06-27-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES ,
June 27, 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. Ed Beck, Asst. Dir.
of Utilities
Mr. Kenneth Cronin, Asst.
Dir. of Personnel
Mrs. Doris DeHart,
Volunteer Coordinator
Chief Robert Eanes, Fire
Department
Mr. James Gillentine,
Nursing Home Admin.
Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Robert Hodder,
Building O~icial
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Admin.
Mr. Robert Masden, Asst.
County Admin.
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Environmental Engineer
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Asst.
County Admin.
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of
Budget and Accounting
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exec. Asst. to Co. Adm.
Mr. George Woodall, Dir.
of Economic Development
It is noted the Board did not hold a work session on the projects
list on June 21, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. as scheduled.
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:00
a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Rev. C~ Earl Wallace, Pastor of Cosby
Memorial Baptist Church, who gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2.A. AMENDMENTS TO MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1984
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
amended the minutes of April 25, 1984 which involved the amending
of a single condition in each of two zoning cases as indicated:
84-339
e
ZONING CASE 84S016, 1100 Associates~ Pa~e 84-252:
o o o
The Hull Street Road entrance/exit shall be a minimum width
of fifty (50) feet. Turn lanes shall be constructed along
Hull Street Road in accordance with VDH&T specifications.
o o o
ZONING CASE 84S043, Thomas L. Haynes, Pa~e 84-258:
o o o
There shall be no access to Old Bermuda Hundred Road.
Access shall be confined to a single "Y" entrance/exit to
Route 10, located at the eastern property line, unless
additional property can be obtained to the east. Turn lanes
and curb and gutter shall be installed along Route 10.
Improvements shall be in accordance with VDH&T
specifications.
Vote: Unanimous
o o o
2.B. MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 1984
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the minutes of June 13, 1984, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Ms. Diane Walker, newly
assigned reporter to Chesterfield County for Channel 12.
Mr. Stith stated the American Field Service Exchange Program
started in 1948 to attract foreign students to our high schools
and vice versa. He introduced Ms. Catherine deDorlodot from
Belgium and Mr. Renato Relvas from Portugal. He stated both
attended Clover Hill High School. He stated there were five
students but three returned after graduation. The Board welcomed
the students and stated they hoped this visit enriched their
educational experiences as this is a great opportunity for those
who are able to participate. Mr. Applegate stated both students
resided in Clover Hill District and had been a real addition to
the community and the County was proud to have them visit.
Mr. Micas introduced Ms. Joy Hatchett, Summer Law Clerk for the
County Attorne~~ ffice, stated she resides in Ettrick and
outlined her edi~ .:zonal background. He stated that she was one
of the first par~cipants in the County's Model Government Day to
come back to ti~ County to work. The Board welcomed Ms. Hatchett
to the County~
ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE
Mrs. (~irone stated that when she introduced the ordinance
propos:~} for churches she stated that it was a land use/zoning
proposal and s~e hoped it would not turn into a religious issue
but it has. S~e s%ated appreciation to the ministers and public
who supported the p~oposal and took the time to read her letter
84-340
outlining the issues. She stated that many were in favor of good
planning and for neighborhoods to meet and discuss the coming of
a church coming into a residential area. She stated they were in
~avor of a public hearing to work but the details and they felt
that the County was moving into a very fast growing period and
that it is important to do good planning and to.share. She
stated the proposal was not intended and would not have
restricted religion in homes or prayer meetings as there are
great insurances against that. She stated that she was sorry
that there was an element of fear attached to this proposal. She
stated other people were afraid that government was moving
against churches and they were afraid of the future. She stated
they were not so much afraid of this proposal but of what might
come later. She stated these people organized and came down and
made their views known to the Planning Commission but the people
who were in favor did not organize. She stated the people who
were opposed did not want the government to regulate churches and
~elt this proposal would be too much government and they did not
want that. She stated a climate had been created that cannot be
worked out at this point and she felt most of the Board members
.also felt that way.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
suspended the rules and procedures of the Board of Supervisors
which would allow consideration of the issue o~ a proposed
ordinance regarding churches in residential districts because of
the emergency nature of the issue.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
withdrew the issue of a proposed ordinance relating to churches
in residential districts.
Mr. Daniel stated he received more mail in opposition to this
proposed ordinance than any other over his five years experience.
He further stated that no criteria for saying "no" or denying the
application through the Conditional Use process had been
established. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes stated they would have had
to oppose the proposed ordinance because of the overwhelming
opposition regarding this request. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the
intent of the proposal was good. Mrs. Girone stated the proposal
was broad based with the idea the Planning Commission and the
Board could improve on the proposal. She stated the opposition
took the broad ideas literally and it never got to that point of
improving it. She stated she hoped that because this issue did
surface, that perhaps something favorable would come out of it
and, hopefully in the future, churches would contact the
neighborhood in which they are planning to locate to discuss
various concerns.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adopted the agenda as amended which deleted discussion of Item
9.E.l., Catalog Brochure for Parks and Recreation as this is an
informational item not requiring Board action; adding an
additional name to Item 9.I.1., Appointment of Police Officers;
and addition of 9.I.5., Request for Fireworks Display for
Brandermill which items to be added are of an emergency nature.
Vote: Unanimous
5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
5.A. MRS. VIRGINIA ANDREWS UPON RETIREMENT, NURSING HOM~
Mr. Kenneth Cronin introduced Mr. James Gillentine. Mr.
Gillentine introduced Mrs. Andrews and outlined her employment
with the Nursing Home and her outstanding qualities.
On motion of the Board, the £ollowing resolution was adopted:
84-341
WHEREAS, Virginia Andrews will retire from the Nursing Home
Laundry Department, Chesterfield County, on July 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Andrews has provided 11 years of quality
service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mrs. Andrews' diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Andrews and extends on
behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County
their appreciation for her service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mrs. Andrews and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield Countyv Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick congratulated Mrs. Andrews and presented her with the
framed resolution.
5.B. JOHN M. CARTER UPON RETIREMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINC
Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. Richard McElfish. Mr. McElfish
introduced Mr. Carter and outlined his employment history with
the County and his outstanding qualities.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, John. M. Carter, Sr., will retire from the
Environmental Engineering Department Chesterfield County on
July 1, 1984; and ' '
WHEREAS, Mr. Carter has provided 11 years of quality service
to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mr. Carter's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Carter and extends on behalf
of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for his service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mr. Carter and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick congratulated Mr. Carter and presented him with the
framed resolution.
5.C. EARL A. FRIEND UPON RETIREMENT, UTiLiTiEs DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. Ed Beck. Mr. Beck introduced Mr.
Friend and outlined his employment with the County and his
outstanding qualities.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Earl A. Friend will retire from the Utilities
Department, Chesterfield County, on July 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Friend has provided 22 years of quality service
to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
84-342
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mr. Friend's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Friend and extends on behalf
of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for his service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mr. Friend and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick congratulated Mr. Friend and presented him with the
framed resolution.
5.D. MRS. THELMA SHERIDAN UPON RETIREMENT, CENTRAL ACCOUNTINC
Mr. Cronln introduced Mr. Lane Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey introduced
Mrs. Sheridan and outlined her employment with the County and
outstanding qualities.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Thelma Sheridan will retire from the Accounting
Department, Chesterfield County, on July 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Sheridan has provided six years of quality
service to the citizens o~ Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mrs. Sheridan's service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Sheridan and extends on
behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County
their appreciation for her service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mrs. Sheridan and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers o~ this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick congratulated Mrs. Sheridan and presented her with
the framed resolution.
6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
Mr. Hedrick indicated there were no citizens scheduled for this
meeting.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
Mr. Hedrick indicated there were no deferred items for
consideration at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUBDIVISION, ZONING, SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND BUILDING AND RELATED PERMIT FEES
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Sections 18-11,
21-9, 21-77 and 6-4 relating to subdivision, zoning, site plan
review and building and related permit fees. Mr. Muzzy
84-343
introduced Mr. Hodder and Mr. Balderson who explained the reasons
for amendments to the fee structures which were to the point of
truly covering the cost of the activities and is less than
surrounding jurisdictions. ,
Mr. Hodder stated the proposed ordinance had been reviewed with
the Homebuilders Association of Richmond, the Southside
Homebuilders Association, the Plumbing, Heating and Cooling
Contractors Associations and the Central Virginia Electrical
Contractors Associations. He stated the Plumbing Heating and
Cooling Associations and the Electrical Associations endorsed the
proposed increases to the plumbing, mechanical and electrical
permit fee schedules. He stated the Homebuilders Associations
have neither endorsed nor opposed the proposed permit fee
schedules.
Mr. Balderson stated after comparing fees charged in other
jurisdictions with the Planning Department's development review
fees, the administration's recommendation is warranted. He
stated the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and
unanimously recommended approval of the fee schedule. He stated
{he fee structure was reviewed two years ago and the Homebuilders
Associations have indicated it would be best to look at the fees
continuously rather than having large increments over a period of
~ive years and staff plans to review this again during budget
preparation. He stated currently the fees cover about 35% of the
cost and this proposal will cover approximately 73%. Mrs. Girone
stated a philosophical question would be if the Board would want
to raise the fees to cover the entire cost. Mr. Daniel stated he
felt it was the feeling of the Board to move forward to have the
user pay the fees. Mr. Balderson stated this represented 73% of
the cost of the development review section dealing with land use
and growth requests that come to the County, not the entire
Planning Department budget. Mr. Applegate inquired why 100% was
not considered. Mr. Hedrick stated that 100% was considered but
all of the time is not devoted to only growth and development,
but other items as well. He stated the trade groups have
requested the County to make smaller incremental adjustments
rather than waiting longer periods of time with large adjustments
and they have been very responsive in dealing with the County and
the County would like to work correspondently with them. Mr.
Balderson stated the Homebuilders Associations did not respond
negatively or positively to the proposal.
Mr. Daniel suggested that these fees be reviewed annually at a
regular interval. There was no one present to address the
matter. Mr. Dodd stated the County also has the responsibility
not to hire more people than necessary which would increase fees
unnecessarily.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board adopt the following
ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 18-11, 21-9, 21-77 AND 6-4
RELATING TO SUBDIVISION, ZONING, SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND BUILDING AND RELATED PERMIT FEES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 18-11 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 18-11. Fees.
The fees for processing subdivisions by the county shall be
payable upon submission of the plats to the county for tentative
or final approval and shall be equal to the following:
84-344
(a) For tentative approval ............. $65.00 plus
$5.00 per
lot
(b) Final approval ..................... $55.00 plus
$5.00 per
lot
(2) That Section 21-9 of the Code of the County of
C-hesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
follows:
Sec. 21-9. Fees for hearings.
