmont Hills West
Subdivision, presented a petition in opposition to this request.
He stated they object to a subdivision within a subdivision
without adequate ingress and egress and a safe intersection of
West and Turner Roads, that Belmont Hills has a 1,200 sq. ft.
minimum; the office detracts from the area with signs, mailbox
with daily pickup and delivery of mai], overflow of vehicles into
the street, Pavell Realty and Virginia Construction Company are
sharing the same address and it is not a quiet little office
complex in a subdivision; etc.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
resolved not to accept the proffered conditions of the applicant;
to approve the Zoning and Conditional Use Planned Development;
84-100
and to deny the lot width exceptions and the temporary
construction office subject to the following conditions.
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, revised 11/18/83, shall be
considered the Master Plan.
The area shown on the Master Plan as "Reserved for
Recreation" shall be shown as single family lots on the
tentative, final check and record plats since facilities
cannot be provided or constructed in this area without
Conditional Use approval from the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors.
3. Lots shall not front on Road C.
The Master Plan shall be revised to minimize the lots which
front on West Road Extended. Specifically, Lots 13 through
21, Block H and Lots 22 through 26, Block L shall be
redesigned to access other roads.
No more than 200 lots, including the lots within Old Creek
West, Sections 1 through 7, shall be recorded until such
time as the sixty (60) foot collector road (Road C) is
extended to Belmont Road, constructed to State standards and
VDH&T inspection approved.
Turn lanes shall be constructed at the intersection of the
collector road and Newbys Bridge Road, as deemed necessary
by VDH&T.
Within one hundred eighty~ (180) days of this date, the
existing construction office located on Lot 1, Block B,
Section 1 of Old Creek West Subdivision shall be removed and
this operation shall thereafter comply with the requirements
of the zoning ordinance.
®
No plans for a primary dwelling shall be approved unless the
finished, heated floor area of such a dwelling, exclusive of
one-story open porches and garages, shall equal or exceed
the following minimum standards:
a. One-story residence - 1,000 sq. ft.
b. Cape cod and tri-level residences - 1,150 sq. ft.
c. Two-story residences - 1,536 sq. ft.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S187 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, REALTY INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED requested an amendment to a previously granted
Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 80S093) to permit
construction of 74 multiple family units on 5.271 acres and
amendment to Condition #7B to delete the requirement to construct
two (2) lanes of a four (4) lane east/west road on property which
fronts approximately 400 feet on the east line of Old Hundred
Road, approximately 800 feet north of Millridge Parkway. Tax Map
62-6 (1) Parcels 1, 3 and 13 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommend
approval of 74 mu]tifamily units subject to certain conditions
and recommended approval of deletion of the requirement to
construct two lanes of a four lane east/west road, subject to
certain conditions. Mr. Warren Vaughan, representing the
developer, stated this case was deferred to allow the applicant
to work out some compromises with regard to setbacks to adjacent
single family development. IIe advised this development would be
restricted to people 62 years of age or older and handicapped and
he felt consideration shculd be given that this is a less intense
84-101
~se of the land than what is currently permitted. He outlined
Features of the development. Mr. Applegate stated there was a
~equirement for a 35 ft. setback adjacent to the Pond property
[nd could he give a 50 ft. buffer there. Mr. Vaughan stated
~here was not enough space, because of setbacks, that it limits
Lt to the 35 ft. and this could accommodate the drainage in the
~atural buffer.
4r. Mike Glover, a resident of Nuttree Subdivision, stated there
~ere several groups at the Planning Commission opposed to the
~rinciple of the apartment complex completely in this area. He
~tated a petition with'100% of Nuttree residents opposed to this
~as presented at the Planning Commission. He stated they were
concerned with the devaluation of their property, they have a
high quality subdivision, that future requests of the developers
to release from the Conditional Use clauses would allow for less
suitable tenants if it could not be rented as proposed, it is not
less intense as traffic will be a normal occurrence rather than
normal working hours as presently zoned for business, and
suggested that this complex be included in the Brandermill Woods
complex.
