10-24-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
October 24, 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 R. Balderson,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. Kenneth Cronin,
Asst. Dir. of
Personnel
Mr. Gary Fenton, Chief
of Recreation
Mr. James Gillentine,
Nursing Home Admin.
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Administrator
Dr. Burt Lowe, Dir.,
Mental Health/Retard.
Mr. Robert Masden,
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Human Services
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Environmental Eng.
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. F. O. Parks, Dir.
of Data Processing
Mrs. Diane Peterson,
Resource Coordinator
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir.
of Budget & Acctg.
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exec. Asst., Co. Adm.
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Sheriff Emmett Wingo,
Sheriff's Dept.
Mr. B. R. Wilkinson,
License Inspector
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:10
a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Malcolm M. Hutton, Pastor of Oak
Grove Baptist Church, who gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the minutes of October 10, 1984, as amended.
Vote:. Unanimous
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mrs. Mitchell introduced Ms. Martha Callahan, Program Specialist
84-607
for Marketing and Distributing Education, and Mr. William
Townsend, Director of Vocational Education, for the Chesterfield
County public school system. Mr. Townsend stated Dr. Kurt
Korber, a German industrialist and founder and owner of Hauni
Works of Hamberg, West Germany, and former Governor John Dalton
met and started an exchange program five years ago. He stated
students from the County go to West Germany in the spring and
live and work with students coming to the County in the fall for
ten weeks for the same purpose. He stated the purpose of the
program is to promote vocational and cultural relations on both
sides of the Atlantic. He stated this is the only program in the
world, as far as he knows, designed excluSively for vocational
students. He stated the program is expanding at a rapid pace
since its beginning as other companies are beginning to
participate. He stated in the first three years, nineteen
students were sent to West Germany. He introduced Achim Bauers,
Dirk Havenstein, Monika Schweder, Thomas Birkner, Birgit
Strehlau, Nils Kampmeier, Annett Wegner and Michael Eich and
briefly gave information about each. Mr. Hedrick and the Board
welcomed the students to the County.
Mr. GarY Fenton stated that the County will be holding a
"Halloween Happening" on October 31, 1984 from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m.
with a variety of activities for both children and adults at the
Courthouse stadium. He outlined some of the events that were
scheduled. He stated also because of the popularity of the
Jaycees Haunted Forest, it will be open this weekend in order to
be more accessible to the public. He stated Friday night is WRXL
night and will feature disc jockeys, a band and a movie, all of
which is planned with teenagers in mind. He stated this is a
safe and enjoyable alternative to door to door trick or treating
and there is a lot of community support. He requested that the
Board support the events and encourage the families and youth of
the County to Participate in the Halloween Happening.
Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Mr. John Carland,
substituting for Mr. Eric Allen with Channel 6; Bruce Twyman,
Information Officer for Virginia State University; and Mr. Dean
Levi, substituting for Hugh Robertson with the Richmond Times
Dispatch.
Mr. Daniel announced that Ms. Sherry Dodson, daughter of Judge
John Dodson and resident of Chesterfield County, was crowned the
1985 Tobacco Festival Queen of whom the County is very proud.
4. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
deleted 9.H.4.e., Deed of Dedication Along East Avenue from Heirs
of Charles Daniel; deferred 7.B., Public Hearing to Consider
Conveyance of Variable Width Right of Way to the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation for East Avenue, 7.D.,
Results of a Sewer Survey in Englewood, 7.F., Bermuda District
Street Light Requests and 8., Public Hearing to Consider
Restriction of Through Truck Traffic on Kingsdale Road Between
Jefferson Davis Highway and Chester Road until November 14, 1984
at 7:00 p.m.; moved item 7.A., Resolution Recognizing Mr. John
McElwee, Board of Zoning Appeals, to follow Item 5.F.; moved
9.B., Lighting for Virginia State University Stadium, to follow
item 6; and adopted the agenda as amended.
Mr. Dodd inquired if deferring the public hearing to consider
conveyance of right to way to the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation for East Avenue, would delay the road
construction. Mr. Welchons stated it would to some degree but a
public hearing could not be held until all signatures had been
obtained. He stated several signatures are delaying the matter
and if it is not settled by the next Board meeting, staff will
84-608
recommend condemnation on the three remaining. Mr. Dodd indicated
he was in favor of this as the project has been under
consideration for a long period of time.
Mr. Dodd stated there had been some confusion of the public
hearing regarding the restricting of through truck traffic on
Kingsdale Road between Jefferson Davis Highway and Chester Road
and he would like an informal community meeting held first by
staff and/or the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation representatives before the Board held its public
hearing. There was no one present to discuss this matter. Mr.
McCracken explained the Highway Department's previous process and
the new process which is that the Board holds a public hearing
before the Highway Department will consider the matter. He
stated the Highway Department may or may not decide to hold a
hearing after that time. Mr. Dodd stated in that case he would
like .the Board's public hearing deferred only until November 14,
1984 at 7:00 p.m. as indicated in the motion.
Vote: Unanimous
5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
5.A. SENIOR CITIZENS HALL OF FAME
Ms. Diane Peterson introduced the Senior Citizens Hall of Fame
members for 1984. She stated this was established to honor and
recognize those persons 65 years and older who render outstanding
volunteer service to the community. She stated there is a
selection committee who reviews the nominations and three people
are chosen based on their volunteer activities since age 60.
Ms. Peterson introduced Mrs. Hallee M. Carey who has actively
participated in 15 different volunteer roles since age 60, served
as historian of the Hermitage Home, compiled and sold a cookbook,
served as a volunteer with the Senior Discount Program, helped
establish a Thrift Shop in Matoaca, has given in excess of 2,400
hours at the Chester Clothes Cottage, etc.
Ms. Peterson introduced Mrs. Elizabeth A. Cooper who is a retired
Associate Professor of Education at Virginia State University,
has served on the Board of Trustees of the Chesterfield Public
Library, is on the Women's Committee for the Petersburg Symphony,
is a member of the VSU "STARS" (Special Teachers Assisting Rising
Students), received a certificate of appreciation from the U. S.
Department of Commerce for her volunteer services with the 1978
Census, served as President of the Tri City University Women,
etc.
Ms. Peterson introduced Mrs. Grace Merritt who is the mother of
five children and grandmother of 27, is a former aide at Central
State Hospital, is a past Matron of Eastern Star Chapter 33, is a
National Grand Post Officer of United Order of Tents which is a
christian organization for women, works every day for the
Sunshine Committee for the Nutrition Site, etc.
Mrs. Girone stated that Mrs. Cooper was instrumental in
establishing the library system in the County as well. Mr.
Hedrick stated there is a plaque with these ladies names
inscribed which will be displayed in an appropriate location at
the Courthouse. Mr. Hedrick and the Board congratulated the
people on their induction into the Hall of Fame.
5.B. CHARLES W. COLE, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. David Welchons. Mr. Welchons briefly
84-609
outlined Mr. Cole's outstanding and dedicated service to the
County. He stated Mr. Cole was not present as he was ill.
On moti0n of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. Charles W. Cole, after having dedicated 35
years of service, will retire from the Utilities Department,
Chesterfield County, on November 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Cole's 35 years of service to the Citizens of
Chesterfield County has been characterized by professional
excellence and reliability; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mr. Cole's selfless contribution as an enthusiastic
County team member.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors proudly recognizes Mr. Cole and extends on behalf of
its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for his long service to the County, and wishes for
him and his family a long and happy retirement.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mr. Cole and that this Resolution be permanently
recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
5.C. OCIE H. KENT, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cronin introduced~Sheriff Wingo. Sheriff Wingo briefly
outlined Deputy~Kent's dedicated service to the County.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Deputy Ocie H. Kent will retire from the Sheriff's
Department of Chesterfield County on November 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Kent has been a faithful and dedicated em-
ployee of Chesterfield County since October 14, 1974; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Kent's 10 years of selfless dedication to
Chesterfield County will be missed by Chesterfield County and the
Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Deputy Kent's faithful and
diligent service and extends on behalf of its members and the
citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her years
of service to the County and wishes her a happy retirement.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Deputy Kent and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented Deputy Kent with the executed resolution.
5.D. RANDOLPH E. PHILLIPS, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cronin introduced Sheriff Wingo. Sheriff Wingo briefly
outlined Lieutenant Phillips dedicated service to the County.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
84-610
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Randolph E. Phillips will retire from
the Sheriff's Department, Chesterfield County, on October 31,
1984; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Phillips has faithfully served the Citi-
zens of Chesterfield County for 19 years; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Phillips' professional dedication to his
job and his individual contribution to his department will be
especially missed by Chesterfield County and the Board of
Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Lieutenant Phillips be
Ilpublicly recognized by this Board of Supervisors and extended, on
lbehalf of its members and the Citizens of Chesterfield County,
Itheir appreciation for his service to the County.
~ AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
~be presented to Lieutenant Phillips; that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors. of Chesterfield County, Virginia; and that Lieutenant
Phillips enjoys a long and fruitful retirement.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented Lieutenant Phillips with the executed
resolution.
5.E. ARLENE M. SYKES, DATA PROCESSING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. F. O. Parks. Mr. Parks briefly
outlined Mrs. Sykes dedicated service to the County. He
indicated she was on disability retirement and is scheduled to go
into the hospital and could not be present at the meeting. He
stated she did request that he express her appreciation for this
recognition.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mrs. Arlene M. Sykes will retire from the Data
Processing Department, Chesterfield County, on November 1, 1984
after completing 12 years of service; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Sykes' 12 years of service has been of such
quality to have gained praise from her supervisors and peers
alike; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Sykes' individual contribution as a Data Entry
Operator Supervisor to the mission of her department has brought
distinct credit upon her as a total team member.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Sykes, extends on behalf of
its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for her service to the County and wishes her good
fortune in her retirement.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mrs. Sykes and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
5.F. GEORGE R. LONG, VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The Honorable George R. Long is retiring as
Executive Director of the Virginia Association of Counties; and
84-611
WHEREAS, His many years of dedicated service have done much
to improve the quality of life of all Virginians; and
WHEREAS, His leadership has inspired all counties to work
together for the good of the entire Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Long has performed his duties with enthusiasm,
dedication, attentiveness and thoroughness; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors has enjoyed a cooperative
and fruitful relationship with the Virginia Association of
Counties during Mr. Long's tenure with the Association.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors expresses deep appreciation for these many
contributions during his employment.
AND FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby extends to
Mr. George R. Long its best wishes for many years of happiness in
his retirement.
Vote: Unanimous
7.A. JOHN MCELWEE, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Mr. Balderson introduced Mr. John McElwee and outlined his
dedicated service to the County as a member of the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. John McElwee was appointed to the Chesterfield
County Board of Zoning Appeals as the representative from
Midlothian District on March 1, 1982; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McElwee did faithfully perform the duties and
discharge the responsibilities incumbent upon a member of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McElwee tendered his resignation effective
September 6, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McElwee's two and one-half years of service to
the citizens of Chesterfield County deserves special recognition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to Mr.
John McElwee for his loyal and dedicated service to the citizens
of Chesterfield County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a plaque inscribed as
follows be presented to Mr. John McElwee:
John McElwee
In Appreciation for Dedicated Service
on the Chesterfield County Board of Zoning Appeals
March 1, 1982 - September 6, 1984
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented Mr. McElwee with the framed resolution and
plaque.
6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIM~
o MR. JOHN SMITH AND MR. JOSEPH MATYIKO REGARDING
RIGHT OF WAY DESIGN FOR POWHITE, ROUTE 288 AND COALFIELD AREA
Mr. Smith expressed appreciation to the County Administration for
placing him on the agenda but stated; however, that Mr. Matyiko
had received an emergency call and could not be present today.
He requested that this item be withdrawn.
84-612
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
withdrew this item from the agenda as requested by Mr. John
Smith. ~
Vote: Unanimous
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Hedrick indicated there were no publi~ hearings scheduled.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9.B. LIGHTING FOR VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY STADIUM
Mr. Masden stated Virginia State University is a very important
corporate citizen of the County and they are currently
undertaking a campaign to provide appropriate lighting for their
stadium. He stated this would allow for other activities at the
University and would be a very important asset to the community.
He introduced Dr. Greenfield, President of Virginia State
University. Dr. Greenfield stated it was an honor and pleasure
to address the Board as he, personally, and the University itself
are proud to be a part of Chesterfield County. He expressed
appreciation to the Board for what has been done in assisting the
University with bus shelters on campus, sidewalks along
Chesterfield Avenue, street improvements, beautification
projects, opportunities for students as interns at the County,
etc. He stated the University plans to have in the fall of 1985
a special day which will be called "Chesterfield County Day" and
plans to invite the citizens, high schools, etc. to visit the
University to see what is going on and to participate in the
activities. He stated as the County grows so will the University
and as the University grows so will the County. He stated the
stadium project'will give the University an opportunity to
sponsor events for the citizens of the County in the evening
Iwhich will be more convenient for special activities by the high
schools and other special groups. He stated the County has great
football and soccer teams and perhaps tournaments could be held
here which will give the University the opportunity to serve the
entire County. He introduced Mr. Cunningham, Director of
Athletics; Mr. Jesse Fleming, Member of the Board of Visitors;
and Dr. Dunn, Assistant to the President who were also present.
Mr. Mayes expressed appreciation to Dr. Greenfield and the others
for taking time to attend the meeting. He stated he would
recommend approval of their request but would ask that it be
subject to the University changing its mailing address to Ettrick
or Chesterfield rather than Petersburg since it is in the County.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
set its course to build a first choice community in Chesterfield
County; and
Whereas, Enhancement of every vital community resource is
essential to the future growth of the County; and
Whereas, Virginia State University is a vital educational
resource in Chesterfield County; and
Whereas, Private citizens, local businesses and local
governments have pledged to raise funds to install stadium lights
to facilitate night ceremonial and athletic activities at
Virginia State University; and
Whereas, Night activities at Virginia State University will
benefit County businesses, and encourage new businesses in the
area; and
84-613
Whereas, This facility, with appropriate lighting, will be
enriching community resource for general athletic and
~ional events, concerts, and other activities for the
s of Chesterfield County.