The cost of each hearing requested pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter, including advertisement when
required, shall be as follows and shall be deposited
simultaneously with the filing of the application or petition:
(a) Zoninq:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Agricultural
(a) .............. $250.00
plus. $10.00
per acre
Residential
R-12, R-9,
(R-40, R-25, R-15,
R-7) .............. $250.00
plus $10.00
per acre
(MH-1 ,
MH-2) ................. $450.00
plus $10
per acre
.00
Commercial .................... $475.00
plus $40
per acre
.00
Industrial .................... $475.00
plus $40
per acre
.00
(b) Conditional uses and special exceptions:
(1)
Multiple-family or two-family. S450.00
plus $10.00
per unit for each
unit after the
first two units
(2) Mobile Homes (i) New .......... $250.00
(ii) Renewal ..... $ 75.00
(3) (i)Planned development, new ....
(ii)Amend planned development...
..$600.00
plus $10.00
per acre
.$300.00 Each
Occasion
(4) Ail
others ................... $175.00
plus $20.00
acre
per
(c)
Variances
(1) Residential and agricultural. S200.00
(2) Commercial and industrial .... $300.00
84-345
Appeal to decision of Director of
Planning .......................... $300.00
(3) That Section 21-77 of the Code of the County of
lhesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
!ollows:
;ec. 21-77. Fees.
(a) In addition to any other fees required by the county
state and county agencies and departments and tax exempt
.onprofit organizations excluded), a fee of three hundred and
~ifty dollars shall be paid to the county treasurer upon initial
~iling of a site plan, plus:
(2)
(3)
(4)
sites; or
(5)
Ten dollars per dwelling unit;
Twenty dollars per acre for all new commercial sites;
Twenty dollars per acre for all new industrial sites;
Twenty dollars per acre ~or all new institutional
Two hundred dollars for master site plans.
(b) A fee of one hundred and twenty-five dollars shall be
~aid to the County Treasurer upon filing a revised site plan.
(c) A fee of twenty-five dollars shall be paid to the
~ounty Treasurer upon filing a schematic plan, plus;
(1) Ten dollars per dwelling unit;
(2) Twenty dollars per acre for all new commercial sites;
(3) Twenty dollars per acre for all new industrial sites;
(4) Twenty dollars per acre for all new institutional
sites;
(4) That Section 6-4 of the Code of the County of
:hesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as
!ollows:
;ec. 6-4. Permit fees.
(a) Generally. Unless otherwise excepted, no permit to
,egin work for new construction, alteration, removal, demolition
)r other building operation for construction required by the
~everal provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
2ode shall be issued until the fees prescribed in this section
~hall have been paid. No amendment to a permit necessitating an
~dditional fee because of an increase in the estimated cost of
~he work involved shall be approved until the additional fee has
)een paid. All such permits shall be issued by the building
)fficial on forms approved and furnished by his office. The fees
~or permits shall be based upon the project cost in accordance
;ith the following schedule:
(i)
Buildinq_:
a. Residential Building
finished area .................
$1.25
per 20
square
84-346
be
ee
unfinished area ...............
accessory building min. fee ...
residential addition min.fee...
Demolition ......................
Moving or relocating buildings ....
Commercial Building
Structure, excluding
signs; two thousand
dollars or less ................
Each additional thousand
or fraction thereof ...............
feet,
1500
square
feet
minimum
$1.25
per 30
square
feet
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$ 4.00
Mobile home, including buildings,
electrical and plumbing ............ $30.00
Signs
Sign permit, two
thousand dollars or
less ........... $15.00
Each additional thousand
or fraction thereof .................. $ 4.00
(2) Mechanical:
(3)
When the cost of labor and material
(applicant's cost) involved in install-
ation, alteration, replacement and/or
repair is:
$0-300 ..................... $27.00
$301-500 ................... $32.00
$501-1,000 ................. $37.00
$1,001-2,000 ............... $42.00
$2,001-3,000 ............... $47.00
$3,001-4,000 ............... $52.00
$4,001-5,000 ............... $57.00
Over
$5,001 ........ $57.00
plus $4.66
additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof
Plumbing:
The ~ee for each plumbing permit issued shall
include the installation, alteration,
replacement, and/or repair of any one or all
of the following: Water service piping;
building sewer (including connection to the
County water system); water distribution
piping; building sewer (including connection
to the County sewer system); drain waste, and
84-347
(4)
vent piping; gas piping; private or public
wells, pumps; storm drains; traps & fIxtures.
When the cost of labor and material
(applicant's cost) involved in install-
ation, alteration, replacement and/or
repair is:
$0-300 ..................... $27.00
$301-500 ................... $32.00
$501-1,000 ................. $37.00
$1,001-2,000
$2,001-3,000
$3,001-4,000
$4,001-5,000
$42.00
$47.00
$52.00
$57.00
Over
$5,001 ....... $57.00
plus $4:66 ~A~ ~AAh
additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof
Active Solar System
When the cost of labor and material
(applicant's cost) involved in install-
ation, alteration, replacement and/or
repair is:
$0-300 ..................... $27.00
c. Septic tank Permit
$32.00
$37.00
$42.00
$47.00
$52.00
$57.00
$301-500 ...................
$501-1,000 .................
$1,001-2,000 ...............
$2,001-3,000 ...............
$3,001-4,000 ...............
$4,001-5,000 ...............
Over $5,001 ........ $57.00
plus $4.66 ~A~ ei~
additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof
.................... $40.00
Electrical:
When the cost of labor
(appLicant's cost)
ation, alteration,
repair is:
and material
inVolved in
replacement
install-
and/or
$0-300 .....................
$301-500 ...................
$501-1,000 .................
$1,001-2,000 ...............
$2,001-3,000 .............. ..
$27.00
$32.00
$37.00
$42.00
$47.00
84-348
$3,001-4,000 ............... $52.00
$4,001-5,000 ............... $57.00
Over $5,001 ...... $57.00
plus $4 66
additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof
(5)
Electrical, plumbing and bulldin9 related
mechanical workers cards:
a. Master card .......................... $10.00
Examination .......................... $40.00
b. Journeyman card ...................... $10.00
Examination ......................... $30.00
(b) Exemptions from fee requirement.
(1) No fee shall be required for building permits for
construction when the cost of such construction is less than five
hundred dollars and such construction would not involve securing
any other permit as required by section 109.0 of the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code.
(2) No fee shall be required to be paid for permits to
be issued for the construction of buildings designed for and used
to house religious assemblies as a place o~ worship.
(c) Disposition o~ ~ees. Ail permit fees required by this
section shall be paid by the applicant to the county treasurer or
his deputy at the time the application for permit is ~iled with
the building official, and upon receipt of such fees, the
treasurer shall deposit same to the credit of the county general
fund.
(d) Refunds on Application for Permzts Cancelled on Request
of Applicants. If an application for a permit is cancelled on
request of the applicant before a permit is issued the permit fee
shall be returned to the applicant if a written request for said
refund is received by the building official within six (6) months
after the date the application is received in the office of the
building official.
(e) Fee for Reinspection of The Same Type. In addition to
the fees set out in this section, there shall be a fee of fifteen
($15.00) dollars for each inspection made in excess of two, if
such inspection trips are made necessary due to work not being
complete tor inspection when request for inspection is made or if
corrections are not made before calling for reinspections.
Vote: Unanimous
9. NEW BUSINESS
9.A.1. APPROPRIATION OF BALANCE OF 1983-84 SCHOOL BUDGET
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appropriated the balance of the 1983-84 School Budget of
$1,000,000 to the School operating budget.
Vote: Unanimous
9.A.2. APPROPRIATION OF ].984-85 SCHOOL BUDGET
On motion ot Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
84-349
appropriated the School Budget to the categories as follows:
Estimated Revenues:
State
Federal
Local
Transfer - General Fund
Transfer - Revenue Sharing
Interest
$ 39,568,541
2,790,549
4,741,210
58,114,100
2,138,600
200,000
Total Revenue
$107,553,000
Estimated Expenditures:
Administration
Instruction, Regular Day School
Pupil Transportation
Food Service
Operation & Maintenance of School Plant
Fixed Charges
Summer School
Adult Education
Other Educational Programs
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
$ 1,385,570
54,987,161
3,804,457
4,918,810
11,892,405
16,637,307
302,400
139,500
1,497,378
10,097,200
1,990~812
Total Expenditures
$107~553,000
And further the Board withheld the appropriation of $1,000,000 to
be appropriated at a later date.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick stated for the Board's information that by mutual
agreement between the School System and the General County
Government there is no deficit owed to the School System by the
General County Government. He stated when the Recreation
Department agreement was negotiated, there had been some past
misunderstandings regarding the ~ee structures involving the joint
use of facilities. He stated one of the items included in that
discussion was the issue concerning funds that some people in the
School System felt was owed by the General County Government. He
stated as part of the new agreement, there will be a new fee
structure and that past misunderstandings were behind and the
books would be cleared. He stated the County has budgeted funds
under the new fee arrangement and we will be reimbursing for
electricity charges and things of that nature. He stated in
return there has been an agreement regarding the utilization of
those facilities. He stated he made these comments because of
reports in the news media that constantly refer to a deficit
which does not exist.
9oB. REVISIONS TO COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY'S 1984-85 BUDGET
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board revised
the appropriation to the Commonwealth's Attorney's 1984-85 budget
to include additional revenue from the State Compensation Board
for one new position as follows:
1984-85 Budget
Adopted Revised
Total
Revenue from Compensation Board
Fees
$320,600 $353,300
263,300 305,200
1,500 1~500
General Fund Contribution
$ 55,800 $ 46,600
Full Time Positions
10 11
84-350
Vote: Unanimous
9.C. AIRPORT EXPANSION PROJECT
Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board should specify who the
contractor is ~or the Airport Expansion Project rather than
awarding it to the lowest responsible bidder because of its
magnitude. Mr. Howell stated staff did not anticipate a problem
with the apparent low bidder but was requesting this action in
case something unexpected arose. Mr. Daniel stated i~ that were
the case, the contract could be brought back to the Board for
further action. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd,
the Board:
Authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract
with APAC-Virginia, Inc., the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder, for the second phase of the Airport
Expansion Project for widening of the original 4400 ft. runw
from 75' to 100', overlay the original runway and connector
taxiways and grade the runway safety area on the east end;
Authorized the County Administrator to submit the detailed
budget application and to enter into a contract with the
State and Federal governments for the expenditure of
$974,464 in State and Federal and County funds when
received; and
Appropriated the Federal and State shares of the funds for
the Airport Expansion project ($925,741) and the local share
($48,723) to come from the Airport Industrial Park account.