Mrs. Eloise Arthur, developer of Nuttree Subdivision, stated her
opposition and that the Building Code, Section F.2. states that
any new planned subdivision should not impair any existing
subdivision and she feels this will. She stated this facility
has very few recreational facilities for the elderly and
handicapped, it is surrounded by commercial development, if it is
approved that guarantees should be given that it will not be sold
for any other purpose then proposed. Mr. Micas stated that the
County could not attempt to control the conveyance or future
applications in this zoning process.
Mr. Gary Pond, adjacent property owner, inquired about the
buffer. Mr. Poole stated that it was a 70 ft. setback from the
property line to the structure with 50 ft. remaining in its
natural condition and the other 20 ft. to be cleared for
construction purposes. Mr. Pond stated he has only 35 ft.
adjacent to this property and he stated he was concerned about
his children and inquired about construction of a fence.
Mr. Vaughan stated the County did approve a construction bond for
this project which stipulated what the project would be and any
change in use would be in violation of the bond. Mr. Balderson
stated condition number 6 also speaks to the use. Mr. Applegate
stated that once the project is in place and the bonds paid off,
the project could be sold for another use. Mr. Micas stated that
any future owner would still have to comply with the zoning
conditions until amended.
Mr. Applegate stated he could not approve this request unless
there were assurances that the drainage problem on Mr. Pond's
property would be taken care of. He stated that since a 50 ft.
buffer cannot be provided, would the applicant be willing to berm
and fence the area. Mr. Vaughan stated the drainage will be
taken care of but because of the topography it would be more
appropriate to create the buffer with landscaping and the fence.
He stated the berm would affect the natural drainage. Mr.
Applegate inquired about the current zoning. Mr. Balderson stated
any retail sales such as a supermarket, etc. could be constructed
here and other heavier uses than what is proposed for 74 units.
Mr. Applegate stated he would like strong wording regarding ~the
drainage problem. Mr. Balderson stated the Drainage Section of
the Subdivision Ordinance addresses this succinctly and it is a
situation whereby the final site plan/building permits are
approved, the engineering would be approved or not approved based
on the technical situation of the area and will not permit runoff
or excessive runoff because of this use. On motion of Mr.
Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board approved 74
multifamily units subject to the follcwing conditions:
84-]02
e
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Vaughan Associates Incorporated, dated January 3, 1984,
shall be considered the Master Plan.
Ail buildings shall be set back a minimum of seventy (70)
feet from the northwest property line. The westernmost
fifty (50) feet of the seventy (70) foot setback shall be
maintained in its natural state. Other than utilities,
there shall be no other facilities permitted in the fifty
(50) foot buffer.
An overall landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final
site plan review. This plan shall include ornamental trees
and shrubs. Parking areas shall be landscaped to minimize
the impact of large paved areas.
Buildings shall have an architectural style as depicted in
the renderings prepared by Vaughan Associates Incorporated.
The proposed entrance shall align with the existing entrance
south of the eighty (80) foot right of way. The proposed
entrance shall be constructed with two lanes of pavement,
having a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet each, face
of curb to face of curb, from its intersection with the
eighty (80) foot right of way to the southernmost
driveway/parking area. This entrance shall also provide
access into the adjacent B-1 property to the east. The two
twenty-four (24) foot lanes shall be divided by a median
which shall permit access to the adjacent B-1 property as
far from the eighty (80) foot right of way as practical.
Occupants of this project shall be confined to those persons
described by the application and the November 10, 1983
letter from Hunton and Williams.
Ail multifamily requirements of Brandermill's original
Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 74S021) shall
apply to this development, except the density limitation of
12.5 units per acre.
A thirty-five (35) foot buffer shall be maintained
along the southwest property line adjacent to the Pond
property. A solid board privacy fence, a minimum of six (6)
feet in height, shall be constructed a minimum of thirty
(30) feet from the northeast property line. The area
between the fence and the property line shall be left in its
natural state or shall be landscaped with ornamental trees
and shrubs, if necessary, to screen this use from the
adjacent parcel.
And further the Board approved deletion of the requirement to
construct two (2) lanes of the proposed four (4) lane east/west
road from the access to the multifami]y development to the
eastern property line subject to the following conditions:
Prior to the release of any additional building permits for
development which accesses the east/west road, road and
drainage plans for the ultimate construction of a four (4)
lane divided road with curb and gutter within the existing
eighty (80) foot right of way, from Old Hundred Road to the
eastern property line, shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Planning Departmen=, VDH&T and Environmental
Engineering. These plans shall include the phasing of the
construction as described below.