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield County does hereby unanimously endorse the fund
raising drive for stadium lights at Virginia State University;
and
Be It Further Resolved that this Board authorizes the County
~or to execute a grant of $10,000 from the Board
contingency fund to the Virginia State UniVersity Foundation to
assist in installing stadium lights at the University.
Vote: Unanimous
The Board expressed appreciation for the offer of facilities to
the schools, etc. and stated the schools would be notified of the
University's availability.
Dr. Greenfield introduced Mr. Jesse Fleming, member of the Board
of Visitors of Virginia State University. Mr. Fleming expressed
appreciation to the Board for the assistance with the Gold Bowl.
He stated the Gold Bowl would be held this weekend at Virginia
State, they anticipate 15,000-20,000 people in attendance, this
should have a tremendous economic benefit to the communities and
should continue to become larger, etc. He stated they are very
appreciative of the County's support in making this event
successful. He invited the Board to attend and thanked Mr.
Hedrick and the Board personally for helping to make this event
successful.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
7.C. CONVEYANCE OF 0.339 ACRES FOR EXTENSION OF SOUTHLAKE BLVD.
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the conveyance of 0.339 acres of land
to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Extension of Southlake
Boulevard between Courthouse Road and Branchway Road. There was
no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the
County Administrator to execute the necessary deed conveying
0.339 acres of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the
extension of Southlake Boulevard between Courthouse Road and
Branchway Road.
Vote: Unanimous
7.E. BEACH ROAD RECREATIONAL ACCESS PROJECT
Mr. Hedrick recommended deferral of the Beach Road recreational
access project be deferred until new cost estimates can be
obtained from the Highway Department. Mr. Dodd stated this
project has been around for several years and the longer it
takes, the higher the costs will escalate and the Department
should be reminded of this. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by
Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration of this project until
November 28, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
9. NEW BUSINESS
9.A. MORAL OBLIGATION - CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT COMMISSION BONDS
Mr. Ramsey stated on June 13, 1984, the Board approved the
concept of expanding and improving facilities at Byrd
84-614
~nternational Airport as well as the County entering into a moral
Dbligation agreement with the Commission to back the debt that
~as being issued. He stated this backing was necessary to create
the financial strength to issue revenue bonds for these
improvements and stated the City of Richmond and County of
~enrico have also approved similar resolutions. He stated since
3une the Airport Commission has entered into extensive
negotiations with the airlines and the construction project
Ipresented has changed. He stated Peat Marwick and Mitchell has
updated the feasibility study indicating that the Airport
Commission can, through its revenues generated at the Airport,
pay the operating and debt service costs for the improvements
made. He stated this moral backing is projected to be a
strengthening measure for the issuance of bonds and the
iprojections indicate there will not be a draw on that moral
obligation. He stated the action requested today brings the
formally into the operating agreement for the Airport
mmission, it formalizes the moral obligation backing for the
and the other two jurisdictions, and raises the limit of
the bonds from $30,000,000 to $34,000,000 which is due to the
construction changes. He introduced Mr. Vince Tolson, Airport
'er, Mr. Gus Epps, representative of Christian,
Barton--counsel for the Commission, and Genevieve Keating, Hunton
and Williams--bond counsel.
Tolson stated the change in the dollar figure is due to their
continuing to work with the airlines who will be using the
improved facilities and providing the services. He stated in
recognizing the Airport's growth over the last several years and
the addition of two airlines, there was a need for additional
hold rooms, baggage claims devices and an area to put the device
in, additional footage of ticket counter and loading bridges.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the projected revenues will be enough to
cover the obligations of the Airport. Mr. Tolson stated that the
projected revenues can cover the debt service on the bonds as
1 as the operating expenses of the Airport. Mr. Applegate
stated there was a special meeting of the Commission yesterday
and there was a unanimous decision to accept the proposal. He
stated the airlines are the ones requesting additional space and
the operating revenues will be sufficient to cover the costs.
Mrs. Girone inquired if any other amendments were expected. Mr.
Tolson stated this is the first amendment since 1976 and he did
not anticipate another in the near future. Mr. Applegate stated
there would not be any amendments for additional funding as they
are trying to meet the necessary deadlines with this action.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Capital Region Airport Commission (the
Commission) was created pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 537
of the Acts of the 1975 General Assembly, and continued by
Chapter 380 of the Acts of the 1980 General Assembly, as amended
(the Enabling Act); and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 1984, the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Chesterfield (the Board) adopted a resolution (the
Initial Resolution) approving in principle the plan of financing
of the Commission for the issuance by the Commission of its
airport revenue bonds and notes (the Obligations) in an amount
not to exceed $30,000,000, the proceeds of such Obligations to be
used to finance a portion of the costs of the expansion and
modernization of certain airport facilities located at Richard
Evelyn Byrd International Airport (the Airport) in Henrico
County, Virginia (the Project); and
WHEREAS, the Board, in the Initial Resolution, agreed in
principle to provide a non-binding but moral obligation of
Chesterfield County to appropriate funds on an annual basis in
order to meet certain deficits that may occur with respect to the
Obligations and with respect to the bonded indebtedness of the
City of Richmond (the City) which was incurred by the City for
84-615
improvements at the Airport and which was assumed by the
Commission pursuant to an agreement (the Tripartite Agreement)
dated as of January 1, 1976, among the Commission, the City and
Henrico County (the Existing Debt); and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City, by resolution dated June
25, 1984, agreed in principle to the subordination of payment of
~the Existing Debt to payments required to be made by the
instruments authorizing the issuance of these Obligations,
subject to obtaining the non-binding but moral obligations of
Henrico County and Chesterfield County to make up their
respective pro rata shares (together with the City) of any
deficits in payments due on the Existing Debt; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of revised estimates of needs and
costs associated with the Project, the Commission, following a
public hearing, has adopted a revised plan of financing which
~rovides for the issuance of Obligations in an amount not to
~xceed $34,000,000 to finance a portion of the costs of the
Project; and
WHEREAS, there has now been presented to the Board a moral
obligation contract among the Commission, the City, Henrico
County and Chesterfield County (the Agreement), in the form
attached hereto, pursuant to which (i) the City, Henrico County
and Chesterfield County agree to a non-binding but moral obliga-
tion to appropriate funds on an annual basis to meet certain
deficits that may occur from time to time with respect to the
Obligations and, in the case of Henrico County and Chesterfield
County, the Existing Debt, (ii) the City agrees to forgive its
pro rata share of any deficit with respect to the Existing Debt
provided Henrico County and Chesterfield County appropriate funds
to pay their respective pro rata shares thereof, (iii) the City
agrees to subordinate the payment of the Existing Debt to pay-
ments required to be made under the instruments authorizing the
issuance of the~Obligations, and (iv) the Tripartite Agreement is
amended to reflect the entry of Chesterfield County into member-
ship in the Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY:
As and to the extent required by Section 103(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code), and
Section 15 of the Enabling Act, the Board hereby approves
the Commission's plan of financing for the Project, the
issuance by the Commission of the Obligations in an aggre-
gate principal amount not to exceed $34,000,000 and the
Commission's use of the proceeds thereof to pay costs of the
Project. The approval of the foregoing plan of financing,
as required by the Enabling Act and Section 103 (k) of the
Code, does not constitute an endorsement of the Obligations
but, as required by the Enabling Act, the Obligations shall
provide that neither Chesterfield County nor the Commission
shall be obligated to pay the Obligations or the interest
thereon or the other costs incident thereto except from the
revenues and monies pledged therefor and from any other
funds which may become available, and neither the faith or
credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or
Chesterfield County shall be pledged thereto.
The Board hereby approves and adopts the Agreement and
authorizes and directs the County Administrator and the
Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute and
deliver the Agreement on behalf of the County of
Chesterfield, subject to the provisions of paragraph 19
thereof.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following amendment was adopted:
First Amendment to Tripartite Agreement
84-616
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this __ day of ,
L984, by and between the CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corpo-
cation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the City), the COUNTY OF
~ENRICO, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia
(Henrico), the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, a political subdivision of
~he Commonwealth of Virginia (Chesterfield) (the City, Henrico
~nd Chesterfield being hereinafter sometimes collectively re-
~erred to as the Localities), and the CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT
2OMMISSION, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
~irginia (the Commission);
WITNE S SETH:
WHEREAS, the Commission was created pursuant to the pro-
visions of Chapter 537 of the Acts of the 1975 General Assembly
~nd was continued by Chapter 380 of the Acts of the 1980 General
Assembly, as amended (the Enabling Act); and
WHEREAS, the City, Henrico and the Commission have hereto-
fore entered into a Deed and Agreement, made as of the 1st day of
3anuary, 1976 (the Original Tripartite Agreement) whereby certain
property known as the Richard Evelyn Byrd International Airport
(the Airport) was transferred by the City to the Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 of the Enabling Act
Chesterfield has, by resolution adopted on April 11, 1984 and
April 24, 1984 by Chesterfield and the Commission, respectively,
oined the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the parties have recognized the need for an expan-
lion and modernization of the airport facilities at the Airport,
including the construction and equipping of second-level passen-
ger boarding concourses, expansion, renovation and equipping of
various areas of the existing terminal building, reconstruction
~f the aircraft apron and certain improvements to the parking and
roadway areas (the Project); and
WHEREAS, the Airport is of vital importance to the economies
9f the Localities, and the Project will constitute a material
~nhancement of the welfare of the Localities and of their respec-
tive residents; and
WHEREAS, in order to finance a portion of the costs of the
Project the Commission has determined to issue its airport
revenue bonds (the Bonds) pursuant to the terms and conditions of
a resolution of the Commission (the Bond Resolution); and
'WHEREAS, in order to finance certain other costs of the
Project the Commission has determined to issue its airport
revenue note (the Note) pursuant to the terms and conditions of a
note agreement between the Commission and one or more Richmond
area banks (the Note Agreement); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Original Tripartite Agreement, the
Commission agreed to pay to the City the principal of certain
bonded indebtedness of the City incurred on behalf of the Airport
(the current principal balance of which is $3,221,514), plus the
accrued interest payable by the City thereon (the Existing Debt);
and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A hereto reflects the remaining install-
~ents of principal and interest on the Existing Debt due from the
Commission to the City as of the date hereof (net of the unam-
ortized portion of federal grants made to the City and contribut-
ed to the Commission by the City as of January 1, 1976 and
interest related thereto), such installments (the Existing Debt
Repayment Amounts) being payable in January of each of the years
indicated; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that in order for the
Bonds and the Note to be sold on an economical basis it will be
84-617
necessary for the Localities to agree to assist in providing
security for the Bonds, the Note and the Existing Debt (collect-
ively sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Obligations) by
providing a non-binding, but moral obligation to make up certain
deficits with respect thereto as hereinafter provided, the
Localities have determined that it is in the best interests of
the Localities and of their respective residents to do so; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that in order
for the bonds and the Note to be sold on an economical basis, it
will be necessary for the City to subordinate the payment of the
Existing Debt, upon the terms set forth herein, to payments
required to be made with respect to the Bonds and the Note, and
the City has determined that it is in the best interests of the
City and of its residents to do so; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have agreed that it is necessary
to amend the Original Tripartite Agreement in order to (i)
implement the foregoing agreements of the Localities to assist in
providing security for the Obligations and the agreement of the
City to subordinate the Existing Debt to payments required to be
made with respect to the bonds and the Note, and (ii) conform
certain provisions of the Original Tripartite Agreement to
reflect the entry of Chesterfield into the Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
undertakings of the parties hereto, the City, Henrico,
Chesterfield and the Commission hereby covenant and agree, each
with the others, as follows:
1. The non-binding, but moral obligation of each of the
Localities is herein provided with respect to the Note and the
Existing Debt and the account described below in this paragraph 1
which relates to and secures the Bonds as follows:
(a) The Bonds - Debt Service Reserve Account. Pursu-
ant to the Bond Resolution, the Commission shall create a
trust account with the corporate trustee named therein (the
Trustee) to be designated the Debt Service Reserve Account.
Under the terms of the bond Resolution, the commission will
be required to maintain a balance in the Debt Service
Reserve Account equal, at any given date of calculation, to
the maximum principal and interest due on all outstanding
Bonds in the then current or in any subsequent Bond Year, as
that term is defined in the Bond Resolution (the Debt
Service Reserve Requirement). The initial Debt Service
Reserve Requirement shall be funded from the proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds. Monies in the Debt Service Reserve
Account shall be transferred to the Bond Fund established
under the Bond Resolution at such times and in such amounts
as shall be prescribed in the Bond Resolution for the
purpose of assuring the timely payment of principal and
interest on the Bonds in the event the net revenues derived
from the operations of the Airport and any other monies
available for such purpose are insufficient to make such
payments.
Under the Bond Resolution, all monies received from the
Localities, as hereinafter described, for the purpose of
restoring the balance in the Debt Service Reserve Account to
the Debt Service Reserve Requirement shall be deposited in
the Debt Service Reserve Account.
(b) The Note. At the closing on the Bonds, the
Commission shall issue the Note pursuant to the Note Agree-
ment. The Note Agreement shall provide for the Commission
to draw up to a specified amount to pay certain costs of the
Project (the Credit Facility), such draws to be evidenced by
the Note. Payments of interest or of principal and interest
due under the Note (Note Payments) shall be required to be
made on January 1 and July 1 of each year (subject to a
21-day grace period). In addition, the Note Agreement shall
84-618
authorize the Commission to draw, on a revolving basis, up
to a further specified amount (the Reserve Facility), less
the amount of any outstanding and unpaid Reserve Notes, as
hereinafter defined.
Draws under the Reserve Facility shall be made by the
Commission to the extent necessary to permit the Commission
to make Note Payments and certain other payments required
under the Note Agreement if at any time net revenues from
the operations of the Airport available under the Bond
Resolution are insufficient therefor. Under the Note
Agreement, draws under the Reserve Facility are to be
evidenced by promissory notes of the Commission (Reserve
Notes). Reserve Notes, together with accrued interest
thereon, are to be repaid in one lump sum (subject to
prepayment at any time) not later than thirteen (13) months
after their respective dates of issue.