Total appropriation is $974,464.
Vote: Unanimous
9.D. CANCELLATION OF DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the cancellation of accounts receivable for the
following departments for accounting purposes with the
understanding that collection efforts will continue:
Utilities
1. Sewer Service Charges
2. Water Service Charges
3. Other Billings
Total Utilities
$12,227.00
16,838.33
14,303.03
$43,368.36
B. Airport
C. Nursing Home
D. Landfill
E. Other Miscellaneous Billings
734.84
11,462.37
3,692.70
1,890.06
(A copy of the individual listing of the outstanding accounts
receivables cancelled is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone inquired what the percentage these accounts were of
the total revenues involved. Mr. Ramsey stated it was less than
one-half of one percent. He stated there are several accounts
that have been carried for several years which makes the total a
little higher than normal. He stated the collection agency does
handle the water and sewer items and the County Attorney's
office attempts to collect the other amounts owed.
84-351
9.E. PARKS AND RECREATION ITEMS
9.E.1. DISTRIBUTION OF GIFT CATALOG
The Board was presented with a Parks and Recreation Gift Catalog.
9.E.2. FUNDS TO CONTINUE OPTION FOR SWIFT CREEK NATURE PARK
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
appropriated $11,500 from the General Fund Contingency to extend
the option on the property for the Swift Creek Nature area until
January, 1985 and further authorized the Parks and Recreation
Department to make a presentation before the Virginia Division of
Parks and Recreation at their earliest meeting to obtain
reimbursement for this project.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel requested the County Administrator to prepare a
forecast as to Park commitments and costs of services for all
projects underway and under consideration.
9.F. REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO RADIO TOWERS FOR POLICE AND FIRE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized staff to initiate the public hearing process on two
sites for two radio towers for the Fire and Police Communications
system which sites are located at the new landfill in Clover Hill
District and the second at Huguenot Park in Midlothian District.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone requested that staff contact the people in the area
regarding the sites, towers and plans and that staff arrange a
viewing for her of the sites. She stated she was also concerned
with the proliferation of towers in Midlothian District and
encouraged the use of towers for multiple use but stated she
understands the County is growing and a tower which we can
control would be a good situation.
9.G. WAIVER OF DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR NURSING
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board hereby
requests Central Fidelity Bank to waive the net revenue and
coverage test contained in Section 602 of the Indenture of Trust
for the Nursing Home for the 1983/84 fiscal year and further the
Board morally commits to provide annual funding sufficient to
fund any deficits of the Nursing Home.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H. CONTRACT FOR EXPANSION OF JUVENILE DETENTION HOME
Mr. Masden stated that this project was approved approximately
two years ago and the estimate at that time-is approximately
$110,000 less than the actual project cost which has had some
additional requirements added for security, etc. He stated the
County is continuing to negotiate with Colonial Heights to
ascertain if they would contribute an additional $35,000 toward
the cost. Mr. Applegate inquired about the cost to Colonial
Heights. Mr. Hedrick stated the cost differential is because of
the use of the facility. Mr. Hedrick re~erred to a letter from
Judge John Thomas supporting this project. On motion of Mrs.
Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board received and
approved the low bid and Alternate No. 1 in the amount of
$317,524, appropriated the state share of $125,000, appropriated
to the project the Colonial Heights share of $65,000 and
authorized an advance from the General Fund until all of the
Colonial Heights share is received and transferred $110,000
84-352
~rom the General Fund balance to the Juvenile Detention Home
Expansion project.
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Dave Reeve, Dir. of the Detention
Home, and recognized the outstanding job which he performs.
Vote: Unanimous
9.I. CONSENT ITEMS
9.I.1. APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICERS
On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
respectfully requested the Circuit Court Judges to appoint the
following people as police officers for Chesterfield County
effective July 16, 1984:
Michael Shell
Barry D. Bowman
Vote: Unanimous
9.I.2. YEAR END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the expenditure from departments which will return
funds to the General Fund to the following departments for the
1983-84 budget:
~e~artment
Additional Amount
Animal Control
Assessor
Building Inspection
Clerk of Circuit Court
Board o~ Supervisors
County Administrator
County Attorney
Director, Community Development
Personnel
Library
Total
$ 8,000
18,500
24,000
30,800
11,000
9,700
44,500
8,600
6,600
16,900
$178,600
Vote: Unanimous
9.I.3. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions irom this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Bream Drive in Salisbury, Section D, and
Salisbury, Lakeview, Section 1, a portion of both sections.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Bream Drive in
Salisbury, Section D, and Salisbury, Lakeview, Section 1, a
portion of both sect'~ons, Midlothian District, be and it hereby
is established as ~ public road.
And be it f~,~ ~her resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Tr~.~ortation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the $c ~'~ndary System, Bream Drive, beginning at
intersection wi~J Kingsmill Road, State Route 1019, and going .08
mile southwest~ ~y to a cul-de-sac. This road serves 6 lots.
And be i ~'~-her resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees t¢~ ~ ~rginia Department of Highways a 50 ft.
right-of-way ~ ~s road. These sections of Salisbury are
recorded as f~ ~.
Section D, Plat ~ 36, Page 62, July 14, 1980.
84.-353
Lakeview, Section 1, Plat Book 37, Page 28, September 23, 1980.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Michaels Ridge Road in Keswick Hills, a portion of
Section 1, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Michaels Ridge Road in
Keswick Hills, a portion of Section 1, Midlothian District, be
and it hereby is established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Michaels Ridge Road beginning at
intersection with Winterfield Road, State Route 714, and going
.07 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac. This road serves 7 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft.
right-of-way for this road. This section of Keswick Hills is
recorded as follows:
Keswick Hills, Section 1, Plat Book 37, Page 100, January 6,
1981.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Rldgerun Road in Sunnybrook, a portion of Section
4, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Ridgerun Road in
Sunnybrook, a portion of Section 4, Matoaca District, be and it
hereby is established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Ridgerun Road, beginning at its
intersection with Rollingway Road, State Route 2790, and RJ
Road, State Route 3091, extending southeast 0.26 mile to the
Intersection of Ridgerun Court, then southeast 0.04 mile to the
intersection of Qualla Road, State Route 653. This road serves
34 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft.
right-of-way for this road. This section of Sunnybrook is
recorded as follows:
Section 4, Plat Book 43, Page 28, June 6, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
9.I.4. FIREWORKS DISPLAY - SOUTHSIDE SPEEDWAY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved a fireworks display to be held on June 29, 1984 at 10:
p.m. at Southside Speedway subject to the rules and regulations
of the Chesterfield County Fire Department and review by the
County Attorney.
Vote: Unanimous
9.I.5. FIREWORKS DISPLAY - BRANDERMILL
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
84-354
approved a fireworks display to be held on July 4, 1984 at
Brandermill Lake by Brandermill subject to the rules and
regulations of the Chesterfield C~unty Fire Department and review
by the County Attorney.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
9.J.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the installation cost of $379.00 for a street light at
the intersection of Reams Road and Mistywood Road with these
funds to be expended ~rom the Clover Hill District Street Light
Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.2. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
the requests for street lights at the following locations with
the tunds necessary to be expended from the District Street Light
Funds as indicated:
Intersection of Canute Drive and Old Zion Hill Road, Bermuda
Between 21312 and 21308 Robertson Avenue, Matoaca
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
suspended its rules and regulations to include the addition of
costs for street lights on Buford Road because of the emergency
nature of the issue.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve
the cost of $348 for poles for street lights at the intersection~
of Lake Shore Drive and Buford Road and at Buford Road and Post
Oak Road which funds are to be expended from the Midlothian
District Street Light Funds which is an emergency situation.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.3. CENTRAL AREA GENERAL PLAN REVISION
Mr. Balderson stated amendment to the Central Area General Plan
would be a part of the General Plan 2000 and would take
approximately four months for completion. Mr. Mayes inquired why
the studies underway are restricted to cover only certain areas
such as this for the central area of the County. Mr. Balderson
stated over the past several years, the County has tried to
update the General Plan 2000 and there have been several
development issues arising in several portions of the County and
the Board has seen fit to address those issues through these
studies. He stated the studies have not been narrow but have
divided large sections of the County into planning areas by
geographical locations. Mr. Mayes inquired if public hearings
were held whereby citizens could address the boundaries of those
areas. Mr. Balderson stated the Board would be requested to hold
a work session on the General Plan and details as to what the
plan consists of and how it will be developed will be discussed.
Mr. Mayes stated he. felt that the southern end of the County is
virgin territory but it should not be excluded from the
84-355
General Plan 2000. Mr. Balderson stated Matoaca District is
included in the overall long range considerations. Mr. Applegate
stated his concern for the use of outside consultants and the
costs involved. Mr. Balderson stated the use of consultants was
because of the timing of the issues as well as the County does
not have the staff resources to embark on such studies. Mr. Dodd
stated that Route 10 is included in the Central Area plan and
that it is slated for road improvements and people are concerned
about a four lane road and if it would maintain a residential
character. He stated as similar issues develop throughout the
County, he would support them. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
iby Mr. Mayes, the Board:
Authorized the County Administrator to enter into a
contract with Harland Bartholomew and Associates not to
exceed $53,000. Of this approximately $5,400 will be
reimbursed to the County from FAA.
Appropriated $53,000 for the contract from the 1984-85
Contingency with $5,400 to be reimbursed to the General Fund
upon project completion.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REVISIONS
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board:
Approved a $27,675.72 transfer of CDBG funds from the water
and sewer and drainage elements to the fire station project.
Authorized the County Administrator to transfer any
unexpended funds from completed CDBG projects to other such
projects still under construction, subject to State
approval.
Mr. Mayes stated that when the requests are made for an area, it
should not be restricted such as this was to the old sanitation
district as Matoaca is much larger than that and the funds can
only be spent in the one designated area. Mr. Balderson stated
that the staff shares these concerns but if they were not
narrowed in the fashion that they were, the County would not
qualify for the grant funds and this is beyond County control.
He stated staff looks at the criteria and guidelines and works
within them to make the efforts for the grant successful. Mr.
Mayes inquired if public hearings were held with regard to this
grant application. Mr. Balderson stated hearings were held at the
County level as well as in the community itself.