0
Prior to issuance of any building permits for development
which accesses the east/west road, a bond for the
improvements required by Ccndit].on 3 shall be submitted to
Environmental Engineering.
84-103
The following improvements shall be constructed and taken
into the State road system prior to the release of occupancy
permits for any new development which accesses the east/west
road:
ae
Four (4) lanes of pavement with a divided median, and
curb and gutter, from Old Hundred Road to the
entrance/exit of the multifamily project.
be
Two (2) lanes of pavement, turn lanes, and curb and
gutter, from the entrance of the multifamily project to
the eastern end of the eighty (80) foot right of way.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S199
In Bermuda Magisterial District, DAVID F. GARRETT requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) on a 1.0
acre parcel fronting approximately 95 feet on the east line of
Kingston Avenue, approximately 290 feet south of East Hundred
Road. Tax Map 118-14 (1) Parcel 56 (Sheet 33).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to a certain condition. Mr.
Garrett was present and stated that he would like the condition
amended to install the fence only when the site is occupied.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to
the following condition:
A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
western and southern property lines within twelve (12)
months after commercial use begins on this property, an
eight (8) foot high opaque fence shall be installed along
the eastern and northernmost lines of this buffer. The area
between the fence and property lines shall be landscaped in
accordance with the "Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." It
shall be the responsibility of the owner to properly
maintain the fence and the buffer. There shall be no
facilities, storage, parking, etc. permitted within these
buffers.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
83S205
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BERNICE W. KNABE requested a
Conditional Use to permit a lawn and garden equipment sales and
service business in an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.79 acre
parcel fronting approximately 140 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,900 feet west of Le Gordon
Drive. Tax Map 15-10 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Co~m]ission had recommend
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Knabe was present. There was no one present in opposition. On
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request subject to the following conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be for the purpose of operating a
lawn and garden equipment sales and service business,
exclusively.
There shall be no outside storage of equipment awaiting
repair or sale except for tile outside display of new
merchandise.
84-104
Access to this property shall be shared with the adjacent
property to the west. Prior to development of the remainder
of the Knabe Tract, an overall master plan shall be prepared
that provides for limited, but adequate access and land use
compatibility. This master plan shall be approved by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of a
rezoning request.
A single sign identifying this use shall be permitted. The
sign may either be affixed to the building or may be
freestanding. If the sign is freestanding, it shall not
exceed a height of ten (10) feet. The aggregate area of the
sign shall not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet. This
sign may be illuminated, but may only be luminous if the
sign field is opaque with translucent letters. The sign
shall blend with the architectural style of the building.
Prior to the erection of the sign, a colored rendering shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. No
other advertising signs shall be permitted.
Lighting shall be of low level, not to exceed a height of
fifteen (15) feet.
The conditions herein notwithstanding, plans submitted with
the application shall be considered the plan of development.
The conditions herein notwithstanding, all bulk requirements
of the Convenience Business (B-l) District shall apply.
: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Glrone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84S001
In Bermuda Magisterial District, DON C. VANCE requested rezoning
from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 40.5 acre parcel
fronting approximately 850 feet on the west line of Woods Edge
Road, approximately 820 feet south of Lawing Drive. Tax Map
134-5 (1) Parcels 5 and 6 (Sheet 42).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to a certain condition. Mr.
Vance was present and stated the condition was acceptable. There
no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by
Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the
following condition:
A 100 ft. buffer shall be maintained in its natural state
along the western property line. Where necessary to provide
adequate screening, this buffer shall be planted according
to the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers."
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. App!egate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84S002
In Midlothian Magisterial District, CARDINAL REALTY COMPANY
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business
(B-2) on a 1.25 acre parcel fronting approximately 241 feet on
the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,300 feet
east of County Line Road. Tax Map 13 (1) Part of Parcel 24
(Sheets 5 and 6).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the request for B-2 and approval of Convenience
Business (B-l). Mr. Henshaw was present and stated he would
prefer to have B-2 as the surrounding property is zoned B-2.
There was no opposition present. On ]notion of Mrs. Girone,
84-!05
seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request for
Community Business (B-2).