Ail monies received from the Localities, as hereinafter
described, for the purpose of paying Reserve Notes plus
accrued interest thereon and all monies received from the
Localities, as hereinafter described, for the purpose of
making any Note Payments, as hereinafter described, or Back
Interest, as hereinafter defined, shall be used by the
Commission or its designee solely for such purposes.
(c) The Existing Debt. The Existing Debt Repayment
Amount due to be paid on January 15, 1985 is to be paid from
funds of the Commission on hand as of the day of closing on
the Bonds. Beginning in 1986, all monies received from
Henrico and Chesterfield, as hereinafter described, for the
purpose of making up a deficit in any Existing Debt Repay-
ment Amount shall be used by the Commission or its designee
as soon as possible after receipt thereof to make payment of
Henrico's and Chesterfield's Pro Rata Shares, as hereinafter
defined, of any such deficit.
2. (a) Not earlier than January 3 and not later than
January 15 of each calendar year so long as any of the Obliga-
tions remain outstanding, the chief financial officer of the
Commission shall, on behalf of the Commission, prepare and
forward to the chief administrative officer of each of the
Localities a schedule (the Annual Schedule) which reflects the
following:
(i) The balance, as of January 2 of the current
calendar year, in the Debt Service Reserve Account and
the amount, if any, by which such balance is less than
the Debt Service Reserve Requirement (the Debt Service
Reserve Deficiency);
(ii) The total amount of Reserve Notes, if any,
issued since the date of the last Annual Schedule
submitted to the Localities and the total amount of
interest thereon that will have accrued from the dates
of issue to July 15 of the current calendar year (the
Reserve Note Debt Service);
(iii) The amount, if any, by which the funds
anticipated to be available under the Bond Resolution
to make the Note Payment due on July 1 of the current
calendar year will be less than the anticipated amount
of such Note Payment (the Estimated Note Deficit);
(iv) The total amount of back interest and
penalties required to be paid pursuant to the Note
Agreement, to the extent the same cannot be paid, as
and when due, from the revenues of the Commission
available therefor under the Bond Resolution, in the
84-619
event of an "Event of Taxability", as defined in the
Note Agreement (collectively, "Back Interest"); and
(v) Beginning in January of 1986, the amount, if
any, by which the sum being forwarded at such date to
the City as a scheduled installment payment on the
Existing Debt is less than the scheduled Existing Debt
Repayment Amount (the Existing Debt Deficiency).
(b) Each Annual Schedule shall also reflect the
proportion that the population of each Locality bears to the
total population of all three Localities (the Pro Rata
Share). The calculation of each Locality's Pro Rata Share
in each Annual Schedule shall be derived from the then most
recent publication by the Tayloe Murphy Institute of the
University of Virginia of final population estimates (or, if
such figures are no longer available from the Tayloe Murphy
Institute, then the most recent final population estimates
published by the U. S. Census Bureau or Successor agency).
The annual Schedule shall reflect the Pro Rata Share for
each Locality of the Debt Service Reserve Deficiency, the
Reserve Note Debt Service, the Estimated Note Deficit Back
Interest and the Existing Debt Deficiency.
(c) Each Annual Schedule shall be executed on behalf
of the Commission by its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer. Each Annual Schedule forwarded to
the City shall be accompanied by that year's scheduled
installment payment with respect to the Existing Debt (or so
much thereof as shall have been available to the Commission
to make such payment under the Bond Resolution).
3. (a) The submission by the Commission of each Annual
Schedule to the chief administrative officer of the City shall
constitute an urgent request by the Commission to the City
Council for an appropriation for the upcoming Governmental Fiscal
Year (being July 1 of such year through June 30 of the following
calendar year) of the sum of the following amounts taken from
such Annual Schedule:
(i) the City's Pro Rata Share of the Debt Service
Service Reserve Deficiency;
(ii) the City's Pro Rata Share of the Reserve
Note Debt Service;
(iii) the City's Pro Rata Share of the Estimated
Note Deficit; and
(iv)
Interest.
the City's Pro Rata Share of any Back
(b) For the purpose of assuring that the Commission's
annual requests (as evidenced by the Annual Schedules) for
appropriations may be considered by City Council, the chief
administrative officer of the City shall include the sum of
the foregoing amounts in his proposed budgets submitted to
City Council for each Governmental Fiscal Year so long as
any of the Obligations remain outstanding.
4. (a) The submission by the Commission of each Annual
Schedule to the chief administrative officers of Henrico and
Chesterfield shall constitute urgent requests by the Commis-
sion to the Board of Supervisors of Henrico and
Chesterfield, respectively, for an appropriation for the
upcoming Governmental Fiscal Year of the sum of the follow-
ing amounts taken from such Annual Schedule:
(i) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the Debt
Service Reserve Deficiency;
84-620
(ii) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the
Reserve Note Debt Service;
(iii) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the
Estimated Note Deficit;
(iv) their respective Pro Rata Shares of any Back
Interest; and
(v) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the
Existing Debt Deficiency.
(b) For the purpose of assuring that the Commission's
annual requests (as evidenced by the Annual Schedules) for
appropriations may be considered by their respective Boards
of Supervisors, the chief administrative officers of Henrico
and Chesterfield shall include the sum of the foregoing
amounts in their respective proposed budgets submitted to
their respective Boards of Supervisors for each Governmental
Fiscal Year so long as any of the Obligations remain
outstanding.
5. With respect to each Governmental Fiscal Year during
~hich any of the Obligations remain outstanding, the governing
bodies of each of the Localities may, at their respective op-
Lions, make appropriations to fund the amounts included in their
respective budgets pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 above; provid-
ed, however, that nothing contained in this paragraph 5 or
~lsewhere in this Agreement shall legally bind or legally obli-
'ate any of the Localities to appropriate funds for the purposes
.escribed herein.
6. (a) As soon as possible after July 1 of each Govern-
mental Fiscal Year, but not later than July 15 thereof, each
Locality shall, from its appropriations made for such
purposes, pay to the Commission or its designee its Pro Rata
Share of the Debt Service Reserve Deficiency, its Pro Rata
Share of the Reserve Note Debt Service (with accrued inter-
est on Reserve Notes being calculated through the date of
payment to the Commission or its designee), its Pro Rata
Share of the Estimated Note Deficit, and its Pro Rata Share
of any Back Interest.
(b) As soon as possible after July 1 of each Govern-
mental Fiscal Year, but not later than July 15 thereof, each
of Henrico and Chesterfield shall, from its appropriation
made for such purpose, pay to the Commission or its designee
'its Pro Rata Share of the Existing Debt Deficiency.
7. In the event any Locality shall fail to pay its
respective Pro Rata Share of the Debt Service Reserve Deficiency
and/or its respective Pro Rata Share of the Reserve Note Debt
Service and/or its Pro Rata Share of any Estimated Note Deficit
and/or its Pro Rata Share of any Back Interest and/or its Pro
Rata Share of the amounts described below in paragraph 8, then
the Commission shall make, and the non-defaulting Locality or
Localities agree to consider (and their chief administrative
officers agree to place before their respective governing
bodies), an urgent request for a supplemental payment from the
non-defaulting Locality or Localities in an amount sufficient to
make up the share of each of the foregoing items which the
defaulting Locality failed to pay. Any such request for a
supplemental payment shall be considered not later than August 15
of each year and any supplemental payment authorized by the
non-defaulting Locality or Localities shall be made to the
Commission or its designee by September 1 of such year, in such
proportions as the populations of the respective non-defaulting
Localities (if only one Locality has defaulted) bear to the total
population of both non-defaulting Localities.
84-621
8. If, by March 15 of any calendar year, the Commission
shall have determined that the Estimated Note Deficit has been
underestimated in the most recent Annual Schedule, then the chief
financial officer of the Commission shall, by April 1 of such
year, forward to the chief administrative officer of each of the
Localities a schedule (the Supplemental Schedule) reflecting the
additional amount of the estimated deficit with respect to the
Note Payment due on July 1 of the current calendar year (the
Additional Estimated Note Deficit). The submission by the
Commission of a Supplemental Schedule to the chief administrative
officer of each of the Localities shall constitute an urgent
request to the governing bodies of each of Localities to include
in their respective budgets a supplemental appropriation in an
amount equal to its respective Pro Rata Share of the Additional
Estimated Note Deficit. For the purpose of assuring that any
such Commission request (as evidenced by a Supplemental Schedule)
for a supplemental appropriation may be considered by his govern-
ing body, the chief administrative officer of each Locality shall
recommend that such request be included in the proposed budget
for the upcoming Governmental Fiscal Year prior to final adoption
thereof. As soon as possible after July 1 of such Governmental
Fiscal Year, but not later than July 15 thereof, each Locality
shall, from its appropriation made for such purpose, pay to the
Commission or its designee its Pro Rata Share of such Additional
Estimated Note Deficit for application to the Note Payment due as
iof July 1 of such year.
The foregoing procedures shall also apply if, after sub-
mission of its Annual Schedule and before March 15 of such
calendar year the Commission shall have been notified of an Event
of Taxability. In such a case, the Commission shall request, by
submission of a Supplemental Schedule, an appropriation from each
of the Localities sufficient to fund its respective Pro Rata
Share of (a) all interest accrued and to be accrued through July
15 of that calendar year at the higher, taxable rate of interest
then in effect On any outstanding Reserve Notes, and (b) all Back
Interest.
9. The City agrees that payment of the Existing Debt shall,
at all times when any of the Bonds or the Note remain outstand-
ing, be subordinate in right of payment to regularly scheduled
payments of principal and interest on the Bonds and the Note and
to the deposits required under the Bond Resolution to have been
made by the dates of such payments to the funds and accounts as
provided therein. The City further agrees that it shall forgive,
extinguish and forever release its claim against the Commission
for the City's Pro Rata Share of any annual Existing Debt Defi-
ciency if and to the extend both Henrico and Chesterfield
appropriate and pay their respective Pro Rata Shares of such
Existing Debt Deficiency as provided in paragraphs 4 and 6 above.
In the event either Henrico or Chesterfield or both should fail
to appropriate and pay to the Commission or its designee its full
Pro Rata Share of any annual Existing Debt Deficiency, then the
City's Pro Rata Share of such annual Existing Debt Deficiency
plus the amount which either or both of Henrico and Chesterfield
shall fail to appropriate and pay of their respective Pro Rata
Shares of such annual Existing Debt Deficiency shall not be
extinguished, but shall be continued as an obligation of the
Commission and added as a new final payment after the then
previously last scheduled payment on the Existing Debt. To the
extent permitted by the Bond Resolution, the Commission shall
thereafter use the first monies becoming available to it in the
Surplus Fund created under the Bond Resolution to pay in full the
amount of such deferred Existing Debt.
10. The Commission agrees that if, at any time after an
Annual Schedule or a Supplemental Schedule has been submitted to
the Localities and before appropriations have been made in
accordance therewith, the Commission or the Trustee should have
available to either of them funds of the Commission that may,
under the terms of the Bond Resolution, be used to reduce the
84-622
amounts of any of the Debt Service Reserve Deficiency, the
Reserve Note Debt Service, the Estimated Note Deficit, the
Additional Estimated Note Deficit, Back Interest or the Existing
Debt Deficiency reflected in such Annual or Supplemental Sched-
ule, then, to the extent permitted by the Bond Resolution, the
Commission shall use such funds or direct the Trustee to use such
funds to reduce the amounts of the Debt Service Reserve
Deficiency, the Reserve Note Debt Service, the Estimated Note
Deficit, the Additional Estimated Note Deficit, Back Interest or
the Existing Debt Deficiency (in that order) shown on the Annual
~r Supplemental Schedule and shall so inform the Localities by
3uly 1 and reduce its request for funds accordingly.
11. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be or be
deemed to be a lending of the credit of any of the Localities to
Ithe Commission or to any other person. Nor shall anything
contained in this Agreement be or be deemed to be a pledge of the
faith and credit or the taxing power of any of the Localities
with respect to the Obligations.
12. In the case of any conflict between the terms of the
Bond Resolution and this Agreement, the terms of the Bond Resolu-
tion shall prevail; provided, however, that the foregoing shall
not in any way affect this Agreement as a non-binding, but moral
obligation only of the Localities.
13. (a) The benefits of paragraphs 1 through 12 shall
inure to the Commission, to the Trustee as representative of the
holders of the Bonds, and to the holder(s) of the Note and any
Reserve Notes, for itself and as representative of all others
Iparticipating in the funding arrangements under the Note Agree-
ment. The undertakings of each of the Localities hereunder are
several and, except as otherwise stated, are not dependent upon
the agreements or actions of the other Localities.
(b) The parties hereto agree that should the Govern-
mental Fiscal Year or the budget making deadlines of any of
the Localities change from those in existence on the date of
this Agreement, then all parties shall agree to such amend-
ment or amendments of this Agreement as are necessary to
adjust the procedures outlined herein to assure that the
security for the Bonds and with respect to the Note and the
Existing Debt conferred hereunder may be continued without
hindrance or detriment.
14. As and to the extent required by Section 103(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 15 of the
Enabling Act, the governing bodies of each of the Localities
hereby approve the Commission's plan of financing for the Proj-
ect, the issuance by the Commission of the Bonds, the Note and
the Reserve Notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$34,000,000 and the Commission's use of the proceeds of the Bonds
and the Note to pay the costs of the Project.
15. The Original Tripartite Agreement is hereby amended to
reflect that all references therein to the "County" shall,
effective from the date of this Agreement, be deemed to be
references to "Henrico County". Paragraphs 1 and 14 of the
Original Tripartite Agreement are hereby amended, effective from
the date of this Agreement, to read as follows:
"1. It is expressly understood and agreed to by
the parties to this deed and agreement that the Commis-
sion shall not convey, sell or otherwise dispose of any
real estate conveyed to the Commission by the City
without the prior written consent of the City, Henrico
County and Chesterfield County."