Vote: Unanimous
9.J.5. PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK.GRANT
Mr. Balderson stated this request was to set a date for a public
hearing to consider another community for Virginia Community
Development Block Grant Funds. He stated this would involve the
northern portion of the Route 1/301 corridor'and the criteria was
used for this area as well. Mr. Mayes stated he was disturbed
about the narrow criteria again. Mr. Balderson stated that staff
is limited by the guidelines established in the legislation. Mr.
Mayes inquired if the Branders Bridge Road area could be included
as they are also experiencing water problems which is the same
use as proposed for the northern portion of the Route 1/301
corridor. Mr. Balderson stated that the application must be a
single tota], area and must meet population criteria as well. Mr.
Mayes stated it concerned him that in both areas there is a
potable water problem but it seems the affluent area is proposed
to receive the service but there is not a solution to solve the
problem in the less affluent area. Mr. Balderson stated the area
under consideration is not necessarily an affluent area, however,
it does contain the necessary population and demonstration of
84-356
need to allow the County to apply for the funds that are
available. He stated the legislation is based on need serving
the most population and there are some narrow parameters of how
much the County could request in a g~ven area. He stated the
Branders Bridge Road area would not qualify in this case.
Mr. Daniel explained that the County can meet the necessary
~riteria for the grant for the Route 1/301 area but this would
not be the mechanism to fund the Branders Bridge Road problem.
He stated that i~ the problem on Branders Bridge Road needs
~ddressing, the County should take steps to get water there no
hatter what the mechanism. Mr. Mayes stated he would vote for
the Route 1/301 area but both areas have the same problem
and something should be done to solve both. Mr. Applegate stated
it should be stated once more, that this decision on the Route
1/301 area has nothing to do with affluency. Mr. Dodd stated for
the record that this water problem is basically for the Rayon
Park area of the County and has nothing to do with the
controversy of the Bensley area and this would have no influence
on the Bensley project. Mr. Balderson stated that they are
exclusive of each other. Mr. Daniel requested that the County
Administrator prepare a recommendation to address the Branders
Bridge Road water problem. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by
Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of July 25, 1984 at 9:00 a.m.
for a public hearing for the Virginia Community Development Block
Grant Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
9oK. APPOINTMENTS
9.K.1. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
appointed Mr. Gary W. Fenchuck to the Chesterfield County
Industrial Development Authority representing Clover Hill
District which appointment is effective immediately and
will expire on June 30, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
9.K.2.
YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appointed the following people to the Youth ServiCes Commission
effective immediately and whose terms will expire on June 30,
1985 representing the districts as indicated:
Mr. Jack Lynch, Clover Hill - Adult
Ms. Charlotte Gibbs, Matoaca - Adult
Ms. Nancy Hudson, Dale - Adult
Mr. W. A. Berger, Dale - Adult
Mr. Earl Lewis, Dale - Youth
Rev. William L. Painter, Midlothian - Adult
Mrs. Maureen Hagan, Midlothian - Adult
Vote: Unanimous
~he Board nominated the following people for appointment, to the
Youth Services Commission for the district as indicated with
formal appointments to be made at the July 11, 1984 meeting:
Ms. Geraldine Stanfield, Bermuda - Youth
Mr. Howard L. Warren, Matoaca - Adult
Ms. Catherine Harris, Matoaca - Youth
Rev. Philip Miller, Clover Hill - Adult
Ms. Casey Wade, Clover Hill - Youth
Ms. Patricia Millan, Midlothian - Youth
84-357
9.K.3. SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD
Mr. Daniel stated it was generally agreed that Mr. Mayes and Mr.
David Phillips would be nominated 5o the Social Services Board
which formal appointment will be made at the July 11, 1984
meeting.
9.K.4. CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
Mr. Hedrick stated the Crater Planning District Commission has
approved Chesterfield County for membership in an ad hoc posture.
He stated they have requested appointment of a Board member as
well as a staff person. He stated that there was discussion
regarding compensation for attending Planning Commission meetings
but there is a complication regarding the state law. Mr. Micas
stated the state law is specific in that it can only pay Board
members who serve on Planning Commissions of which the County is
an official member and we do pay for those on the Richmond
Regional Planning District Commission. He stated that the Board
could consider asking the General Assembly to change the state
law. Mr. Daniel stated it was the intention of the Board to pay
this position and felt it should be included in the legislative
package. Mr. Mayes stated the membership is of primary concern
and the compensation issue does not concern him. It was generally
agreed that Mr. Mayes would be nominated to serve as the Board
member with Jeffrey Muzzy as the staff person, which formal
appointments would be made on July 11, 1984.
9.L. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
9.L.1. REPORTS
9.L.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS
Mr. Beck presented the Board with the water and sewer financial
reports.
9.L.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Beck presented the Board with a list of developer water and
sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
9.L.2.
DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION FOR WATER AND
SEWER ORDINANCES
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set
the date o~ July 25, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. to consider an ordinance
regarding amendments to the water and sewer ordinances.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate stated he was concerned about the connection
charges which are being projected through the year 1987 and he
felt a work session was necessary. It was generally agreed that
a work session would be scheduled later in the day during the
work session on the projects list. Mr. Hedrick stated in past
years, this issue was discussed with the trade groups and they
felt an incremental increase over a period of years would be best
and that is how this approach was determined. He stated the
specifics could be addressed at the work session.
9.L.3. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
9.L.3.a. CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF PARCEL FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
84-358
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a
contract between Kenneth E. Lankey, Sr. and Margaret R. Lankey
and the County for the purchase of 8.77 acres in the amount of
$27,810.00 for the Airport Expansion Project and accept title on
behalf of the County. It is noted the County will be reimbursed
~or 90% of the purchase price by the F.A.A. and 5% by the State.
Vote: Unanimous
9.L.3.b. CONTRACT FOR EASEMENT FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute the contract and
easement agreement between Ruth O. Kersey, widow, and the County
for the purchase of an easement across Parcels A and B, for the
County Airport Expansion in the amount of $26,029.00. It is
noted the County will be reimbursed ~or 90% of the purchase price
by the F.A.A. and 5% by the State.
Vote: Unanimous
9.L.3.c. CONTRACT WITH WINDSOR INDUSTRIES, INC.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a
contract for the purchase of 0.339 acre from Windsor Industries,
Inc., or its assigns, for the extension of Southlake Boulevard to
Courthouse Road in the amount of $22,600.00 and set the date of
July 25, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. for the public hearing to convey same
to the Commonwealth o~ Virginia. It is noted funds had been
previously appropriated for this purchase.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he owned property adjacent
to the property to be discussed in the next item but the sewer
line would not be serving his property. He stated although he
did not feel he had a conflict, he excused himself from the
meeting ~or a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the
Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act.
9.L.3.d. AID CRADDOCK POINT SUBDIVISION IN ACQUIRING EASEMENT
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved a request from Thomas W. Lockard, Vice President of the
Bank of Virginia, developer of Craddock Point Subdivision, for
the County to aid them in acquiring an offsite easement for a
sewer line across the property of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Paul
Kvasnika, provided the developer executes a contract with the
County agreeing to pay any costs involved in excess of the
$1,000.00 which was escrowed.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone, and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
9.L.4. CONSENT ITEMS
9.L.4.a. WATER C<~NTRACT FOR ASHBROOK LANDING - EVERGREEN
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W84-114CD/6(8)4145, Ashbrook Landing - Evergreen
Developer: Midlothian Enterprises, Inc.
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Total Developer Cost:
$37,140.00
84-369
Estimated County Cost, Refunds Through
Connections: 1,966.50
Estimated Developer Cost: '$35,173.50
Number of Connections: 34
Code: 559-1-00556-0000 Refund through connections
Vote: Unanimous
9.L.4.b. WATER CONTRACT FOR SOMERVILLE GROVE - EVERGREEN
On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
W84-113CD/6(8)4135 for Somerville Grove - Evergreen
Developer: Midlothian Enterprises, Inc.
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Total Contract Cost:
Estimated County Cost, Refund Through
Connections:
~Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 38
Code:
$34,696.00
878.54
$33,817.46
559-1-00556-0000 Refund Through Connections
Vote: Unanimous
9.L.4.c. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG GROVE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting, on behalf of the County, a 5' strip of land
along Grove Road from Daniels Heating and Refrigeration
Corporation.
Vote: Unanimous
9.L.4.d. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WOOLRIDGE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting, on behal~ of the County, a 15 ft. strip of
land along Woolrldge Road from Thomas C. Thomas and Deborah J.
Thomas. Map Section: 60-9.
Vote: Unanimous
9.L.4.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG COURTHOUSE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting, on behalf of the County, a 15 ft. strip of
land along the so~th line of Courthouse Road ~rom Dean and Nonie
E. Whittington. ~ap Section 78-7.
Vote: Unanimo'u~
9.L.4.f. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG COURTHOUSE AND WAL~SLEY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting, on behalf of the County, a variable width
right of way along Turner Road and Walmsley Boulevard from
Country Farms Convenience Marts Associates, A Virginia Limited
Partnership.
Vote: Unanimous
84-360
9.M. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of
the General Fund Contingency. '
Mr. Hedrick stated that a paper had been given to the Board
indicating the County's position on the Corps of Engineers Study
for the Southside Hampton Road Area and for the Northside Hampton
Road Area through the year 2003. Mr. Muzzy presented the Board
with the proposed statement which indicated that the County feels
before any water is approved for withdrawal either for the
Northside or Southside Hampton Roads there should be a very
thorough study completed of the localities water needs from which
the water is coming and that this should not be addressed
singularly on a jurisdictional basis but on an area wide basis.
He stated this is similar to a position which has been taken in
the past by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission.
On motion of the Board, the statement as prepared, a copy of
which is filed with the papers of this Board, was adopted by the
Board for presentation to the Corps of Engineers at the meeting
in Lawrenceville and in York County.
Vote: Unanimous
9.N. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went
into Executive Session in Room 502 to consult with legal counsel
pertaining to potential litigation involving Botany Woods
pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6), of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
The Board recessed to travel to Room 502 for a work session.
Reconvening:
9.0. AND P. WORK SESSION - PROJECTS LIST AND LUNCH
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a list of projects which are
necessary over and above every day operations, a copy of which is
filed with the papers of this Board. Mr. Daniel stated the
purpose of this work session was to review the projects on the
list, the goals, establish the priorities as to what should be
accomplished, agree on the timetable and resources to bring those
projects to completion in a timely manner and set work sessions
to accomplish those items.