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84S005
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE LANDMARK COMPANY OF
VIRGINIA, INC. requested an amendment to a previously granted
Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 79S065) to permit a
private school (gymnastics) in a Light Industrial (M-l) District
on a 1.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the
line of Southlake Boulevard, approximately 550 feet south of
Trade Road. Tax Map 17-14 (6) Southport, Section 2, Lot 31
(Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Yarbrough was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs
Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following
conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be limited to the operation of a
private gymnastic school.
There shall be no more than fifteen (15) students permitted
on the site at any one time unless there is sufficient
parking, according to the Zoning Ordinance, within Phases I
and II of this project to accommodate additional students.
(Note: The total number of students permitted on the site
at any one time shall be governed by the ability of the
owner to provide parking spaces for his project as required
by the Zoning Ordinance.)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84S007
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, RICHARD E. COLLIER
an amendment to a previously granted zoning (Case 78S106) to
allow a utility shed to encroach 6 feet into a required 35 foot
buffer on a 1.863 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on
the south line of Hull Street Road, also fronting approximately
430 feet on Randolph Road and located in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 50-5 (1) Parcel 10
(Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to a certain condition. Mr. Collier was presen~
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Applegate inquired how the shed came to exist prior to
approval and why trees were removed. Mr. Collier stated they
built the shed in an effort to improve the area knowing if this
was not approved, they would have to go back to the external
furnaces. He stated the trees that were removed were done so
during the installation of storm sewer in the area. He stated
they do have a landscaping plan for the area. On motion of Mr.
Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this reques
subject to the following condit~on and further requested that Mr
Collier work with Mr. Holt to get the vegetation restored when
weather permits:
Between the rear of Building #3 and the drainage and utilit'
easement, a single row of loblolly pines, Virginia cedars
and/or white pines shall be planted. These plants shall
have an initial height of ten (I0) feet and shall be spaced
fifteen (15) feet on center. This planting shall be
84-]06
accomplished during the spring 1984 planting season. A plan
depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of
final action on this request.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84S008
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ARCHWAY/60 ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Convenience Business (B-l) and
Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O), plus a Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit exceptions to use and bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a 9.31 acre parcel front-
ing approximately 380 feet on the south line of Midlothian
Turnpike, located approximately 250 feet west of North Arch ROad,
and also fronting approximately 700 feet on the north line of
Knightsbridge Road and approximately 100 feet on North Arch Road
in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 18-13 (1) Parcels 13 and 19 (Sheet 8).
The applicant was not present but it was indicated he was in
route to the Courthouse. It was generally agreed to defer this
to later in the day.
83S206
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOL AXEL AND B.R. FREASIER,
JR., ET AL, requested an amendment to a previously granted
Conditional Use (Case 79S173) to modify Condition 4, relative to
buffers, in a Community Business (B-2) District on an 11.16 acre
parcel fronting approximately 800 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,500 feet west of Grove Road.
Tax Map 16-11 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. John
Henson was present representing the applicant and stated he would
like to clarify the conditions as the applicant understands it,
stating they propose to place a 6 ft. board fence starting six
inches above the natural ground, hydro-seed the slope and plant
one line of 10 ft. pine trees five feet from the fence. There
was no one present in opposition to this request. On motion of
Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this
request subject to the following conditions:
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be installed and maintained
along the northern property line. This buffer shall have a
maximum slope of 2:1.
Within ninety (90) days of the approval of this request, a
six (6) foot high solid board fence shall be installed
within one (1) foot of the northern property line adjacent
to Olde Coach Village Subdivision. Within 180 days of the
approval of this request, this fence shall be extended
across the remaining length of the northern property line.
This fence shall be maintained in good condition.
Within the buffer area, south of the fence, white pines,
Virginia cedars, and/or loblolly pines shall be planted in
accordance with the "Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers."
These plants shall be installed during the spring 1984
planting season and shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in
height and spaced a maximum of ten (10) feet on center.
Within sixty (60) days of the approval of this request a
landscaping plan depicting the final slopes, ground cover,
and trees shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
84 - 10 '7
approval. A bond shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for the cost of the installation of this buffer.
The owner of this property shall be responsible for removing
dead plant materials as soon as they die and shall replace
them with comparable plants during the first planting season
following their removal.