"14. In addition to the undertakings of the City,
Henrico County and Chesterfield County contained in
paragraphs 1 through 13 of the First Amendment to this
deed and agreement, the City, Henrico County and
84-623
Chesterfield County hereby covenant and agree that they
shall pay to the Commission their pro-rata share of the
amount by which capital expenditures and operating
expenses of the Commission exceed revenues, in
accordance with budgets approved by the participating
jurisdictions and to the extent that appropriations
have been authorized by the participating jurisdic-
tions.''
16. The Commission and the Localities acknowledge that
acting pursuant to resolutions of Chesterfield and the Commission
dated April 11, 1984 and April 24, 1984, respectively,
Chesterfield has become a "Participating POlitical Subdivision",
as defined in the Enabling Act, of the Commission on the follow-
ing conditions:
(a)
1 , 1984 .
Chesterfield's membership became effective on May
(b) Subject to (c) below, Chesterfield's representa-
tion on the Commission shall consist of three (3) full
voting members and one (1) ex officio member;
(c) The Commission will introduce legislation into the
1985 session of the Virginia General Assembly to amend the
Enabling Act to provide for representation of Chesterfield
on the Commission by four (4) full voting members and the
Commission, the City and Henrico will support such amend-
ment; and
(d) Chesterfield will pay to the Commission, subject
to annual appropriations, a membership contribution in the
amount of $50,000 per annum for ten (10) consecutive years.
17. The provisions of this Agreement are separable, and in
the event any provision hereof is held invalid, the invalidity of
such provision shall not affect the validity of any other pro-
vision hereof.
18. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Agreement shall be of
no further force and effect after the Bonds shall have been paid
in full or irrevocably defeased, all amounts due with respect to
draws under the Credit Facility and all principal and interest of
Reserve Notes have been paid in full, and all amounts due with
respect to the Existing Debt have been paid in full.
19. This Agreement shall become effective only from and
after the time the final form of the Bond Resolution and the Note
Agreement shall have been reviewed and approved on behalf of the
Localities by their respective chief administrative officers,
such approval to be evidenced by the execution of this Agreement
by each such chief administrative officer. The review and
approval of the Bond Resolution and the Note Agreement by such
chief administrative officers shall not be construed as creating
any obligations of the Localities except and to the extent as set
forth in this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richmond has caused its name
to be subscribed hereunto by its City Manager and its seal to be
hereto affixed and attested by its City Clerk, they being duly
authorized so to do by Ordinance adopted by the
Council of the City of Richmond, on the __day of November,
1984; and the County of Henrico has caused its name to be sub-
scribed hereunto by its County Manager and its seal to be hereto
affixed and attested by its Clerk of the Board of Supervisors,
they being duly authorized so to do by a resolution designated as
Agenda Item , adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Henrico, on the day of October, 1984; and
the County of Chesterfield has caused its name to be subscribed
hereunto by its County Administrator and its seal to be hereto
affixed and attested by its Deputy Clerk of the Board of
84-624
sors, they being duly authorized so to do by resolution
by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
sterfield, on the day of October, 1984; and the
has caused its name to be subscribed by its Executive
and its seal to be affixed and attested by its
y, they being duly authorized so to do by resolution of
Commission adopted on the day of ,
1984.
CITY OF RICHMOND
[SEAL]
[SEAL]
City Clerk
:
Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors
:
]SEAL]
By
Deputy Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
[SEAL]
By.
Secretary
By
City Manager
COUNTY OF HENRICO
By
County Manager
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
By.
County Administrator
CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT
COMMISSION
By.
Executive Director
EXHIBIT A
Existing Debt
Year
Amount of Installment Due
1985 $543,235.97
1986 505,088.64
1987 484,061.67
1988 418,085.00
1989 416,695.95
1990 396,726.90
1991 321,080.54
1992 138,105.29
1993 68,508.09
1994 69,739.40
1995 25,676.88
1996 10,965.00
: Unanimous
9.C. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
9.C.1. MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
84-625
~nd authorized the County Administrator to apply for and accept
if approved, funds in the amount of $7,436.00 to be applied to
the transportation of the Chesterfield Vocational Services
clients.
Mr. Dodd inquired if the vans used with these funds would be used
to replace Spectran. Mr. Hedrick stated this replaces two vans
which have excess mileage and does not have anything to do with
Spectran. He stated this could be considered in the future as
the County gets a special populations transportation network
developed and they might be used during the off hours for that
purpose. Mr. Dodd stated he felt that would be recommended.
Vote: Unanimous
9oC.2. NURSING HOME
Mr. Hedrick commended Mr. Gillentine for outstanding
accomplishments during the past year under some difficult
circumstances and stated the action requested by the Board again
reflects another one of the Nursing Home's accomplishments. Mr.
Gillentine introduced Ms. Judy Beach. Ms. Beach stated
approximately one year ago there was a campaign initiated to
obtain funds for a bus for the residents of the Nursing Home and
they have raised approximately $45,000. She stated the bus costs
approximately $42,000, will be able to accommodate 21 wheelchair
patients and 6 ambulatory patients, is air conditioned, is due
the latter part of November, etc. The Board commended the
Nursing Home and its staff for these efforts.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized a transfer of $41,577 from the Nursing
Home Agency fund (#624) to the Nursing Home's Operating Fund
(~522) to pay for the purchase of a residents' transportation
vehicle.
Vote: Unanimous
9.D. ORDINANCE PERMITTING LICENSE INSPECTOR TO ISSUE SUMMONS
Mr. Hedrick stated the Board is requested to set a public hearing
date to consider an ordinance to permit the license inspector to
issue summons. Mr. Micas explained the proposed ordinance.
Several members of the Board mentioned concerns regarding the old
versus the new procedures to be followed, what other
jurisdictions do statewide particularly the neighboring
jurisdictions, the issuance of 72 hour warning citations, the
number of people who take the warning Seriously and purchase
their tags, how personal property taxes is involved, whether
additional personnel will be needed, the training and powers of
the Police Officers, the supervision of the License Inspector's
Office, the proper and efficient use of police officers' time and
other technical aspects involved. Mr. Wilkinson stated the
license inspectors in the City of Richmond and the County of
Henrico do issue summons and he briefly outlined the existing
process. He stated the Police Department is in favor of this
amendment. Mr. Daniel inquired if the purpose of this ordinance
is to obtain back revenue or to punish those who have not
purchased their tags. Mr. Hedrick stated this is a problem of
enforcement but it does include revenue collection. Mrs. Girone
indicated she felt this would decrease the bureaucracy in this
matter and also people cannot obtain a County vehicle license
unless they have paid their personal property taxes and that is
another reason they do not purchase their tags. The Board
indicated they could support the public hearing but requested
additional information prior to the hearing.
After further discussion, on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by
Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of Now~mber 28, 1984 at 9:00
84-626
~.m. to consider an ordinance to amend Sections 12-33 and 14.1-28
of the Code of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, to permit the
license inspector to issue summons.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E. RESTRICTION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC - SMOKETREE DRIVE
liOn motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the
date of December 12, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to
consider the restriction of through truck traffic on Smoketree
Drive, Route 2770.
Vote: Unanimous
9.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING SCHEDULE FOR DECEMBER
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
cancelled the December 26, 1984 meeting and adjusted the time for
the December 12, 1984 meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at
which time zoning would be held with the regular agenda scheduled
for 7:00 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
9.G. APPOINTMENTS
9.G.1. RICHMOND METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
appointed Mr. David K. Hunt to the Richmond Metropolitan
Authority whose term is effective immediately and will expire on
September 30, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
9.G.2. JOHN TYLER COMMUNITY COLLEGE LOCAL BOARD
Nominations were submitted for Mr. Jack D. Howe and Mr. William
M. Hudson for appointment to the John Tyler Community College
Local Board which appointment will formally be made at the
November 14, 1984 meeting.
9.H. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
9.H.1. REPORTS
9.H.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer
financial reports. Mr. Dodd requested that a simpler form of the
report be submitted to the Board in the future.
9.H.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
9.H.2. UTILITIES RELOCATION FOR POWHITE PARKWAY, SECTION C, 501
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement
with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
design of utilities to be relocated due to the construction of
Powhite Parkway, Section C, 501, subject to approval by the
County Attorney's office.
84-627
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.3. DESIGN OF FALLING CREEK PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN
Mr. Welchons stated at the work session on the Sewer Master Plan,
the Board of Supervisors authorized the Utilities Department to
proceed with the selection of a consultant to design the Falling
Creek Pump Station and Force Main. He stated proposals were
received on May 15, 1984, from fifteen (15) firms and the final
selection was made in accordance with the Virginia Public
Procurement Act.
Mr. Daniel stated he was concerned with the selection procedure
and inquired if the point system is exact leaving no question as
to whom is the best qualified for the job as several seem to be
almost equal. Mr. Hedrick stated the statistical analysis is
very accurate and the relative uniformity in each column rating
the companies needs to be compared to each other and not
separated. He stated there are three professionals who evaluate
issues under their expertise and then they meet to form an
overall ~analysis of each of the firms. Mr. Daniel stated he is
concerned that if there is a format for deciding who is the most
qualified, etc., that the mathematical figures be handled with
very strict guidelines and procedures. Mr. Dodd stated he would
echo Mr. Daniel's comments but inquired why the firm chosen was
third and not first and if there were other considerations. Mr.
Welchons stated what the Board has is the ranking form for the
proposals and the interviews determined the change. Mr. Dodd
inquired the location of the recommended firm. Mr. Welchons
stated Baltimore. Mr. Dodd stated he hoped that if there is a
problem ten years from now, that the firm will make some of the
things good that may go bad, but he has serious reservations
about it. Mr. Daniel suggested in the future that the Board be
given the supporting documentation as to why which firm is
recommended. Mr. Hedrick stated no matter how you document the
information, there will be questions depending on staff's
recommendations. He stated the Board recently asked that the
staff look at ways of weighing the work toward local firms and
they are looking at this and based on preliminary information, it
appears this may not be accomplished within procurement
regulations. He stated either this is done on a business basis
or weighing it toward local firms which will limit the firms
competing outside of the area and the state. He stated up to this
time, it has been taken as a business decision. Mr. Dodd
inquired if there were a problem with the State Water Control
Board, will this firm help us and do they have any influence. He
stated there are things other than just dollars to be considered
but he does not want to give dollars away either. He stated
there are intangibles and if they are being considered he had no
problem.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents to retain the firm of Whitman, Requardt and Associates
to design and manage the construction of the Falling Creek Pump
Station and Force Main at a cost not to exceed $650,000.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4. CONSENT ITEMS
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he has abstained in
voting on issues on Michaux Creek Force Main in the past as he is
involved with sale of land in the area, declared a conflict of
interest and excused himself from the meeting pursuant to the
Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act.
9.H.4.c. SEWER CONTRACT FOR MICHAUX CREEK FORCE MAIN
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
84-628
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
for the following sewer contract:
4-102CD/7(8)4024, Michaux Creek Force Main
per: G and H, Inc.
: Fred Barnes Construction Company
Estimated Cost: $80,487.50
County Cost: 80,487.50 (Refund through
connection fees)
: 574-1-00556-0000
7es: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
~nt: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
9.H.4.a. SEWER CONTRACT FOR FREDERICK FARMS
On motion o'f Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following sewer contract:
S84-154CD/7(8)4545, Frederick Farms, on-site sewers
Developer: William B. Duval
Contractors: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. (off-site)
Coastline Contractors, Inc. (on-site)
Number of Connections: 132
Total Estimated Cost: $148,944.10
Estimated County Cost: 2,256.29 (Refund through
connection fees)
Code: 574-1-00556-0000
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR JESSUP ROAD, LOTS 39 AND 40
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 sewer contract:
Contract S84-157CD/7(8)4575, Jessup Road, Lots 39 and 40
Developer: Johnny O. & Cheryl Hughes
Contractor: Coastline Contractors, Inc.
Total Estimated Cost: $5,988.00
Estimated County Cost: 1,800.00 (Refund through
connection fees)
Number of Connections: 2
Code: 574-1-00556-0000
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.d. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM THOMAS L. AND JUNE A. HAYNES
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents, on behalf of the County, accepting a 20'
strip of land along Old Bermuda Hundred Road from Thomas L. and
June A. Haynes.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4..f. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM GLEN W. AND VIRGINIA R. BUTLER
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents, on behalf of the County, accepting a
deed of dedication from Glen W. Butler and Virginia R. Butler for
84-629
the construction of East Avenue.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.g. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM CULLEN C. AND ANN H. WALKER
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents, on behalf of the County, accepting a
parcel of land along the east right of way line of Granite
Springs Road from Cullen C. Walker, Jr. and Ann H. Walker.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.h. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM MEADOWDALE SQUARE ASSOCIATES
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents, on behalf of the County, accepting a
parcel of'land along Hopkins Road from Meadowdale Square
Associates.
Vote: Unanimous
9.H.4.i. AVIATION EASEMENT FROM ELIZABETH CROWDER
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a
contract and easement agreement, on behalf of the County,
purchasing an aviation easement from Elizabeth Crowder along
Route 10 for the County Airport Expansion in the amount of
$5,000.00. It is noted this easement will cover 2.5 acres and
lies within the proposed transitional zone areas of the Airport.
The purchase amount has been approved by F.A.A., and the County
will be reimbursed for 90% of the purchase price by the F.A.A.
and 5% by the State.
Vote: Unanimous
9.I. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on the
contingency account and a health care report.
9.L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
suspended the rules and procedures of the Board to add an item to
allow for an Executive Session on an emergency basis to discuss
with counsel legal matters relating to criminal investigations as
permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for lunch at the
Technical Center with the Hauni Students.
Reconvening:
Mr. Daniel stated there are no requests for mobile home permits
this date and the Board would proceed with the rezoning requests.
He stated that Mr. Applegate would be presiding over the meeting
according to the new rules and procedures of the Board of
Supervisors.
84-630
K. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
84S064
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JJR, A VA PARTNERSHIP
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on
a 163.5 acre parcel lying at the western terminus of West
Providence Road. Tax Map 38-9 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheets 13 and 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day
deferral of this request. There was no one present to discuss
this matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the
Board deferred consideration of this matter until November 28,
1984.