Mr. Hedrick reviewed the allocation of time which is spent by the
various department directors on supervision/administration,
planning/development and firefightlng issues and stated drawing
on expertise of consultants, continued use of time management as
a tool and streamlining the complaint process could contribute to
an earlier achievement of the optimum goals set. He stated in
order to handle the development' and planning issues, the
complaints have to be dealt with in a more efficient manner. He
reviewed the dates that were available for work sessions in July
and August. Mr. Mayes indicated he had been directing his
complaints to the County Administrator's Office and has been very
successful in responding to citizen concerns and complaints and
they are well satisfied also. Mr. Applegate stated he had a
problem with the use of outside consultants because of the high
cost involved and he did not want to use preliminary studies as a
crutch to get consultants. Mr. Hedrick stated the use of
consultants had been on issues that needed an answer quickly and
were matters of great concern.
84-361
Mr. Hodge reviewed the budget, the police and fire communications
system, the new financial reporting system, the audit, the Parker
Field project, the 911 emergency telephone service and the review
of employee benefits. Mr. Daniel requested that the School
System be notified of the proposed timetable for the budget in
order that they meet the schedules as proposed. Mrs. Girone
inquired about the auditors for the County and stated she felt it
was wise to change every three years. Mr. Hodge stated the
existing auditors have done a fine job and their contract is for
an additional year, which is the third year of the three year
contract.
Mr. Muzzy reviewed the Powhite Parkway Extension, the General Pi~
2000, development regulations, economic development, sign control
ordinance, Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee (JLARC),
community development organization process, on-going land use and
transportation studies, completion of the airport expansion for
Phase II, the Capital Improvements Program and Utilities
Department issues. Mr. Applegate inquired about the right of way
for Powhite for the major problem areas. Mr. Muzzy stated the
.Highway Department was working on this with the problem areas
first. Mrs. Girone inquired who would be directly involved with
that as she felt the Roads Committee should be involved with this
as well as the sight and sound features. Mr. Muzzy stated the
Roads Committee would be contacted regarding the construction
issues. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes inquired when the Board should
consider or add projects to the list such as Route 10 and Ettrick
underpass/overpass. Mr. Muzzy stated that would be included in
the Capital Improvements Program. Mrs. Glrone stated she felt
the General Plan 2000 update should be completed six months
sooner than indicated as it is very important and other issues
are related. Mr. Daniel requested that staff keep Mr. Les
Saunders, who is on JLARC Roads Committee, abreast of what is
going on in the County. Mr. Hedrick stated that is already
underway as well as keeping the other representatives also
informed. Mr. Dodd requested that the development regulatory
process be streamlined and simplified.
Mr. Masden reviewed the nursing home management initiatives,
parks and recreation enterprise study, library use assessment,
state/local mental health and mental retardation development,
and the management effectiveness meetings/work sessions.
Mr. Hedrick reviewed the Richmond Regional Airport Expansion
project. Mr. Masden reviewed the legislative strategy
development. Mr. Hedrick stated the legislative package should
be prepared by November rather than December. Mr. Daniel
requested that as legislative matters come to focus, they be
forwarded to the legislators so that they are aware of them. He
stated he felt the County should also be meeting with the
legislators prior to November and suggested that staff arrange a
meeting in August and again possibly in September-October to
review items that are coming up prior to the November meeting
with the full package.
Mr. Applegate inqui~i'ed if something was planned to expand some of
the Parks and Recrc~tion facilities. Mr. Hedrick stated that was
included in the C~ ~al Improvements Program. The Board
indicated there w~ no other projets which needed attention
other than those m~:~,tioned except for the meeting with the School
Board.
It was general]~, ,~reed that the Board would hold a special
meeting on Jul~ ~ at 10:00 a.m. for an all day work session to
review tii,~ Cap~ ~ Improvements Program, the Water and Sewer Fees
and the ¢~ner~.t ~ !.~n 2000 with a work session on the Nursing Home
on July ~%th d~ .~{ lunch. Other items to be scheduled would be
on the R~.~te 2~ ~white, the Parks and Recreation system and the
meeting w~th th~ ~!~mmunity Services Board in the near future.
The Board recessed to travel to the Board Room.
Reconvening:
84-362
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and stated
that Mr. Applegate would be presiding over the afternoon session
per the rules and procedures of thg Board.
Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the mobile home business although
not directly related to sales and requested that anyone
purchasing a mobile home from his company notify him so that he
could prevent any conflict of interest.
9.Q. MOBILE HOME REQUESTS
84SR121
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Ms. Cora Shook requested renewal
of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
she owns. Tax Map 97-4 (2) Central Park, Block 15, Lots 31 and
32 and better known as 10220 Brightwood Avenue (Sheet 32).
Ms. Shook was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved
~tnls request for a period ot five years subject to the following
standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
e
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, an~
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.
e
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.
Vote: Unanimous
84S091
In Dale Magisterial District, Charles W. Meeks, Jr. requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to Lewis and Joyce Miles, parents of the applicant's
wife. Tax Map 66-1 (2), Ampthill Gardens, Lots 25 and 26, and
better known as 5733 Cogbill Road (Sheet 22).
Mr. and Mrs. Meeks were present. Mr. Daniel inquired if the
three adjacent property owners had been contacted. Mr. Balderson
stated that notices had been mailed but the County had not
received any correspondence from them. There was no opposition
present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, 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.
84-363
e
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.
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 o~ the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
84SR120
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Charles and Marion South
requested renewal o~ a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home
on property which is owned by Mildred House, friend of the
applicants. Tax Map 115-11 (4) McLean Tract, Lot 13 and better
known as 4335 School Street (Sheet 32).
Ms. South was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, 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.
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.
Vote: Unanimous
84-364
84SR122
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Kenneth Snodgrass, Sr. requested
renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to Dark a mobile home on property
which belongs to Orville and Margaret Lucas, friends of the
applicant. Tax Map 81-3 (1) Parcel 11 and better known as 2900
Kingsland Road (Sheet 23).
Ms. Snodgrass was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, 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.
e
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used tor 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
~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 o~ the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
84S123
In Dale Magisterial District, Ms. Rebecca L. Walker requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to George Law, father of the applicant. Tax Map 52-3 (2)
Hening Heights, Lot 41 and better known as 4747 Cascade Street
(Sheet 15).
Mr. Law was present. Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Russell had
responded to the notice. Mr. Balderson stated a response had not
been received. Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Law would accept a
permit for four years. Mr. Law stated that would be acceptable.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request for a
period of four 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.
84-365
Se
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, the
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shal
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.
Vote: Unanimous
84S124
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Wallace B. Taylor, Jr. requeste(
a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to the estate of Elizabeth Flood (deceased), aunt of the
applicant. Tax Map 116-2 (1) Parcel 33 and better known as 1213~
Jefferson Davis Highway (Sheet 32).
Mr. Taylor was present. Ms. Venessa Kinnan was present
representing Ms. Clark and Ms. Parker and stated that their
parcel is listed for sale and they had asked that she oppose thi~
request as they want to sell the property and not have a mobile
home next door. Mr. Dodd stated he understood the concern by
others since the area is becoming valuable and the uses are
changing very quickly. He stated a mobile home has existed here
for years but the area may change and the applicant may want to
sell the property and move the mobile home. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, 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 mobil
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to b,
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, a]
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
.mOt be placed on a permanent foundation.
Be
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shal
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.
Vote: Unanimous
84-366
9.R. REZONING REQUESTS
83S201
In Midlothian Magisterial District, RICHMOND HONDA COMPANY
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit motor
vehicle sales, service, and repair in a Community Business (B-2)
District on a 9.09 acre parcel fronting approximately 610 feet on
the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,200 feet
west of Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 90 day
deferral of this matter in order to reassess their proposed land
use in light of the proposed extension of Powhite Parkway. Mr.
Balderson stated the applicant was present but had left. Mr.
Minor stated he was opposed to the case being deferred
continuously and there were several matters he would like to
bring to the Board's attention. It was generally agreed that
this matter be deferred until later in the day when the applicant
was present.
83S129
In Matoaca Magisterial District, LEONARD COX requested a Condi-
tional Use to permit a boarding house (9 tenants) in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.188 acre parcel fronting
approximately 50 feet on Light Street and approximately 160 feet
on Bremo Avenue, and located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads and better known as 3310 Light
Street. Tax Map 182-14 (1) Parcel 64 (Sheet 53/54).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request and it has been deferred a number of times
by the Board. Mr. Cox stated he has or is ready to meet the
legal requirements according to the guidelines but he could not
agree with Condition 4 regarding the paving of Bremo Avenue from
Light Street as they do not feel this is their responsibility as
there are other families in the area which this road serves. He
stated they do not have the financial resources to do this.
There was no opposition present. Mr. Mayes stated that he could
not support this boarding house arrangement in a single family
district. He stated he had complaints in other areas with these
types of situations.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board denied
this request.
Vote: Unanimous
84S029
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning
from Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) to Residential (R-7)
on an 11.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 770 feet on the
west line of Twilight Lane, approximately 740 feet south of
Elkhardt Road. Tax Map 28-15 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Hal Hayes was present representing
the applicant. He stated the present zoning of R-TH allows for
94 units and the proposal today would be 54 single family
detached units. He stated this would reduce the impact on
traffic, schools, water and sewer service, etc. He stated Mr.
Rowe had met with Mr. Applegate as to the architectural style of
the units, met with the Highway Department and staff regarding
the roads and what he would be responsible for and the
improvements, the drainage and sewer have been worked out, etc.
He stated this is a practical request and would be good for the
area. Mr. Applegate stated he had met with Mr. Rowe as well as
the neighbors in the area who might be affected. He stated he
was satisfied that the drainage can be taken care of and the
s4-367
density will be reduced. He stated however, residents adjacent
to this parcel are concerned about the lot sizes and he asked if
Mr. Rowe would accept R-9 on the Providence Road side with the
balance being R-7. Mr. Hayes stated Mr. Rowe does not presently
own the property and could not make a commitment to the R-9 at
this time without the owner's permission. Mrs. Girone stated
there has not been R-7 zoned in the County for many years. Mr.
Hayes stated that although it is R-7 general classification they
are asking for approval of a layout which is closer to R-9. Mr.
Hayes stated it was 4-5 units per acre. Mr. Rowe stated he was
reluctant to accept R-9 on the Providence Road side without the
owner's approval as it would reduce the number of lots from 15 to
11. Mr. Applegate inquired if Mr. Rowe would accept a 30 day
deferral to discuss this with the current owner. Mr. Rowe
stated this would be acceptable.
A~ter further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that this public hearing be closed
and that the matter be deferred until July 25, 1984 to allow the
applicant to discuss the R-9 on the Providence Road side with the
owner of the property.