This fence and planting shall be accomplished within 90 days
of approval of this request.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
It was generally agreed that the Board would recess for 10
minutes in order to allow the applicant for Case #84S008 to be
present at the meeting.
Reconvening:
84S008
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ARCHWAY/60 ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Convenience Business (B-l) and
Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O), plus a Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit exceptions to use and bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a 9.31 acre parcel front-
ing approximately 380 feet on the south line of Midlothian
Turnpike, located approximately 250 feet west of North Arch Road,
and also fronting approximately 700 feet on the north line of
Knightsbridge Road and approximately 100 feet on North Arch Road
in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 18-13 (1) Parcels 13 and 19 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Poole
stated the applicant had revised his plan to comply with the
buffer condition since the Planning Commission meeting. Mr.
Balderson stated the applicant wished to revise his plan from
85,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet and staff feels this
would have to go back to the Planning Commission for review as it
would affect parking ratios and number of parking spaces on the
site. Mr. Doug Woolfolk stated he would proceed with the 85,000
square feet and that they concur with the recommendations except
for several exceptions. He stated they are concerned with
Condition #7 regarding no access to North Arch Road from Parcel C
as they would like that parcel separate from the other portion of
the development with a single access to this parcel due to the
topography. He stated he felt Condition #13 was not clear in
that they will be building A-C as one story buildings and D and E
as two story buildings and explained the buffering and
landscaping plan for the area. He stated Condition #14 regarding
signs, they would like to condense all sign language into 14.g.
which would permit them to present a comprehensive sign package
to the Planning Department for approval. He stated Condition #16
will be only 85,000 sq. ~t. He stated Condition #23 addresses a
possible drainage problem and they do not intend to use the
existing pipe to drain the parking lot and will drain only the
swale behind the homes in the sewer easement and the buffer zone
and they will concur and put drop inlets in all their parking
lots and eliminate the problem that exists now. He stated he
realized there was concern regarding the rear access but they
have put a lot of thought into the plan and felt this was best
and was designed primarily for use of the residents of the
subdivision and will not provide a short cut through area. He
explained the road network in the area as it related to the
development.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt uncomfortable with the request to amend
the condition regarding signage after being reviewed by the
Planning Commission. Mr. Applegate inquired if any consideration
was given to the exit onto Arch Road and what determined the exit
84-108
coming onto Knightsbridge. Mr. Balderson stated that it was
staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission concurred that
the property not have direct access onto Arch Road but should be
accessed through the major development. He stated the Highway
Department has not made a final determination of the access on
Knightsbridge at this time. Mr. Woolfolk explained the site
distance problem at this location.
Mr. Jim Ridgeway, Chairman of the Area Development Committee of
the Shenandoah Community Association and Deacon of the Bon Air
Baptist Church, came in opposition. He stated the residents of
Shenandoah are not opposed to the development, but had concerns
about the signage, drainage, lights, etc. they are opposed
totally to the access road on Knightsbridge Road which will cause
traffic congestion and problems through the residential
neighborhood. He presented another alternative for the road
network. Mr. Balderson reviewed the traffic patterns in the
area.
Mr. Dick Rupp, President of the Shenandoah Community Association,
stated his concern for the traffic that will come back into the
Subdivision will which endanger the children and families in the
residential area. He stated the concept is good but they are
concerned with the traffic patterns that will be established
using Redbridge as a secondary exit rather than Knightsbridge.
Mr. Bob Conner, a resident of Shenandoah, stated he did not feel
the concept was bad but was concerned for the traffic patterns in
the subdivision. Mr. Steve Maxi, resident of Archwood, expressed
concern for traffic on Route 60 at this location and felt the
Powhite extension should be constructed first.
Mrs. Estes stated this is a quiet ne~ghborhood and with the
proposed traffic it will turn into a highway and she is opposed
to the development. She stated she was opposed to the exit onto
Knightsbridge Road. She stated she hoped the buffer will go
across the sewer easement. Mr. Woolfolk stated the County will
not allow the sewer easement to be landscaped but the buffer area
will be landscaped. He stated there was 19 feet remaining that
will be planted with trees.