Vote: Unanimous
84S163
In Midlothian Magisterial District, HUGUENOT-ROBIOUS ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial
(M-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and
bulk exceptions on a 3.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 720
feet on the south line of Huguenot Road and also fronting
approximately 380 feet on the north line of Robious Road, and
located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these
roads. Tax Map 8-16 (1) Parcel 6 and Tax Map 9-13 (1) Part of
Parcel 1 (Sheets 2 and 3).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day
deferral of this matter. There was no one present to discuss
this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the
Board deferred consideration of this request until November 28,
1984.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Batderson indicated that a call had been received from the
Paragon Group, Inc., the applicant in the first case scheduled,
indicating they were having some transportation problems and
would be late for the meeting. It was generally agreed the Board
would discuss this matter when the applicants arrived. Mr.
Applegate inquired if this was acceptable to those present
regarding this matter and they indicated it was.
84S149
In Bermuda Magisterial District, B. F. HILL, PIONEER FINANCIAL
SERVICE AND G. EMERSON requested rezoning from Agricultural (A)
to Residential (R-9) and Residential (R-12) plus Conditional Use
Planned Development to permit use exceptions on an 84.0 acre
parcel fronting approximately 2,133 feet on the southeast line of
Bermuda Hundred Road also fronting approximately 1,950 feet on
Golf Course Road and located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 117-16 (1) Part of Parcel 1
(Sheets 33 and 42).
Mr. Dodd stated he would like to defer consideration of this
case. He stated he had talked with the applicants and the
residents concerned and he felt something could be agreed upon.
There was no one present to discuss this matter. Mr. Daniel
stated he had received mail regarding this case and entered it as
part of the record. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr.
Mayes, the Board deferred consideration of this request until
January 23, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
84-631
84S138
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BERNARD L. AND JUDITH F.
MATHEWS requested Conditional Use to permit an office building in
an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.51 acre parcel fronting
approximately 105 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike,
approximately 2,400 feet west of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 14 (1)
Parcel 35 (Sheet 6).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He
stated this request was deferred from the September 26, 1984
meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with the
Planning Department, Transportation Department and the Highway
Department to review their access onto Route 60. He stated that
meeting was held and there are certain conditions indicated.
Mr. Dean Hawkins, landscape architect representing the applicant,
was present. He stated the meeting was held as indicated
previously regarding the access problem. He stated the reason
for the plan presented is that they cannot get a full 30 ft. wide
standard Highway Department entrance into this property due to
an existing well. He stated the Highway Department has agreed to
approve a 20 ft. wide entrance and then, when public water
becomes available, the applicant will tap into the supply and
abandon the well, and if the Highway Department requires it, they
will dedicate a 30 ft. strip towards an ultimate 60 ft. right of
way to make this a public road to the back of the parcel. He
stated the conditions were acceptable except for #4 regarding the
sign. He stated they would like the size of the sign increased
from 8 square feet to 32 square feet and leave the height at five
feet because they would like to have the tenants listed. Mrs.
Girone inquired about the sign ordinance that is pending and if
this could be deferred to the Planning Commission and the staff.
Mr. Balderson stated this is a straight conditional use and it
would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated the
conditions could be imposed as recommended and then see how the
sign ordinance is approved and if it is in conformance with that
ordinance and they wished to increase it, they can come back at a
later date. He stated the sign ordinance recommendation is not
anticipated to be completed for several months. Mrs. Girone
stated that would probably be within the applicant's time limit.
Mr. Hawkins stated there is renovation which needs to be done,
the building is not filled, etc. Mrs. Girone stated she felt it
would be best to leave the conditions as recommended. Mr.
Applegate inquired if an 8 square foot sign could be read and
suggested that the requested 32 square foot sign might be
approved.
Ms. Mathews stated she felt one of her responsibilities to the
tenants would be to display their name on the sign. She stated
the sign would only be visible and legible from one side of the
road and it would not be a detraction. Mr. Daniel stated in an
office park, it was never the intention for someone going down
the road to read the tenants listed on the sign but be able to
identify the park and its general use. ~s. Girone stated there
might be a danger of approving something in excess of what the
sign ordinance committee reports to the Board, and it would be
better to approve staff recommendations. She stated when the
building is ready and the report is ready, there is the
possibility of amending the conditions. There was no opposition
present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the request subject to the following conditions:
84-632
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Dean E. Hawkins, dated 10/5/84, shall be considered the
plan of development. (P)
The uses permitted shall be limited exclusively to
professional offices. There shall be no medical/dental
offices or retail use on the property. (P)
e
Ail parking shall be located to the rear of the structure.
Parking and driveway areas shall be delineated by a
permanent means (i.e., timber, curb and gutter, etc.) (P)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that all parking areas
for six (6) or more vehicles be paved.)
One sign, not to exceed eight (8) square feet and a height
of five (5) feet, shall be permitted identifying this use.
This sign shall not be luminous (direct lighting), but may
be illuminated (indirect lighting). The sign's facades
shall be of subdued colors. Prior to obtaining a sign
permit', a colored rendering shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. (P)
One entrance/exit, located along the west property line,
shall be permitted to Midlothian Turnpike. This
entrance/exit shall be designed to allow shared use
with the adjacent property to the west in the future.
(Note: VDH&T has indicated that a temporary entrance permit
will be issued to allow a twenty (20) foot wide driveway
until such time that public water is extended and the
existing well removed, allowing the entrance to be widened
to thirty (30) feet.) (P and VDH&T)
At such time that the Transportation Department, VDH&T and
the Planning Department deems the necessity for a public
road, right of way (not to exceed thirty (30) feet) shall be
dedicated along the western property line to and for the
County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (P and
VDH&T)
Vote: Unanimous
84S150
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT requested
amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 79S079) relative to sign conditions. This
request lies in a Convenience Business (B-l) District on a 1.39
acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the south line of
Iron Bridge Road across from Krause Road. Tax Map 95-12 (1) Part
of Parcel 4 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Tom
Cockrell, representing the applicant, stated the conditions were
acceptable. He discussed the signage for the site which has been
changed and will not be a detriment but a benefit to the area,
the architecture of the building, the landscaping, etc. Mr.
Daniel stated all know of the steps to protect the integrity of
the area and this sign package shows that local people can talk
to corporate office personnel and have local issues prevail. He
stated it is not always practical to have a universal sign system
that fits every area. He stated the local people have made the
facility functional and visible and it will set the tone for
other, operations in the future. Mr. Cockrell stated the local
franchisee did a lot of selling as he had to have the sign
reduced from 81 sq. ft. to 4 sq. ft. Mr. Applegate expressed
appreciation to Mr. Porter Vaughan for his efforts and patience
in this matter. There was no opposition present.
84-633
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plans prepared
by Strategic Identities, Inc., shall be considered the sign
package for this site.
In conjunction with approval of this request, the Planning
Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the sign
package subject to the conditions stated herein.
Vote: Unanimous
84S047 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ANDERSON AND ANDERSON, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business
(B-3) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk
exceptions on a 6.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,000 feet
on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 30 feet
west of Sturbridge Drive. Tax Map 17-11 (1) Parcels 4 and 5
(Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ed
Willey was present representing the applicant and stated the
conditions were acceptable. Ms. Nancy Zulkowski, representing
the Sturbridge Village Townhouse Association, stated she was not
in opposition but she would like a copy of the conditions. She
stated that she understood the 50 ft. buffer and trees would
remain and they agree with this as long as it is no less than
that. Mr. Willey stated the applicant agreed to a 50 ft. buffer
but if the Board would notice in the request analysis, condition
2 would permit the Commission to reduce the buffer if adequate
buffering could still be provided. Mr. Balderson presented Ms.
Zulkowski with the proposed conditions and read and explained
condition #2. Ms. Zulkowski stated that condition was agreeable
but they were also concerned with traffic as the residents who
use Sturbridge Drive as an access have to make a U-turn. She
stated there were two divisions of Sturbridge and she represents
only 71 residents and there is another division plus an apartment
complex with about 300-400 people. She inquired how the access
would be made. Mr. Willey stated there are two accesses--one at
the place where the U-turn is currently made and the other is
only for ingress and it would be west of the crossover. He
stated they would share the same access turning in but they would
not have to make a U-turn movement and would be straight in and
would not interfere with the U-turn movement. Ms. Zulkowski
inquired if there were plans for a traffic light. It was
indicated there was no current plan.
Mrs. Girone inquired what was involved in the development. Mr.
Willey stated this is a shopping center with either a bank or a
drive in restaurant on the western portion. Mr. Applegate stated
the out parcel would be to the west and not at the drive coming
into Sturbridge. Mr. Willey stated that was correct and they do
not have an access into Sturbridge.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for three minutes
to allow Ms. Zulkowski and others to review the conditions.
Reconvening:
Ms. Zulkowski stated they would prefer the bank to the drive-in
restaurant and they will be meeting with Mr. Willey to discuss
84-634
the traffic problems with regard to the crossover. Mr. Applegate
stated this would be coming before the Planning Commission for
schematic plan approval and she could address those concerns.
Mr. Willey stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no
opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Plan dated
7/15/84 shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
southern property line. This buffer shall consist of
landscaping, fencing and/or topographical features
which sufficiently screen this site from adjacent
residential development. A detailed landscaping plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. At the time of schematic plan
review, this condition may be modified by the Planning
Commission upon submission of detailed plans, which
show that the development can be effectively screened
in a lessor width. (P)
Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Midlothian
Turnpike, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted.
This landscaping shall not be within any sewer and/or
water easements. The Planning Commission may reduce
the setback to twenty-five (25) feet if, at the time of
schematic plan review, detailed landscaping and/or
berming plans are submitted which provide the ability
to properly maintain utility lines and minimize the
visibility of parking areas. (P&U)
At the time of schematic plan submission, a lighting plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
Exterior lighting shall be designed so as not to project
light into adjacent properties. (P)
With the exception of automobiles, there shall be no outside
storage or display. (P)
The eastern 225 feet of the property shall be limited
exclusively to Community Business (B-2) uses. (P)
There shall be no outside public address system with the
exception of a speaker system to serve communications
between customers and inside employees (i.e., bank or
drive-in restaurant). At the time of schematic plan review,
the decible level of such speaker systems shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission for approval. (CPC&P)
Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and
12:00 midnight. (P)
Access shall be confined to one (1) entrance/exit aligned
with the existing Route 60 crossover. This condition may be
modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic
plan review to permit one (1) additional entrance/exit. (T)
10.
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed
along Route 60, as deemed necessary by the Transportation
Department and VDH&T. (T)
11.
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with
pedestrian access. (EE)
84-635
12.
Signs may be illuminated, but may only be luminous if the
signfield is opaque with translucent letters. All other
signs shall comply with B-2 bulk requirements. (CPC&P)
(Note: At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning
Commission may impose additional conditions, which insure
compatibility with adjacent residential development and
other commercial/industrial Conditional Use Planned
Developments in the area.)
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate stated the representatives of the Paragon Group
were present and that would be the next case.
84S135
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, PARAGON GROUP, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business
(B-2) and Office Business (O) plus Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on 33.25 acres,
plus amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 81S046) to amend Condition #4, relative to
shared access. This request includes a total of 34.59 acres
fronting approximately 695 feet on the north line of Hull Street
Road also fronting approximately 1,530 feet on Genito Road, and
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these
roads. Tax Map 49-10 (1) Parcel 20 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions. He stated
the concerned citizens in the neighborhood met with the Planning
staff, the applicant's representatives and the Supervisor of the
District and reviewed some of the conditions. He presented the
Board with an addendum from the outcome of the meeting with
regard to fencing adjacent to the office use. Mr. Sandy
Weathersby, representing the applicant, was present and stated
the conditions were acceptable. Mr. Riggs, on behalf of the
residents, stated with the addendum, they are in favor of the
proposal. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Applegate, the Board,
the Planning Department and especially representatives of Paragon
for their help and cooperation in this matter. Mr. Applegate
stated this was one of the largest zoning cases in his district
since he has been on the Board and he applauded both the
developer and the residents for working out a very difficult
situation.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by The Kirkland Group, dated June 7, 1984, and the Textual
Statement shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
e
A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the northwest
and north boundary of the Office Business (O) tract. In
conjunction with the first phase of development (i.e., the 0
or B-2 tract, whichever occurs first), a five (5) foot high
chain link fence shall be installed within the buffer. The
exact location of the fence shall be determined at the time
of schematic plan review. The fence shall be placed to
maintain as much existing natural vegetation as possible
and, at the same time, minimize the view of the fence from
.both the adjacent property as well as from this project.
Three (3) pedestrian access points, one at Oakmeadow, one at
Delgado and one at Davelayne shall be permitted within this
buffer and through the fence (i.e., 3 foot wide gates).
84-636
Pedestrian access points shall be defined by fencing or some
other means that will direct pedestrian traffic to these
points. At such time that the Office Business (0) tract
develops, existing vegetation shall be supplemented with
additional vegetation sufficient to screen this development
from adjacent properties.
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northeast boundary of the Community Business (B-2) tract
from the Office Business (0) zoning to the main
entrance/exit to Route 360. Buffer widths shall be
exclusive of any drainage, water or sewer easements.
Buffers shall be landscaped to screen development from
adjacent properties. A conceptual landscaping plan
shall be submitted to the Planning'Commission for
approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A
detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval within ninety (90)
days of clearing and rough grading.