Vote: Unanimous
83S201
In Midlothian Magisterial District, RICHMOND HONDA COMPANY
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit motor
vehicle sales, service, and repair in a Community Business (B-2)
District on a 9.09 acre parcel fronting approximately 610 feet on
the north line of Mid£othian Turnpike, approximately 1,200 feet
west of Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request 'subject to certain conditions. Mr. Rudy
was present representing the applicant. He stated that the
applicant would like to defer this matter so the Highway
Department can acquire the site for the construction of Powhite
Parkway. He stated the Highway Department has asked for the
opportunity to make an appraisal of the property and they felt it
would be a good idea to have this deferred while that is being
done.
Mr. Frank Minor stated he is an adjacent property owner to the
east of this property. He stated that the report says the
existing zoning on the property is B-2 but he understands the
~ront is B-2 with the rear being R-7. He stated when the
conditional use permit came before the Board for a landfill, the
question of the zoning on the back apparently did not come up.
He stated one of the conditions of the conditional use was that
the property, when filled, would have a five degree slope away
from Midlothian Pike. He stated 45 ft. of fill on the rear of
the property is not supposed to be there. He stated he felt the
Board should know what the zoning is currently and should address
itself as to whether or not you will permit rezoning of the
property or use of the property when the owner of the property is
in violation of the conditional use permit he has.
Mr. Jim Hubbard s~ated Mr. Minor might be mistaken as the actual
property ends ~i ~.n the backyards of the people who live behind
this. He state~! :kis has been surveyed three times and the fill
is in the area ~ i.s supposed to be in and this has been reviewed
with staff and ~ in compliance with the original plans.
On motion of
the request
~iirone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve.
.leferral until September 26, 1984 and that
84-368
during that time period the zoning inspector look into the issue
of the zoning now and the possible violation of the use permit.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone stated that whenever someone feels there is a
violation they should contact the Planning Office for review of
the matter. She stated she felt this would be the last deferral
of this matter.
84S019
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SIXTY-147 LAND COMPANY, A
VIRGINIA PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to
General Business (B-3) on a 4.54 acre parcel fronting
approximately 670 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike,
approximately 330 feet west of Huguenot Road. Tax Map 16-12 (1)
Parcel 5 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He
stated the Supervisor of the District, the owner, representative~
of the future users and the adjacent property owners and staff
met to discuss the proposal and submitted an addendum. Mr.
Saunders was present today representing the applicant and stated
some of the conditions are acceptable while others are not
because of the plan of development. Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr.
Saunders were aware of meetings that were held and agreements
that had been reached regarding the entrances. Mr. Saunders
stated that he was aware of the meetings but he represented the
applicant and not the users and if the issues were worked out
with the users, there was poor communications. Mr. Jack Beamon,
representing B & B Associates who are under contract for the
eastern parcel, stated his client agrees with two conditions
which are: 1. elimination of the 15 ~t. buffer zone along the
northeast property adjacent to the funeral home property but
going with a 10 ft. solid board fence; and 2. elimination of~the
request for an independent entrance as long as the eastern most
entrance to the property will be centered along the common
property line and this cross easement agreement would have to be
agreed~to by the eastern and western property owners and that
they would share in the cross easement maintenance, the pavement
of the entrance and that it would go full depth to the back of
the buffer. Mr. Saunders indicated what would be acceptable to
the applicant and stated the applicant would not accept an
entrance in common between the two parcels. Mr. Beamon stated B
& B Associates could not live with that as they could not
mortgage the property. Mrs. Girone stated she felt perhaps the
applicant and the users of the property should meet to discuss
this matter further and a deferral might be in order. Mr.
Saunders stated he was representing the applicant and he was
speaking on their behalf. He stated amended condition #4 is oka~
as he understands staff has agreed to the elimination of the ber
with some revision concerning vegetation which is acceptable. H
stated condition #5 was okay in the addendum. He stated the
Planning Commission had agreed to a 160 sq. ft. sign because the
had misunderstood the figures he had given them. He stated that
174 ft. is the standard Porche Audi sign and if they have to go
to 160 sq. ~t. additional expense will have to be borne to meet
those requirements. Mrs. Girone stated that 150 sq. ft. is in
line with the proposed sign ordinance for Route 60 that is under
review now and she would like to stay with that size. She state
she could place a provision that it complY with the sign
ordinance that is under review in the case that the standard is
too small for the corridor it could be allowed later. She stated
that at this time she would like to stay with that standard. Mr
Micas stated he felt it would be improper to tie a zoning
condition to something that might happen in the future.
84-369
Mrs. Girone stated if that is the case, that she felt the
standard should be approved and if there is a problem, by that
time the Board would know what will be approved. She stated that
this portion of the corridor is al~ being treated alike and the
Board is not trying to limit business or zoning. Mr. Saunders
stated that the developer cannot develop this parcel if condition
911 regarding the paging system is imposed. He stated the
developer has been trying to find an alternative and has been
unsuccessful at this time but he will continue to seek another
alternative. Mrs. Girone stated there have been complaints
regarding the speaker systems on other properties and this is
adjacent to a funeral home and because of the nature of the
business she did not feel this would be acceptable and she felt
there were other alternatives to the speaker system. Mr.
Saunders stated when the funeral home purchased the property they
realized there would be business with noise next to it. He
stated the developer is not trying to hurt the adjacent property
as they went to the funeral home to discuss this matter. Mr.
Gibbs stated he had not found an alternative at this time but
would continue to investigate the matter. He stated it was not a
matter of cost but of practicality for the forty people and
discussed the lines and frequency, decibel levels, etc. He
stated if a paging system cannot be found, he would provide a
testing of the speaker system prior to installation.
Mr. Beamon stated that in the Planning Commission meeting it was
agreed that landscape plans, renderings, sound packages, etc.
would not come back to the Planning Commission but to the staff
and they would like that to remain. Mr. Micas stated the only
legal way is for these matters to come back to the Planning
Commission and not the sta~. Mr. Beamon stated he was not
informed of the initial meeting with Mrs. Girone, the owner of
the property, Haywood-Clark and the adjacent property owner and
felt they should have been because without a common entrance he
is not sure they can develop it. Mrs. Girone inquired if the
exact location of the entrance had to be determined today. Mr.
Balderson stated that it could be left to the Planning Commission
to be determined at schematic plan approval but it is a central
part of the master plan. He stated Condition #11 could be
approved adding a sentence that it could be modified at time of
schematIc plan approval. Mrs. Girone apologized to Mr. Beamon as
the first meeting was held because Mr. Thacker and Woody's
Funeral Home had requested a meeting. She stated until they got
into that meeting, she did not realize B & B Associates was
involved. She stated she then set up another meeting with them.
Mr. Beamon stated this contract was set up in December, 1983
subject to zoning and they were not invited to the meeting. Mr.
Applegate stated the zoning is being represented by Mr. Saunders
and felt that should be the way it should be handled. Mr.
Saunders stated there is a problem with the way the property can
be developed if a P.A. system is not allowed and perhaps an
alternative can be found and the case may be deferred. Mrs.
Girone inquiried i~ the condition would be acceptable if a
sentence were added that this condition may be modified at time
of schematic approval. Mr. Saunders stated that would be
acceptable.
Mr. Bill Davis, representing Woody's Funeral Home stated they
were concerned with Condition #5 involving the buffer and #11
regarding the speaker system. He stated at the meeting the
agreement was that the buffer on the back would be amended from
the 20 ft. recommendation to 15 ft. with a 10 ft. fence with Mr.
Gibbs being responsible to plant the entire 15 ft., even though
it is in an easement and maintain it, initially with 8 ft. tall
white pines. He stated also this would apply to the 90 ft.
section and would wrap around the corner and he understands that
there is an objection to the eastern property line. Mrs. Girone
stated that he had a problem with providing space for parking on
the site and he needs all the land that he has and she had looked
over the site that Woody's has landscaped which is beautiful and
anything else would not fit and the fence would stop right at the
corner. Mr. Davis stated he felt a paging system would be
84-370
adequate and reviewed costs involved. He stated they would like
to have the funeral home to remain quite and dignified and any
speakers inside do not concern them--just outside. He stated if
it is determined that a speaker system is necessary, that
speakers on the front of the building facing south or south and
west and on the western portion of the building that fast south
and south or west would be okay. He stated their concern is for
speakers on the rear of the building or the eastern or north
property line of the building. He stated this is only in the
event that no paging system is available per experts. Mr. Dodd
inquired what the criteria is for entrance ways. Mr. Balderson
stated there is no set criteria for distance between entrance
ways but the review of the overall development for road standards
and traffic at a specific location, trying to reduce congestion
on new development, etc. Mrs. Girone stated one of the major
problems on Route 60 between Cloverleaf and Chesterfield Malls is
the number of turning movements, there are so many curb cuts.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that this request be approved
subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plans prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 4/20/84 and Beamon and
Associates, dated 4/25/84, shall be considered the Master
Plan.
Access to this property shall be confined to two (2)
entrance/exits. This access shall be designed and
constructed as a shared access between the proposed
automobile dealership and the retail store. The westernmost
access shall align with the existing Route 60 crossover, as
shown on the Master Plan.
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed
along the entire length of the Route 60 frontage. A left
turn lane shall be constructed at the Route 60 crossover.
This construction shall be in accordance with VDH&T
standards.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot
parking and driveway setback requirement along Route 60
shall be granted. Within the twenty-five (25) foot setback,
a two (2) to three (3) foot high undulating earth berm shall
be installed. This berm shall be landscaped with ornamental
trees and shrubs. The Planning Commission may amend the re-
quirement for the berm during schematic plan review if the
overall landscaping plan provides sufficient screening
without the berm.
A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northwest property line adjacent to Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcel
4. A ten (10) foot high solid board fence shall be
installed along the southeast side of this buffer. A
fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintained along the north
property line. A ten (10) foot high solid board fence shall
be installed along the south side of this buffer. Between
the fence and the sewer easement, white pines, having an
initial height of eight (8) feet shall be planted ten (10)
feet on centers. A ten (10) foot high solid board fence
shall be installed along the northeast property line
adjacent to Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcel 24.
An overall site landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval. This landscaping plan
shall be for all landscaped areas shown on the plan plus the
landscaping required in Conditions 4 and 5 and the islands
84-371
e
9o
10.
11.
within the parking areas for the purpose of dividing the
expanse of paved parking areas.
Ail driveways and parking ar~as shall be curbed and
guttered.