Mr. Eric Lambert, resident of Archwood, stated his concern for
the buildings to be two stories with one stories in front from
~Route 60 but from behind they will see the two stories. He
stated he is also concerned with the traffic pattern that would
be established and that the road. is dangerous now in the winter.
He suggested that the Knightsbridge Road frontage be converted to
residential rather than business use and was opposed to the
entrance onto Arch Road.
· Joyce Nelson, a resident of Shenandoah, stated that she
~ood that the preliminary plans of the Highway Department
to six lane Route 60, at which time the crossover at the new
ce would be cut off and there would be a new crossover on
~ which will result in traffic coming on Tuxford Road. Mr.
son stated the crossover study for Route 60 indicates that
crossover would eventually be at Tuxford Road. He stated if
when that is a reality, that should not make any difference
the traffic patterns. Mr. Woolfolk stated there are a number
crossovers to be closed on Route 60 on today's plan, but once
plan were in place and a reality, the Highway Department
take a hard look at a closing a median cut that would cause
fic congestion. He stated there is a move to close median
~uts but there has to be a good reason for it and he felt this
~ould be a long way away.
~r. Tom August, Mr. James West, Ms. Ali. ce Lloyd, Ms. Kay Miller,
. Bob Andes and Mrs. Carole Rain stated their concern for the
~raffic, site d~stance and safety hazards for the schools and
~hildren in the area with the access proposed and the precedent
~hat might be set for future business along Knightsbridge.
84-]09
Mr. Mayes stated that it appears that when these developments are
planned, the neighbors are impacted and are not playing a part in
the planning and there is a lack of communications and their
desires are not considered which he felt is unfortunate.
Mrs. Girone stated that time has eaten away at this parcel of
land. She stated there have been many zoning applications for
this parcel and she felt this was a good plan ~or the area and
the best presented, and that if it is not approved, something
less desirable may be approved. She stated this is also well
landscaped and compatible with the land and area. She stated she
did not feel that many people would be using the back entrance.
Mr. Applegate stated that the objection is to the traffic
generally and not to the plan of development. He inquired if
there were a specific plan for the driveway onto Knightsbridge
Road. Mr. Woolfolk stated they would like it to be as planned
and they do not feel there is a reason for the Highway Department
to relocate it. He stated he has met with the citizens and the
only impasse is the traffic with the road to the rear. He stated
everyone is speculating on where the traffic is going. He stated
if there is a way to place the road to make it difficult to route
traffic through the subdivision, they would be glad to do so. He
stated they do not know of a better way, except putting a no
right turn sign at the road if the Highway Department recommends
it. Mrs. Girone inquired when the buildings would be
constructed. Mr. Wool~olk stated that they will begin with
buildings "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E" but there are no immediate
plans for "F" and that may never come to be but it is
incorporated in their plans.
Mr. Applegate inquired about the Highway Department review for
design. Mr. Balderson stated the design would be submitted to
the Highway Department with the site plans, if the zoning were
approved. He stated he felt within 2-3 weeks the Highway
Department review should be completed. Mr. Applegate stated he
has a real concern with the entrance onto Knightsbridge in that
he does not know what it takes to pin point it as it says
"whatever is agreed to by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation" and he does not want to leave it that indefinite.
Mr. Balderson stated staff does not know what the Department will
permit as far as access but staff can recommend to the Highway
Department our feelings and they should take them into
consideration. Mr. Micas stated that perhaps a condition could
be added that said this zoning is approved subject to use of the
entrance as shown on plan and approval by the Highway Department
of a no right hand turn restriction and if this were not approved
by the Department, it would have to come back to the Board. Mr.
Applegate stated that there is another condition that an entrance
onto Arch not be approved. Mr. Balderson stated the Highway
Department concurs with their rationale. There was some
discussion regarding the traffic projected for the roads and the
counts. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the
Board deferred this request until March 28, 1984 to allow the
Roads Committee to study the issue as it is too important not to
address the traffic problem.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
10. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adjourned at 5:09 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. on March 2 and 3, 1984 at
the Fort Magruder for a training session. It is also noted that
the Board would then adjourn to 1~00 p.m. on March 14, 1984 at
which time work sessions will be held..
Ayes:
Absent:
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Mr. Dodd.
Ch airman
~4-110
~i~ick
County Administrator