A twenty-five (25) foot setback shall be permitted along
Hull Street Road. A thirty-five (35) foot setback shall be
permitted along Genito Road. Within these setbacks, a three
(3) to four (4) foot high undulating earth berm shall be
installed. This berm shall be landscaped with ornamental
trees and shrubs. Berming and landscaping shall not be
permitted within the water easement along Genito Road. A
conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in con-
junction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval within sixty (60) days of clearing and rough
grading. (P)
Parking areas shall have at least five (5) square feet of
interior landscaping for each space. Each landscaped area
shall contain a minimum fifty (50) square feet; shall have a
minimum dimension of at least five (5) feet; and shall
include at least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at
least five (5) feet. The remaining area shall be landscaped
with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping
material. The total number of trees shall not be less than
one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of
required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall
be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of
paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not
be calculated as required landscaped area. Conceptual plans
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. Detailed plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval upon completion of
clearing and rough grading. (P)
Schematic plans shall be submitted for approval for entire
tracts (i.e., for the entire B-2 tract and/or for the entire
0 tract). (P)
Prior to erection of any signs, a complete sign package, to
include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc., shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Signs
shall comply with the requirements of the respective zoning
classification, unless modified by the Planning Commission
through schematic plan approval. (P)
Lighting in the Office Business (0) tract shall be low
level, not to exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet and
positioned so as not to project light into adjacent
residential property. (P)
Within the Office Business (0) tract, buildings adjacent to
residential zoning shall not exceed a height of two (2)
stories. All other buildings shall not exceed a height of
three (3) stories. (P)
84-637
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Vote:
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes-
trian access. (EE)
Prior to release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet
of right of way measured from the centerline of Genito Road
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield,
free and unrestricted. (T)
The developer shall be responsible for relocation of the
existing crossover on Hull Street Road, east of this
development. A left turn lane shall be constructed at the
crossover. The crossover shall be relocated to align with
the eastern property line. Access to Hull Street Road shall
align with the relocated crossover. Other than this single
entrance/exit there shall be no other access permitted to
Hull Street Road. However, if VDH&T will not approve the
relocation of the crossover, access to Hull Street Road
shall be limited to a single entrance/exit located between
Out Parcels ~1 and #2. (T)
An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be
installed along Genito and Hull Street Roads for the entire
property frontage. This construction may be phased in
conjunction with the phasing of the development. A phasing
plan shall be submitted to the Transportation Department for
approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (T)
Access to Genito Road shall be limited to three (3)
entrances/exits. The southernmost access shall align with
the approved access location for the adjacent property to
the west (i.e., T.M. 49-9 (1) Parcel 18). The second access
shall align with Old Genito Road and shall be constructed as
a public rOad and stubbed into adjacent property to the
east. However, the Commission may waive the requirement for
a public road if it is determined at the time of schematic
plan review that a private drive can handle anticipated
traffic volumes. The third access shall be located to
adequately serve the Office Business (O) tract. (T)
The entrance/exits to public roads as permitted herein
(Conditions 11 and 13) shall have a minimum of two (2),
twenty-four (24) foot wide lanes (measured from face of curb
to face of curb) separated by a median. This typical
section shall extend a minimum length of 165 feet into the
property measured from the property line. There shall be no
access or median breaks permitted along this 165 foot
section. However, if schematic plans are submitted which
prove that traffic circulation problems would not occur by
allowing access along the 165 foot section, the Planning
Commission may modify the condition. (T)
The internal driveway system shall be constructed to allow
and encourage vehicular travel between the B-2 and O tracts.
(T)
At the time of schematic plan review, the Commission shall
review setbacks along the public road (driveway) which
aligns with Old Genito Road. If it is the determination of
the Planning Commission that less than a thirty (30) foot
building setback would not cause a traffic hazard, reduction
of the building setback requirements may be granted.
However, in no case shall parking or buildings be located
closer than fifteen (15) feet to the edge of pavement if
constructed as a private drive, or fifteen (15) feet from
.the edge of the right of way if constructed as a public
road. (T & P)
Unanimous
84-638
84S092
In Midlothian Magisterial District, DORIS B. AND RONALD M. SCHNUR
requested a Conditional Use to permit a commercial kennel in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 7.64 acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,080 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road,
approximately 1,750 feet west of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 74 (1)
Parcel 46 (Sheet 19).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Ms.
Schnur was present and stated the conditions were acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted
with the application shall be considered the plan of
development. (P)
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Doris B.
and Ronald M. Schnur and shall not be transferable nor run
with the land. (P)
The existing sign shall be permitted to remain on the
property. However, if the existing sign is removed, a
single sign, not to exceed an area of fifteen (15)
square feet and a height of ten (10) feet, shall be
permitted identifying this use. This sign may be ex-
ternally illuminated or may be internally illuminated
if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters.
(p)
0
Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., animals shall
be confined to the interior of the proposed structure. (P)
(Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, site plans
must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.)
Vote: Unanimous
84S096
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, MIDLOTHIAN ASSOCIATES
requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and
bulk exceptions in a Light Industrial (M-l) District on a 25.6
acre parcel lying at the eastern terminus of Trade Road,
approximately 900 feet east of Southlake Boulevard. Tax Map
17-15 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. John Henson was
present representing the applicant. He stated the Planning
Commission had deferred the case previously to allow the
applicant to meet with the neighboring property owners and they
have reached accord by the conditions recommended. There was no
opposition present. Mr. Applegate inquired if Johnston Willis
Drive would form the balance of that collector road. Mr. Henson
stated that was correct. Mr. Applegate stated that was a great
improvement and explained how the road would be routed. Mr.
Henson explained further the road network and the buffering that
would be provided.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 4/4/84, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
84-639
e
e
Ail utility lines shall be provided with underground
distribution. (P)
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved, curbed and
guttered. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere
with pedestrian access. (EE)
Uses on lots adjacent to Keithwood and Pocono Subdivisions
shall be confined to Light Industrial (M-l) uses. In
addition to Light Industrial (M-l) uses, the following use
exceptions shall be permitted on other lots:
Wholesale greenhouses; carpenter and cabinet shops;
contractor's offices and display rooms; electrical,
plumbing and/or heating shops - sales and service;
fraternal, philanthropic and charitable uses; health
clubs; laboratories; printing shops; repair services
(except of automobile); schools - commercial, trade,
music, dance, business, vocational and training; tool
and equipment rental; communication studios and
~stations (not towers); cocktail lounges, dining halls
and night clubs; contractor's shop; feed, seed, fuel
and ice sales; recreational establishments, indoor;
utility trailer and truck rental; and veterinary
hospital, boarding kennels or clinics, exclusive of
outside runs. Outside storage areas, except
automobiles, shall be screened from public roads and
adjacent residential development to the north. A
screening plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review of any site with
outside storage areas. (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
following bulk exceptions shall be granted:
A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the twenty-five
(25) foot interior side yard setback requirement.
be
A fifty (50) foot exception to the 100 foot setback
requirement adjacent to residential zoning. Within the
fifty (50) foot setback, landscaping, fencing, physical
features and/or topographical conditions shall provide
effective and solid screenin~of this development from
adjacent residential development. In conjunction with
each schematic plan submission for sites adjacent to
these buffers, a.screening plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for approval. (P)
Exterior lighting shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15)
feet. Lighting shall be positioned so as not to project
into adjacent residential properties. (P)
SIGNS
Se
If this site is developed, owned and/or managed
separately from adjacent industrial parks (i.e.,
Southport or Proposed Johnston-Willis Center), one
sign, not to exceed 100 square feet in area, shall
be permitted identifying this industrial park and
tenants therein. This sign may be illuminated,
but may only be luminous if the signfield is
opaque with translucent letters. A freestanding
sign identifying this industrial park shall not be
permitted if this site is developed, owned and/or
managed as a part of an adjacent industrial park.
bo
Ail other signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning
Ordinance for Light Industrial (M-l) uses. Signs shall
not be visible to adjacent residential properties.
84-640
Ce
do
10.
Ail signs shall be similar in color, design and
lighting.
Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package showing
typical signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval. (P)
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits on more than 16
acres, Trade Road Extended shall be constructed to VDH&T
standards from existing Trade Road in Southport to Route 60
by connecting to proposed Johnston Willis Drive in the
proposed Johnston-Willis Center. (T)
Trade Road Extended shall have a minimum right of way width
of sixty (60) feet and shall be constructed with a minimum
of forty (40) feet of pavement, face of curb to face of
curb. All other public roads shall have the same typical
section unless road and drainage plans are submitted to and
approved by the Transportation Department showing that
utilities can be accommodated in a lesser right of way and
reduced pavement width can accommodate anticipated traffic.
Dedication of right of way shall be accomplished through the
recordation of subdivision plats and shall be accomplished
prior to the issuance of any building permit abutting such
roadway. (T)
Prior to any site plan approval, a plan for storm water
retention shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering
for approval. (EE)
Vote: Unanimous
84S105 (Amended)
In Midlothian Magisterial District, QUEENSMILL CORP. requested
rezoning from Residential (R-40) to Residential (R-25) of 122
acres with proffered conditions encompassing this tract plus an
86 acre tract zoned Residential (R-40). This request fronts
approximately 830 feet on the northwest line of Big Oak Lane,
approximately 400 feet northeast of West Huguenot Road. Tax Map
8-4 (1) Parcel 2, Tax Map 9-1 (1) Part of Parcel 1, Tax Map 9-5
(1) Parcel 1, and T.M. 9-9 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheets 2 and 3).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to acceptance of the proffered
conditions. Mr. Bernard Savage was present representing the
applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable.
Mr. John Orgain stated he had already appeared four times before
the Planning Commission regarding this matter--twice for zoning
and twice for subdivision approval. He stated for some reason,
this project has already received tentative subdivision approval
prior to coming to the Board. He stated he owned approximately
40 acres to the southwest of this parcel. He stated five-six
years ago, Ramsgate Subdivision was constructed which included a
retention pond. He stated originally that subdivision was
designed for off-site drainage facilities and because of the cost
of easements, construction, etc. the developer retreated to the
point of putting in a retention pond.which was cheaper for him,
the County and the state. He stated that within the last five
years he had found that the retention pond was not designed to
include his property at all. He stated this proposed subdivision
proposes to use this same retention pond for drainage. He stated
if the developer were to develop this property under R-40 he
would have to sit there and be flooded but he is asking for
increased density. He stated at the Planning Commission meeting
drainage was discussed by him and the Ramsgate Subdivision
residents and the matter was deferred. He stated the next time
the Planning Commission had zoning, subdivision approval was
included on the agenda. He stated they did not know which to
84-641
address so they addressed the zoning matter as they were not
opposed to the increased density but the developer should take
care of some of the problems he has created. He stated the
zoning went through and then at the subdivision discussion, they
addressed the drainage and the finger lake that was proposed. He
stated there was some discussion regarding the drainage from the
other side of the property and no other information was presented
and the matter was deferred again. He stated he met with the
developer and nothing was accomplished. He stated the developer
has not sat down with him in good faith to work out his problem.
He stated the County says it will stand behind the design of the
pond but its only concern is that they do not put enough water
into the pond to increase the flood plain upstream from the pond
which still does not include his property. He stated this is
changing the character of the development. He requested the
Board to reject the application until such time as Mr. Timmons
sits down and talks with him.
He applauded the recent action of the Board regarding its zoning
procedures. He stated individual citizens cannot have a two-way
honest conversation with Planning staff as long as politics is
involved.
Mr. Savage stated about three weeks ago there were 25-30
residents at the Planning Commission meeting from Ramsgate and
when this project was approved, they stood and applauded as they
felt they were dealt with fairly. He stated he has received a
letter from the President of Ramsgate saying nice things about
the way they worked with them and others. He stated further that
Mr. McElfish had spent a lot of time on this case. He stated Mr.
Timmons personally spent many hours on this matter and he felt he
did what he was asked to do. Mr. Mayes inquired if the developer
considered the drainage problem with regard to Mr. Orgain. Mr.
Savage stated all was done that could be done. He stated that
what the developer has proposed with regard to the finger lake
will only help the drainage situation. He stated they have given
easements, etc.
Mrs. Girone stated this case has gotten a great deal of
attention, Ramsgate has had a lot of water problems, the soil is
wet at Ramsgate, Mr. Orgain's soil is wet, and this soil is wet.
She stated she met with the citizens, Mr. McElfish, and Mr.
Balderson regarding the problems in the area. She stated that
Mr. McElfish outlined the drainage solutions and the creation of
a finger lake and they were well satisfied. She stated they
talked about opening or not opening Pegwell Drive and they were
happy to know the developer was not going to do that. She stated
they were concerned also with construction traffic through the
project but that will not happen because of the proposed
configuration of the road. She stated she was led to believe and
received several letters from the residents since, that they are
happy with the way this has worked out. She stated she did not
feel there were any more houses in there than there was planned
for the land with the straight R-40 classification. She stated
that although they cannot be conditions, it is understood that
Pegwetl will not be opened and there would be no construction
traffic through Ramsgate. Mr. Dodd inquired about the finger
lake and its maintenance. Mr. McEtfish stated it would be
maintained with an agreement similar to that on the Ramsgate Pond
and was part of the Planning Commission requirement when they
approved it for subdivision layout and roads. Mr. Dodd stated
some problems can be worked out but he did not feel this should
be at the expense of the County and the developer should come up
with a maintenance program. Mr. McElfish stated the only
maintenance on the existing pond or this lake is to make sure it
does not silt in and guarantee to the Highway Department that the
volume is there that will be necessary to protect the proposed
construction of Route 147. Mrs. Girone stated the retention pond
has been good for the area.
84-642
Mr. Applegate stated he had serious concerns regarding the
developer placing additional water on Mr. Orgain as his property
will become useless. He stated the staff report indicates that
the existing culvert at Big Oak Lane and Huguenot Road is
inadequate. Mr. McElfish stated that particular area is being
addressed by the Highway Department's construction project at
Route 147. Mrs. Girone stated the widening of Route 147
incorporates the drainage requirements. Mr. Applegate inquired
if there is anything that could take the water off of Mr. Orgain.
Mr. McElfish explained the flooding, the plans by the Highway
Department, etc. in detail. He stated it is felt that more of
the land has become developable because the water is being
retained on site and is a permanent basin and the County had to
guarantee this to the Highway Department. Mrs. Girone stated
this has improved the area and Mr. Orgain has always been
concerned about this problem and his property has benefited from
what has occurred in the area. Mr. Dodd stated if there was ever
a piece of land on the line of what should or should not be
developed he felt this was it. He stated they looked at this on
the Planning Commission and he hoped there would not be problems
later on. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this plan takes care of
all of the drainage that this land is responsible for and maybe
more. She stated she has been assured the Board would not be
imposing anything on any other property owner through this
zoning.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
Ail lots within the proposed R-25 district will conform to
the setback requirements of the R-40 district.
e
The total number, of lots developed within the R-25 district
(122± ac.)'and the remaining R-40 district (86± ac.) will
not exceed one lot per acre.
e
Ail lots backing up to Ramsgate Subdivision shall contain a
minimum of 40,000 square feet.