Exterior lighting shall not exceed a height of forty (40)
feet and shall be positioned so as not to project light into
adjacent properties or Route 60.
SIGNS
ae
The proposed dealership shall be permitted one (1)
freestanding sign, not to exceed an aggregate area of
150 square feet and a height of thirty (30) feet.
bo
The proposed retail store shall be permitted one (1)
freestanding sign, not to exceed an aggregate area of
fifty (50) square feet and a height of thirty (30)
feet.
Co
Freestanding directional signs and attached building
signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance
B-3 Districts.
de
Ail signs shall be similar in color, design and
lighting.
Signs may be illuminated, but shall only be luminous
the signfield is opaque with translucent letters.
fo
Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package showing
typical signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval.
Building facades shall employ subdued colors and be of a
decorative treatment such as split block, wood, brick, etc.
Architectural renderings shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval.
There shall be no outside public address and/or paging
system. This condition may be modified by the Planning
Commission during schematic plan review if evidence (expert
proof is provided) shows that other types of communication
systems are impractical.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone requested that staff notify Woody's Funeral Home of
this case's schematic plan review before the Planning Commission
in the event that a speaker system is necessary or whatever
concerns they have.
84S067
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, HORACE H. AND ELIZABETH F.
HINES requested renewal of a previously granted Conditional Use
(Case 78S227) to permit a landscaping business in an Agricu
(A) District on a 4 acre parcel tronting approximately 160 feet
on the north line of Hull Street Road, approximately 1,500 feet
east of Walmsley Boulevard· Tax Map 39-12 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet
14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Hines was present. There was no opposition present. On motion
of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this
request subject to the following conditions:
84-372
e
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Horace H.
and Elizabeth F. Hines, exclusively, and shall not be
transferable nor run with the land.
All equipment, materials, supplies or other paraphernalia
associated with this business shall be located a minimum of
400 feet from Route 360.
The plan submitted with the application shall be considered
the plan of development.
Within thirty (30) days of the approval of this request, a
plan for stabilization of denuded areas and the relocated
stream shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for
approval. A bond shall be submitted for the estimated cost
of implementing the approved plan.
Within thirty (30) days of final approval of this request, a
plan for the control of dust (i.e., watering, oiling and/or
graveling) shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering
for approval.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that the following case involved
his company pursuant to the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act but
his engineer was not present.
84S058
In Bermuda Magisterial District, KENT'S ENTERPRISES, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Mobile Home Park
(MH-1) on a 3.36 acre parcel fronting approximately 210 feet on
the south line of Swiftrun Road, approximately 500 feet west of
Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 116-14 (2) Cool Spring, Block
D, Lots 1 through 29 (Sheet 32).
It was generally agreed this matter be deferred until the end of
the meeting to allow the applicant's representative time to
attend the meeting.
84S059
In Dale Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) plus Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 165
acre parcel fronting approximately 500 feet on the north line of
Cogbill Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of Iron Bridge Road;
also fronting approximately 2,150 feet on the north line of
Cogbill Road, approximately 1,7.00 feet west of Iron Bridge Road;
and also ~ronting approximately 200 feet on the west line of Iron
Bridge Road, approximately 1,500 feet north of Cogbill Road. Tax
Map 52-9 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Hal
Hayes was present representing the applicant. He stated also thai
this property is agricultural and completely surrounded by R-7.
He stated they are requesting R-9 with the other uses and feels
this is the proper use. He stated the principal concern from the
residents of Rock Spring Farms was the stubbing o~ the two road
ways within the area to prevent people traveling from one area to
the other which is how the Planning Commission adopted this with
an additional access to Cogbill Road. He stated although they
are requesting R-9, the densities are not the maximum that would
be associated with R-9 and it is less density. He stated the
Planning Commission also recommended the SF-3 and SF-1 be R-12.
He stated they would suggest that rather than R-12 through SF-3
that the lots that border on the north-south roadway be R-12
84-373
and the rest of SF-3 be R-9. He stated further that all the
large parcels in Rock Spring Farms are only zoned R-7 but they
want the applicant to have R-12. He stated they felt it was good
planning to provide office and B-1 6ses on the interior of the
~tract so people would not have to go on Route 10 to find these
~acilities. He stated the other conditions are acceptable.
Mr. Ernest Ellis, representing the Rock Spring Farms residents,
stated they were not opposed to this request but are concerned
with the traffic on Route 10 and what would be done prior to this
development. Mr. Daniel stated there are no plans in the 6 year
plan, primary or secondary, for the widening of Route 10 and it
will remain the same for at least that period. He stated funding
has not been set up at this time, not that the County does not
want to, but because of the limited funds through the Highway
Department. Mr. Balderson stated the applicant will have to make
Improvements at his access point on Route 10 at this time.
Mr. Battle, a resident in Rock Spring Farms, addressed the
traffic problems at the intersection on Route 10 from the
subdivision. He stated he was not against this but concerned with
the additional traffic that will be brought to the area.
Mr. Landon Horne, adjacent property owner, stated he had no
objection to the rezoning request but would like to have R-12
apply to the northern portion of SF-3 adjoining his property as
well as a 50 ft. easement from the property adjoining his as much
as it could tie into it to Jessup Road. He stated he has 15
acres which could tie into the road and utilities to Jessup Road.
Mr. Balderson stated during schematic plan approval consideration
could be given to access adjacent properties in conjunction with
subdivision plans in the area to provide that kind of access.
Mr. Dodd stated what Mr. Horne is asking for may be proper, but
half of Rock Spring Farms was present during the Planning
Commission meeting and did not want this. Mr. Daniel inquired
about the two roads in the subdivision. Mr. Balderson stated the
Planning Commission recommended they be stubbed off and not go
into the existing subdivision and explained the access points of
the property. Mrs. Girone stated a similar situation existed in
Stonehenge whereby the residents wanted the roads stubbed off
which the County did not do and it works fine and everyone is
happy. Mr. Balderson explained the approval of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Daniel stated that the people want the subdivision of Rock
Spring Farms to remain an entity in itself with the stub roads
not connected. Mrs. Girone stated she had a similar situation
with Stonehenge and Ashley Woods but now with the connecting
streets it allows movement within the area without going to the
main roads and people like this. There was some discussion
regarding the policy of stub roads. Mr. Daniel also stated he
had problems with the business area and suggested it be changed
to a residential area. He stated the business areas are very
limited on Route 10 and suggested that the business be removed.
He stated he felt the office area would be premature at this
time. He inquired i~ the zoning needed approval today or could
it wait for six months until the plan is completed for land use
of the Route 10 corridor. Mr. Hayes stated they could not wait
six months and that there will be great pressure on Route 10 for
business and office as it is on Route 360/60. Mr. Daniel stated
he wQuld not have Route 10 look like Route 60/360. Mr. Hayes
stated that the business services would be in demand because of
the people coming in the area. Mr. Daniel stated he had not
84-374
~een this need. He stated unless the applicant can defer this
latter for six months he would have to recommend denial. Mr.
~owe stated he could not wait 6 months and would accept R-9 and
4-12 and when the study is completed; they could amend the plan
.f the study provides for this. Mr. Daniel stated he could
support changing office to R-9, SF-2 would stay as requested,
~usiness would be R-9, SF-4 and SF-5 would be the same as
~equested, SF-1 would be R-12, and SF-3 would be R-9 except for
~he northern border along Rock Springs Farms and the road would
~e R-12. Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd questioned Route 10 being
~esidential. Mr. Daniel stated he was not envisioning anything
~t this time but was waiting for the study.
after further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board approved rezoning
to Residential (R-9) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development
subject to certain conditions and with the understanding the
tights of way shown on the plan would be dedicated and stubbed.
~rs. Girone inquired about the traffic impacts to review the
~hanges that will impact the area. Mr. Balderson stated for
information, that if the stub roads are required to be dedicated,
it is the policy of the County that the developer will not have
to construct them but he will have to put up the money for the
~onstruction of those roads. Mr. Daniel inquired if the
applicant would accept a 30 day deferral. Mr. Hayes inquired
~hat was proposed. Mr Daniel explained the approval. Mr Hayes
inquired if the SF-3 and SF-1 would be pure R-12 or R-12 as
requested in the Conditional Use. Mr. Daniel stated that it was
.~er the request. Mr. Hayes stated they would prefer to proceed
~s
he did not feel 30 days would make much difference. Mr. Dodd
inquired if the road situation could be handled at schematic plan
approval.
~fter further discussion Mr. Daniel moved, seconded by Mr. Mayes,
that rezoning to Residential (R-9) plus a Conditional Use Planned
Development be approved subject to the following conditions and
~ith the understanding the Planning Commission would consider
~hether the two roads in Rock Spring Farms should be dedicated
and built, dedicated and not built or changed into cul-de-sacs
and subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan
prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., dated May 1, 1984,
shall be considered the plan of development. At the time of
tentative or schematic plan approval, the Planning
Commission shall consider elimination of access to Rock
Spring Farms Subdivision and provision of a third access.
This plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
final approval.
The tract designated as SF~I and lots in tract SF#3,
adjacent to northern and eastern tract boundaries, shall be
developed in accordance with Residential (R-12) requirements
except the front width may be reduced to 80 feet. Density
of these areas shall not exceed 2.5 units per acre.
The tracts designated as SF#2 and SF#5 shall be developed as
zero lot line homes in accordance with Residential (R-9)
requirements with the following exceptions:
ae
Density and Lot Area. Density shall not exceed 4.5
units per acre. Lots shall be a minimum of 6,600
square feet and have a front width of 55 feet.
0
Side Yard. Each lot shall have at least one side yard
which shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. The
other side yard may be reduced to zero (0) feet,
provided a fifteen (15} foot separation is maintained
between dwellings.
84-375
10.
11.
12.
13.
Tracts designated as SF#3 (except that portion of the tract
noted in Condition 2), SF%4, Business and Off#l shall be
developed in accordance with Residential (R-9) requirements
Density shall not exceed 4 units per acre.
Tract acreages may increase or decrease by ten (10) percent
provided an overall gross density of 3.32 units per acre is
maintained.
Road "A" shall have a minimum right of way width of sixty
(60) feet. Within 400 feet of Route 10, this road shall be
constructed as a divided road with twenty-four (24) feet of
pavement, face of curb to face of curb on each side. There
shall be no access to this road along this 400 foot section.
The area lying between the proposed public road and Tax Map
52-10 (1) Parcels 8, 9 and 10 shall be maintained in common
open space. Provisions shall be made for access to Road "A"
from these parcels. Prior to dedication of the road, an
access proposal shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and VDH&T for approval. Access provisions shall
be accomplished in conjunction with dedication of the road.
A minimum of sixty (60) feet of right of way, measured from
the centerline of Route 10, shall be dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Turn
lanes shall be constructed along Route 10, as deemed
necessary by VDH&T and the Planning Department.
Other than Road "B" and a second public road, there shall
no access to Cogbill Road. Road "B" shall have a minimum
right of way width of sixty (60) feet from Cogbill Road to
its intersection with Road "A." The remaining length of
road shall have a minimum f~fty (50) feet of right of way.
From its intersection with Cogbill Road, north for a
distance of 400 ~eet, Road "B" shall be constructed as a
divided road with twenty-four (24) feet of pavement, face
curb to face of curb, on each side. There shall be no
access to this road along the 400 foot divided section.
Thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of Cogbill Road, shall be dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Turn
lanes shall be constructed along Cogbill Road, as deemed
necessary by VDH&T and the Planning Department.
Prior to issuance of building permits ior more than 83
acres, Road "A" and Road "B" shall be constructed from
Cogbill Road to Route 10.
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along Cogbill
Road. This buffer shall be landscaped to screen the
proposed uses from Cogbill Road. Fencing may be located in
this buffer area. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with an'
schematic plan for any tract abutting Cogbill Road.
For each zero lot line house constructed, at least one
conventional single family house shall' be constructed.
When the project is 50% developed, Staff will request VDH&T
to perform a traffic study. If VDH&T traffic studies
determine that full development of the project will
necessitate the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Road "A" with Route 10, the developer shall
be responsible for one-half of the cost. The timing of
installation shall be determined by the Planning Commission
and VDH&T through schematic plan and tentative subdivision
review.
84-376
14.
Prior to the clearing of any land within each watershed, the
following shall be submitted to and approved by the
Environmental Engineering Department:
be
A drainage plan for each watershed, utilizing either
one or two Zoot contours, shall be ~ormulated outlining
the existing discernible drainage breaks and the
proposed post development drainage patterns which will,
among other things, propose a direction of drainage
outfall for those portions of the property that pres-
ently have no outfall.
Ce
The plan shall also show the existing discernible break
between the Falling Creek watershed and the Kingsland
Creek watershed. No diversion will be allowed. Best
engineering judgment shall be applied to the watershed
assignment of those portions which have no clear-cut
direction of flow.
de
The plan shall also verify or create adequate con-
ditions in existing Rock Spring Farms Subdivision into
which a portion of this project drains (e.g. capacity
and erosion resistance of roadside ditches, capacity of
private entrance culverts and road culverts, existing
public or private storm sewers, existing creeks or
outfall channels).
The plan shall also show the size, location, and invert
elevations of all proposed culverts in both new and
existing roads accompanied by supporting calculations
showing compliance with minimum criteria and 100 year
storm backwaters.
The plan shall also show the profiles of all proposed
channels between the culverts and those required for
drainage "daylight" shall be established. A study of
existing conditions beyond those points from the
standpoint of capacity and potential erosive velocities
generated by the increased runoff shall be made and
off-site drainage easements shall be acquired as nec-
essary to cover man-made improvements.
(NOTE: This is to clarify that the GC-7 criteria are designed
only to prevent severe channel erosion directly downstream from
development sites. Watershed planning needed to control problems
of flooding and pollution is a local option.) (EE)
Mr. Dodd stated he had some real problems with Route 10 as it is
one of the four roads in the County with the potential for
business.
Vote: Unanimous
84S061
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GRANHALL ENTERPRISE, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on
a 6.2 acre parcel lying approximately 140 feet off the north line
of Drexelbrook Road, approximately 2,000 feet west of Belmont
Road. Tax Map 51-9 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. DelMonte Lewis was present
representIng the applicant. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request.
84-377
Vote: Unanimous
84S063
In Bermuda Magisterial District, RALPH J. RUTLEDGE, JR. requested
a Conditional Use to permit a beauty salon in a Light Industrial
(M-l) District on a 0.68 acre parcel fronting approximately 123
feet on the north line of West Hundred Road, approximately 1,300
feet east of Harbour East Drive. Tax Map 117-11 (1) Parcel 11
(Sheet 33).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Ms.
Rutledge was present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, 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
beauty salon within 820 square feet of the existing
structure. There shall be no additions or alterations to
the exterior of the building to accommodate this use.
Ail bulk requirements of the Light Industrial (M-i) District
shall apply to this use.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meeting.
84S065
In Dale Magisterial District, G.T. SIMMONS requested rezoning
from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 3.82 acre parcel
lying approximately 330 feet off the western terminus of
Huntingcreek Drive. Tax Map 79-8 (1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet
22).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Hayes was present. Mr. Applegate
requested that this case be deferred until Mr. Daniel returned.
84S067
In Matoaca Magisterial District, VERNON E. LaPRADE requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 3.7 acre
parcel lying at the eastern terminus of Sarata Lane. Tax Map
63-11 (1) Part of Parcel 7 (Sheet 21).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. LaPrade was present. There was nc
opposition p~:~-::~:~nt. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs.
Girone, the i~ ~ .~ approved this request.
Ayes: Mr. :!ate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: M~ , ~ ,el.
84S068
In Clover Hi.i ~ .~.~qisterial District, WOODLAKE LAND TRUST AND
WOODLAKE DEVE] .... ~ENT CORPORATION requested amendment to a
previously gra,~:i Conditional Use Planned Development (Case
81S086) to ame~ ,:ondition l(c) of the approved Textual Statemen~
84-378
to allow adjustments to tract configurations on a 1,175.04 acre
parcel ~ronting approximately 1,600 feet on the north line of
Hull Street Road, approximately 1,800 feet east of Cosby Road.
Tax Map 60 (1) Parcels 21, 23 and ,67; Tax Map 61 (1) Parcels 1,
2, 3, 4, 5 and 7; and Tax Map 75 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheets 19 and 20)
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this subject to certain conditions. Mr. Plaxco was
present representing the applicant. There was no opposition
present. Mr. Applegate stated he understood this did not change
the density. Mr. Balderson indicated that was correct. On
motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve~
this request subject to the following conditions:
Condition l(c) of the Textual Statement for Case 81S086
shall be amended as ~ollows:
Two or more individual tracts shall not be connected to forl
one tract except as follows: 1) Individual tracts within 0
Districts may be combined as provided in the original
Textual Statement. 2) In Subareas I-VI, noted on Chart II
and Exhibit 1, tracts may be reconfigured and combined base~
on terrain to provide direct access from each tract to the
parkway; however, the total developed acres for each subare~
shall not exceed those acres shown on Chart II by more than
10%. No tract from one suDarea may be combined with a trac'
in another subarea. Individual tracts may be divided to
form two or more tracts.
Charts I and II, submitted with this application, shall
supersede Chart I on page 10 and Chart II on page 14 of the
Textual Statement for Case 81S086.
The revised Master Plan submitted with the application shal
be considered the plan of development and shall supersede
the original Master Plan for Case 81S086.
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain condition. Mr. Roy
Vaughan was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. Mr. Bob Cromwell was present representing
Rockshire Civic Association and that they endorsed the plan.
Mrs. Girone expressed'appreciation to the applicant and the
community for working together on this matter. On motion of Mrs
Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request
subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Textual
Statement submitted with the application and the Master Pi~
prepared by Jordan Consulting Engineers, dated 3/13/84,
shall be considered the plan of development.
Prior to recordation of a suDdivision plat, a detailed
landscaping plan to include topography of the earth berms
and types and quantities of plants shall be submitted to ti
Planning Department for approval. The buffers, as describe
by the Textual Statement and approved by the Planning
84-379
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ROXSHIRE LAND INVESTMENT
ASSOCIATES requested Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-15) District on a
11.69 acre parcel fronting approximately 780 feet on the east
line o~ Old Gun Road West also fronting approximately 500 feet c
the west line of Old Gun Road West, south of Robious Road. Tax
Map 8-11 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheet 2).
84S069
Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Department, shall be completed prior to issuance of oc-
cupancy permits for any lot abutting the buffer areas.
Vote: Unanimous
84S065
In Dale Magisterial District, G.T. SIMMONS requested rezoning
from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 3.82 acre parcel
lying approximately 330 feet off the western terminus of
Huntingcreek Drive. Tax Map 79-8 (1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet
22).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Hayes was present. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr.
Mayes, the Board approved this request.
Vote: Unanimous
84S070
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CVH PARTNERSHIP requested
rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3)
on a 2.501 acre parcel fronting approximately 400 feet on the
east line of Research Road, approximately 230 feet north of Audio
Court. Tax Map 17-9 (1) Parcel 19 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Jim Hubbard was present
representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request.
Vote: Unanimous
84S072
In Matoaca Magisterial District, HENRY E. MYERS, JR. requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on a 13 acre
parcel fronting approximately 420 feet on the south line of Happy
Hill Road approximately 700 feet west of Harrowgate Road. Tax
Map 132-11 (2) Garden City Heights, Lots 83, 84 and 106B (Sheet
41).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of Residential (R-12) and approval of R-15. Mr. Myers was
present and stated that he agreed with the recommendation for
R-15 which is the only opposition he had. Mrs. Johnson stated
she wanted Residential R-15 and that was acceptable.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd the Board denied the
request ~or Rc~.i ~ntial (R-12) and recommended approval of
residential
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd discism:: ! to the Board that he is the. applicant in the
next case and ,,:: ~:~,ed himself from the meeting due to a
conflict of in~,st pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Ini.,. ,~t Act.
84S058
In Bermuda Magi.-;~ ,iial District, KENT'S ENTERPRISES, INC.
requested rezo, .... ;rom Agricultural (A) to Mobile Home Park
(MH-1) on a 3, ~ ~,~re parcel fronting approximately 210 feet on
the south line o£ Swiftrun Road, approximately 500 feet west of
84-380
Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 116-14 (2) Cool Spring, Block
D, Lots 1 through 29 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. Jeff
Collins was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr.
Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following
.tion:
A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
eastern and southern boundaries of the mobile home park.
This buffer shall be planted in accordance with the "Minimum
Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." A landscaping plan de-
picting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval in conjunction with site plan
review.
,es: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconsidered its special meeting date of July 5, 1984
at 10:00 for work sessions and rescheduled it for July 13, 1984
at 10:00 a.m. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes,
the Board adjourned at 4:50 p.m. until July 11, 1984 at 7:00 p.m.
for its next regular meeting.
Vote: Unanimous
Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
G. 'Daniel
Chairman
84-381