Ail homes will have a minimum of 2,000 square feet of
finished floor area.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Applegate because he did not understand the
problem in detail although he is familiar with the
property.
84S134
In Matoaca Magisterial District, WILFRED AND JANICE ROWLETTE
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and
bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on a 1.58 acre
parcel fronting approximately 155 feet on the north line of River
Road, approximately 50 feet east of Wilcox Street. Tax Map 186-4
(1) Parcel 8 (Sheet 52).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jeff
Collins was present representing the applicant and stated the
conditions were acceptable. He stated some concerns mentioned
were:
1. decreased land values--but the developer would be removing an
old house and replacing it with a new building and it should
raise values;
84-643
2. the adjacent property owner's ability to sell houses--
but with the buffer and screening imposed, that it is a
specific use and people may want to live close to a use of
this type as it is a quiet service;
3. incompatibility--but there are commercial uses only one lot
removed from this parcel, this is not strictly a residential
area;
4. there is sufficient zoning in the area--but there is B-2
property which is not for sale and is unavailable for use as
B-2 property as some is occupied by churches, single family
residential, etc.
15. location itself--but this is removed from the bad intersection
in the area.
He introduced approximately 15 people in the area who were in
favor of the request. He stated a doctor has given a commitment
ito the applicant that he would open a business on the site.
Mrs. Joy Griffin stated that this type of business is needed in
the Matoaca Village. She stated she has lived in the area for
eight years and had a great need for a doctor and a pharmacy.
She stated recently she needed constant medical attention for her
child and there are no doctors or pharmacies without going to
Petersburg, Colonial Heights or Brandermill. She stated this is
a hardship for someone who is restricted in their ability to
travel distances. She stated there are a lot of people who need
these services in the area and it would be quite valuable.
Mr. Williams, adjacent property owner, stated he and others in
the immediate vicinity are opposed and introduced approximately
10 people present. He stated those in favor of the request are
not residents in the immediate area. He stated staff has
recommended denial of the request, there is a petition with 120
signatures in the immediate area opposed and the petition
submitted by those in favor which included 400 names are from
within the entire district, there was submitted a letter to Mr.
Mayes with 31 signatures opposing this request, etc. He stated
he and Mr. Poole would hope the Board would deny this request or
approve it with conditions today so that the issue could be
settled.
Mrs. Girone stated this appeared to be a residential neighborhood
and the people nearby do not want it but the others further away
do. She stated the staff indicates there is other B-2 property
within the Village that could accommodate the land use. Mr.
Daniel stated he recognized the need for the facility and wished
the applicant could find an appropriate site for this request.
He stated he felt the County could assist in seeing that this
need is met. He stated he felt it should be considered further
before the Board took any action.
Mr. Mayes stated he had received a petition from 164 people
opposing the project with 26 letters in favor of it. He stated
the question is not the need because the need exists. He stated
he does not rank the value of land equally to the rights of the
individuals who live next door who are opposed to it. He stated
he felt there should be some reconsideration of the zoning in the
Village because only a few feet away there is property zoned B-2
~which would accommodate this. He stated the person living next
door has a perfect right to be concerned about what is next door
to him. He stated approving or disapproving this case would not
prohibit a similar case coming in the future. He stated
considering there is a need, he would like the Board to defer
this case and send it back to the Planning Commission and advise
them to do an area rezoning so that this request can be
accommodated lawfully and without the level of opposition that
exists. He stated he felt it would be in the best interest of
the Village and the Rowlettes' to bring medical facilities to the
area. He stated the Planning staff should do a complete survey
of the Village so that the people who live there can determine
where the business areas and residential areas will be. Mr.
Balderson stated this will be an involved neighborhood study and
84-644
it could take between four to six months given the present work
load of the Department. Mr. Hedrick suggested it be deferred for
120 days and then staff will report back to the Board. Mr. Mayes
stated he felt it would be wrong to approve something that the
majority of the citizens of the area are opposed to and they
should determine what the district is going to look like now and
in the future. Mr. Hedrick stated that even if staff can have
the technical aspects completed, the citizen involvement may take
additional time. Mr. Mayes stated there have been cases where
the citizens and the applicants have gotten together and resolved
the differences and this will also give them that opportunity.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Girone, the Board
deferred this matter until February 27, 1985 to allow the
Planning Commission in coordination with staff to study the
Village of Matoaca, receive citizen input, etc. with regard to
zoning. It is understood that if the report is not complete
within that time a status report will be given to the Board and
how to proceed from that point will then be determined.
Vote: Unanimous
A gentleman was present and requested that the map with the
names on it be included in the study. Mr. Balderson stated the
staff has a copy in the file.
84S142
In Bermuda Magisterial District, IRVINE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. re-
quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Industrial
(M-2) on a 0.83 acre parcel fronting approximately 160 feet on
the south line of Old Bermuda Hundred Road, approximately 1,470
feet east of Old Stage Road. Tax Map 133-4 (1) Parcel 35 (Sheet
41).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to a single condition. Ms.
Nancy Mitchell was present representing the applicant and stated
the condition was acceptable. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request subject to the following condition:
A sixty (60) foot buffer (this is the required building
setback) shall be maintained along the northern property
line adjacent to Old Bermuda Hundred Road. Other than a
single entrance/exit to Old Bermuda Hundred Road, there
shall be no facilities permitted within this buffer.
Vote: Unanimous
84S144
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, N. LESLIE SAUNDERS, JR. AND
M. LEE WINDER requested Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit professional offices and bulk exceptions in a Residential
(R-7) District on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 200
feet on the west line of Pocoshock Boulevard, approximately 730
feet north of Hull Street Road. Tax Map 40-5 (2) Pocoshock
Hills, Lots 7 and 9 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Saunders was present
and stated the conditions were aCceptable. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr.
Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following
conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by W.M. Saunders Construction Company, dated
5/19/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
84-645
The building to be erected on the parcel shall be as
depicted in the elevations prepared by W.M. Saunders
Construction Company, dated 5/19/84. (P)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, thirty (30) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Pocoshock
Boulevard, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (P&T)
(Note: Ail driveways and parking areas must be set back
fifteen (15) feet from the right of way.)
Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed
along Pocoshock Boulevard to accommodate turning movements,
as deemed necessary by VDH&T. (T)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. This
condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at
the time of schematic plan approval. (EE&CPC)
e
A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northern property line. This buffer shall be landscaped in
accordance with The Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped
Buffers. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
in conjunction with final site plan submission. This
condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at the
time of schematic plan approval. (P&CPC)
e
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant an exception to the
requirement that parking areas be screened from the
adjacent Residential (R-7) zoning to the south. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
84S145
In Bermuda Magisterial District, CHESTER FISHING CLUB, INC.
requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a
clubhouse plus exceptions to bulk requirements in Residential
(R-7) and Agricultural (A) Districts on a 45.0 acre parcel
fronting approximately 830 feet on the north line of Iron Bridge
Road across from Branders Bridge Road. Tax Map 114-8 (1) Part of
Parcel 2 and Tax Map 114-12 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Sonny Marks was
present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were
acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request
subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Dean A. Hawkins, dated June 21, 1984, shall be considered
the Master Plan. (P)
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall grant an
exception to the requirement that driveways and parking
areas be paved. The driveway and parking area shall be
maintained in its present condition. (P&CPC)
Use of the clubhouse shall be exclusively for activities
.associated with the Chester Fishing Club, Inc. (P)
The overflow spillway and the area of inundation shall be
shown on final site plans. (EE)
84-646
Be
e
(Note: The overflow area, as shown on the plan for
Teterling Road, cannot be altered unless approved by
Environmental Engineering.)
The proposed road shall remain private, and any new culvert
shall conform to minimum County Standards. (EE)
Prior to obtaining an occupancy permit, the property
transfer of Parcel B, as shown on the Master Plan, shall
have been accomplished. (EE)
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
84S146
In Midlothian Magisterial District, WILLIAM S. RAY requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a radio
broadcasting office plus exceptions to bulk requirements in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 1.1 acre parcel fronting approxi-
mately 74 feet on the southwest line of Robious Road approx-
imately 800 feet northwest of Old Bon Air Road. Tax Map 17-7 (1)
Parcels 16 and 17 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jim
Hayes was present representing the applicant. Mrs. Girone
inquired if there would be a tower on the site. Mr. Hayes stated
there would not be a tower on the site. There was no opposition
present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated June
25, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for William S.
Ray and shall not be transferable nor run with the land.
(p)
The driveway and parking area shall be graveled with six (6)
inches of number 21 or 2lA stone. All driveways and parking
areas shall be delineated by permanent barriers such as
railroad ties, landscaped timbers, etc. (P)
The uses permitted on this parcel shall be limited to
operation of a syndicated radio system broadcasting office
within the northeasternmost structure. The existing
residence, which is to remain on the property, may be used
for single family residential purposes. (P)
There shall be no more than five (5) employees permitted on
the site at any one time. (P)
In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
84S147
In Dale Magisterial District, KENNETH L. BARTON requested a
Conditional Use to permit four (4) two-family dwellings in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.99 acre parcel fronting
84-647
approximately 170 feet on the north line of Space Road also
fronting approximately 157 feet on Banton Street and located in
the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax
Map 42-13 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 16).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of two two-family dwellings on Lots 24 and 25 and denial
of two two-family dwellings on Lots 26 and 27 subject to certain
conditions. Mr. Barton was present and stated the conditions
were acceptable except that he would like all four duplex units
approved rather than the two in condition #1. He stated there
are already duplexes in the area and commercial uses and he could
not understand the denial. He explained the layout of the lots
and utilities in the area. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Balderson reviewed the housing construction in the area. Mr.
Daniel expressed concern that lots 26 and 27 are adjacent to
single family dwellings. He stated in the area of lots 24 and 25
there are duplexes on adjacent property. He stated he felt these
duplexes should also be constructed in the same manner as the
other recent duplex approvals involving brick, shutters, the
maintenance in a style that would appear to be single family and
that one entrance be to the side and one on the front. Mr.
Barton stated he agreed with these conditions if they apply to
all four duplexes that he has requested. Mr. Daniel stated these
conditions were for only two as approved by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Barton stated he thought it was for all four.
He stated the conditions were more restrictive than originally
proposed. Mr. Daniel stated that was correct but it was for
continuity in the area. He stated he would be recommending
denial of the two as did the Planning Commission because they are
beside an all single family street. He stated if Mr. Barton
would like a deferral of 30 days that would be acceptable. Mr.
Barton stated the applicant indicated to him that this property
was once zoned industrial and the County on its own behalf
rezoned it and he may want to take the County to court. He added
at the Planning Commission meeting the applicant told him to
accept all or nothing but he felt approval for two was better
than none and the applicant may want to come back in the future
regarding the other two.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board approve the request
for two (2) two-family dwellings on Lots 24 and 25 as shown on
the site plan prepared by Kenneth L. Barton and deny two (2)
two-family dwellings on Lots 26 and 27 as shown on the same site
plan, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Kenneth L. Barton, dated June 25, 1984, shall be
considered the plan of development for two two-family
dwellings on Lots 24 and 25. Lots 26 and 27, as shown on
the Master Plan, shall be used for single family residential
use in accordance with R-7 requirements. (P)
(Note: It will be necessary to relocate the structures on
Parcels 25 and 26 to comply with the required twenty-five
(25) foot corner side yard setbacks from Space Road.)
Driveways and parking areas shall be graveled with a minimum
of six (6) inches of 21 or 2lA stone. Driveways and parking
areas shall be delineated by permanent means (i.e., timber
curbs, etc.) (P)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that a minimum of two
(2) parking spaces, having a minimum dimension of ten (10)
feet by twenty (20) feet, be provided for each dwelling
unit.)
84-648
The duplex structures shall have brick facades and windows
shall have shutters. The structures shall be at least 54
feet in length. If other area duplexes are longer, these
structures shall be lengthened to equal the average length
of other area duplexes. (BS)
Prior to obtaining a building permit, a grading plan shall
be submitted to Environmental Engineering showing man-made
channelization along the rear and side property lines to
direct storm drainage into adjacent public rights of way.
The driveways may be relocated, if deemed necessary by
Environmental Engineering, to accommodate these drainage
improvements. (EE)
The duplex on Lot 25 shall be redeSigned so that the
entrance to the southern unit is along the Space Road side.
A sidewalk shall be installed from the driveway to this
entrance. The duplex on Lot 24 shall be redesigned so that
one unit has its entrance on the front and the other unit
has its entrance on either side of the building. Sidewalks
shall be installed from the driveways to these entrances.
(P&BS)
The duplex structures and grounds shall be maintained to the
same standards as area single family homes. (BS)
(Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant
must receive tentative subdivision approval from the
Planning Commission.)
Vote: Unanimous
84S148
In Dale Magisterial District, P.E.Y. CONSTRUCTION CO. requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 47.8
acre parcel fronting approximately 420 feet on the south line of
Kingsland Road approximately 400 feet east of Salem Church Road,
also fronting approximately 390 feet on the east line of Salem
Church Road approximately 1,100 feet south of Kingsland Road.
Tax Map 80-3 (1) Parcel 12 and Tax Map 80-7 (1) Parcels 4 and 5
(Sheet 22).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of R-9 and approval of R-12. He stated the applicant
submitted a list of proffered conditions this morning. Mr. Jeff
Collins was present representing the applicant and stated the
proffered conditions applied to the R-9 application.
Mr. A. L. Taylor, an adjacent property owner, stated his
opposition to this request as it is agricultural land and
agricultural land is dwindling. He stated everything in the area
is agricultural at this time.
Mr. Daniel stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
R-12 and after they met, it was brought to his attention that the
layout would not allow the opportunity for all lots to be R-12
and they were looking for some flexibility. He stated if this
were the case, that conditions should be proffered to maintain
the intent of the Planning Commission with the R-12 zoning. He
stated the average of all lots will be greater than 12,000
because 20% of the lots are 20,000 square feet, the house size
has been proffered, etc. He stated there is continuity as
Hunting Creek Hills is on one side with Treemont on the other and
this would be a transitional subdivision between the two. Mr.
Dodd stated he felt these homes should be better than Hunting
Creek Hills as Treemont is a quality subdivision. Mr. Applegate
stated he had a problem when square footage is proffered and
there is unfinished interiors. He stated he hoped the people
84-649
would be encouraged by the developer to finish the interior.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board approve the
request for Residential (R-9) and accept the following proffered
conditions:
Each single family residence shall have the following
minimum square footages:
ae
Two-story houses shall have a minimum of 1,500 square
feet with 900 sq. ft. finished.
Cape Cod houses shall have a minimum of 1,444 square
feet with 912 sq. ft. finished.
c. Ranchers shall have a minimum of 1,200 sq. ft.
Ail lots shall have a minimum of 80' of frontage with the
exception of cul-de-sac lots.
3. Lots shall have the following minimum square footages:
a. 100% of lots shall have 11,000 sq. ft. or greater.
b. 55% of lots shall have 12,000 sq. ft. or greater.
c. 20% of lots shall have 20,000 sq. ft. or greater.
4. Exterior of homes shall have:
a. Ail foundations shall be of brick veneer.
b. Ail fireplaces shall be of brick veneer.
Vote: Unanimous
84S157
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MOSES L. SCOTT requested a
Conditional Use to permit an automobile junk yard in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 1.0 acre parcel lying adjacent to
the Corporate Line of Petersburg, approximately 210 feet north of
Rolfe Street and located on Hals Island. Tax Map 182 (1) Parcels
1 and 2 (Sheet 53).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Scott
was present and stated the conditions were acceptable.
Mr. Robert Jones, representing the Pocahontas Island Improvement
Association, stated they were opposed to this request because it
brings into the neighborhood an excess flow of traffic as well as
people coming in to steal parts from the junk yard; it creates a
health hazard as it attracts snakes, rats, etc.; and it damages
City property by the trucks traveling the roads, etc.
Approximately 14 people were present from the neighborhood
opposed to this request.
Mrs. Ruth French stated opposition to this request because their
street is the entrance for the junk yard; the property across the
streets and on the sides has been damaged by this junk yard;
there is a tremendous amount of dust and she cannot enjoy her
property and the traffic is heavy and fast and this creates a
safety problem for the children. She stated that this is not the
proper location for a junk yard and it makes it uncomfortable to
live there.
84-650
Ms. Vicki Manatri, Zoning Administrator for the City of
Petersburg which is adjacent to the request property, stated
opposition to this request. She stated this is based on the fact
that the only access to the site is through the streets of
Petersburg, the access ramp is very dangerous at times which is
the only point of access, there have been several instances of
tie ups when the residents could not get in or out and they would
like this dangerous situation eliminated as much as possible.
She stated there are a lot of industrial uses on the property and
the City has tried to confine them to the southern most portion
of the Island and have rezoned that portion that we are referring
to as a residential neighborhood which appeared to be the most
appropriate use. She stated the appearance of the residents here
tonight is for the Board to consider them as adjacent property
owners and the detriment this requests presents to their
property.
Mr. Dodd stated he thought the bulk of the Island was in
Chesterfield County to the low water mark. Ms. Manatri stated
Mr. Scott's property comes to the City limits and the remainder
of the Island i's in the City. Mr. Dodd inquired if this portion
of the County is in Matoaca or Bermuda District.
Mr. Charles Cuthbert, Councilman for the 4th Ward in Petersburg
representing Pocahontas Island, stated this area is of modest
homes, is surrounded by industry to the south but is inhabited by
a proud group of neighbors who have lived here for generations.
He stated this is one of the oldest sections of the City. He
stated the applicant has carried this case through the Petersburg
governmental process and it has been denied by both the Planning
Commission and City Council. He stated the people have opposed
this for years although it has been in operation for 12 years,
and he did not think the proper permits have been obtained. He
stated he and the people request that this application be denied
and that the Board respect Petersburg's decisions on this case.
Mr. Mayes inquired if the licenses were in order for the
operation. Mr. Scott stated he did have the required license.
Mr. Balderson stated this portion of the request is for property
in Chesterfield County and there is a portion of the property
that lies within Petersburg which was turned down. He stated he
did not know if Mr. Scott has a City license for this operation
but he apparently has the proper license for the County and is
going further to legalize this operation by going through this
application process. Mr. Mayes inquired in which district this
is located. Mr. Balderson advised it is in Matoaca District.
Mr. Mayes stated it was his understanding that Chesterfield
County is the high water mark along the river. Mr. Balderson
stated it does not appear to be as there seems to be a more
defined line that separates the Island between Chesterfield and
Petersburg. He stated it appears to be a surveyed line rather
than a natural high water mark. Mr. Mayes stated another
unanswered question is if Mr. Scott is licensed. Mr. Scott
stated he was licensed in Chesterfield County. Mr. Mayes
inquired if the only ingress and egress is through Petersburg.
Mr. Scott stated that was correct.
Mr. Daniel presented the Board with an official statement from
the City of Petersburg in opposition to this request for the
record.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt this was awkward for the County to issue
a license when the customer cannot get to this place of business
without going through another jurisdiction and the other
jurisdiction has not licensed the person and is opposed to this
operation. He stated he felt the County should cooperate with
that jurisdiction which people have to travel through. He stated
he did not feel it judicious to perpetuate this situation and he
would be in favor of allowing Mr. Scott time to close out the
operation as he has an investment. He discussed the time frame
84-651
and the reasoning for denying the request with Mr. Scott.
Mr. Dodd stated this is the first such zoning request in eight
years on the Board and he would like to cooperate with the City
of Petersburg. He discussed possible cooperation from the City
as well with regard to the Temple Avenue project, road funds,
etc. He stated he did feel the land use question is ..
inappropriate for the area.
There was considerable discussion regarding how the motion should
be stated in order to legally allow Mr. Scott time to close out
the operation and not be in violation of any laws, etc. On
motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the
request for nine (9) months in order to allow the applicant time
to close out the operation subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated 3/20/84, shall be
considered the plan of development. (P)
Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There shall be no
Sunday operation. (P)
This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to
exceed nine (9) months from the date of approval· During
this period, the applicant shall take steps to relocate the
business to another location. At the end of this period,
the applicant shall discontinue operations at this location·
(Bs)
Vote: Unanimous
84S158
In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHARLES D. PETTY requested a
Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling unit on one parcel of
land in a Residential (R-15) District on a 0.5 acre parcel
fronting approximately 152 feet on the east line of Overlea
Drive, approximately 300 feet south of Moravia Road. Tax Map
63-2 (2) Clifton Farms, Section 2, Block G, Lots llA and 12
(Sheet 21).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Petty was present and stated the conditions were acceptable.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to
the following conditions:
Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited
exclusively to family members of the property owner. At no
time shall the unit be rented. (P)
The plan submitted with the application shall be considered
the Master Plan. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
84S159
In Bermuda Magisterial District, WPVA, INC. requested a
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a radio tower and
transmitter building plus a 400 foot exception to the 100 foot
height limitation for towers in a Community Business (B-2)
District on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on
the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 380 feet
north of Forest Lake Road. Tax Map 133-3 (2) Mid-City Farms,
84-652
Block A, Part of Lot 6 (Sheet 41).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Gary
Granger was present representing the applicant and stated the
conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated 9/4/84, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
The tower shall be enclosed by a six (6) foot high fence to
preclude trespassing. (P)
A fifty (50) foot buffer, consisting of natural vegetation,
shall be maintained along the northern property line. With
the exception of a driveway to Jefferson Davis Highway,
there shall be no facilities permitted~within this buffer.
(p)
Prior to obtaining a building permit, documentation of FAA
approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. (P)
If area property owners experience any radio and/or
television reception interference, the applicant shall be
responsible for correcting this problem. (CPC&P)
e
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval.
(p)
Vote: Unanimous
84S161-I
In Midlothian Magisterial District, KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT
COMPANY requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit
use and bulk exceptions in a Community Business (B-2) District on
a 0.66 acre parcel fronting approximately 170 feet on the south
line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 440 feet west of
Courthouse Road. Tax Map 16-12 (1) Part of Parcel 25 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
deferral of the portion of the request for a freestanding sign
and had recommended approval of the use and setback exception
subject to certain conditions. Mr. Olin Walden representing the
applicant was present and stated the conditions were acceptable.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request of the use
and setback exception subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Olin L. Walden, dated 6/11/84, shall be considered the
Master Plan. (P)
e
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a
twenty-four (24) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot
setback shall be granted. Within this setback, a two
(2) to three (3) foot high Undulating earth berm
landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs shall be
installed. Berming and landscaping shall not occur
within the water easement unless the Utilities
Department determines that the berm will not hinder
their ability to maintain utility lines. Detailed
84-653
landscaping plans depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with site plan review. (P)
The drive-thru window lane shall be separated from driveways
by a concrete median. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
84S162
In Dale Magisterial District, BUILDER'S SUPPLY OF HOPEWELL, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business
(B-3) of 4.5 acres plus Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit bulk exceptions on a 9.0 acre parcel fronting
approximately 480 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road,
approximately 880 feet south of Beulah Road. Tax Map 79-4 (1)
Parcel 4 (Sheet 22).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Bill
Hurd was present representing the applicant. He stated this is
an unusual zoning matter in that the parcel is divided into two
parts with the front currently B-3 and the back portion being
agricultural. He stated they would like the full parcel zoned
B-3 with a Conditional Use giving a more rational use of the land
and giving the County more protection on the front part than it
currently has. He stated the conditions are acceptable as
recommended by the staff but the Planning Commission changed the
conditions and they are acceptable also. He stated this
development of this parcel is best for the applicant and the
County to avoid the strip development that has afflicted other
portions of the County.
Mr. George Edwards was present representing Robert and Mary Taylor
adjoining property owners. He stated they object to this request
for two reasons:
'The applicant is asking the Board to render a decision on a
parcel of land that they are not the true and sole property
owner of. He stated the original deed to the property is
from an estate which is so written that if the deed to that
parcel is given out it reserves that easement to all the
grantors and the grantees. He stated it is not written in
easement form but reserved in rights and use for the
grantors from the original bulk estate. He stated the
Taylors through deed to that parcel and through deed of
easement to the original grantors gave them his share of
that easement to do what they saw fit. He stated if the
Board decides on this decision, it would be giving the
applicant permission to do something with a property
interest that is not his to start with.
He stated assuming that we have to make a decision on the
legality of who owns it, whether it's an easement, etc., the
practicality needs to be considered. He stated there is a
sketch which shows how the land is laid out. He reviewed
the layout of the property in question and the adjacent
property. He stated the Taylors plan to live here for many,
many more years. He stated this easement is a gravel road
and is the road into the area planned for development
assuming the County gets a 50 ft. easement and assuming that
the applicant owns it. He stated the Taylors' home will
practically be in that road or easement. He stated the
84-654
traffic counts will go up to 1265 vehicles per day and the
farm will become an observer of the back gate to a lumber
yard. He discussed lights, pagers, the area which will not
be paved and will impose dust on the home, the six foot
privacy fence which will not hide a 20 ft. building,
drainage problems, well problems, buffers, etc.
He stated if this is approved, it will change the entire
character, residential nature and quiet area of the Taylors'.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the Planning Commission had the benefit of
this presentation. Mr. Edwards stated he was not at the meeting
but the Taylors were and the Planning commission indicated this
was their problem in court afterwards. Mr. Daniel inquired if
the 50 ft. dirt road/easement is owned by the five adjacent
landowners, the applicant being one of the five. Mr. Edwards
stated that was correct and the applicant owns an undivided
one-fifth interest onto the easement. Mr. Daniel stated he
thought the one ingress/egress was further west and that at no
time would the easement east of the proposed entrance be used for
business until other properties south of the easement developed
for business and at that time it would be closed and the easement
would be the main roadway for shared access. Mr. Edwards stated
that issues of immediate concern were that the side of the
building already has gateways to bring in trucks and trailers in
the future. Mr. Daniel stated the gateways are built in for
design now but would not be used until that particular side
entrance becomes a shared commercial use. Mr. Micas stated that
concerns about true ownership are not a proper concern of this
Board and the Board should confine the deliberations to land use
considerations.
Mr. Larry Prim stated he was president of the corporation who
owns 10½ acres immediately north of the parcel under
consideration. He stated he was in favor of this request. Mr.
Douglas Spencer stated he owned the property prior to the
applicant buying it and the road that is being discussed was to
give everyone an access to those owning property. He stated he
felt this would be an asset to the County.
Mr. Hurd stated the original design was submitted by the
applicant with an entrance coming off of Route 10. He stated the
County suggested that instead of that, the entrance be off of
this right of way and the applicant has agreed. He stated the
applicant believes he owns the land and recognizes that this is
not an issue for this Board. He stated, however, that if in fact
they are incorrect and cannot make the dedication, they will be
willing to dedicate a strip of land running beside the existing
easement on what is definitely their land to the County,
construct a road and follow all restrictions by the County and
offered that as an amendment to the report and presented it to
the Board in writing which would resolve any problem regarding
the access. He reviewed the buffer area, the privacy fence with
trees and shrubs, the drainage, the plans for the lights which
would be pointing downward, the enclosed area which would not
create a dust problem and the plans for the doors on the side.
He stated in this particular situation where you already have the
front B-3 it is important to avoid strip development on Route 10.
Mr. Dodd inquired if it would not be best to go with the plan as
originally presented. Mr. Hurd stated that would be acceptable.
Mr. Daniel inquired about the other buildings on the site. Mr.
Hurd stated this is a business park including a bank, a
freestanding office building and retail sales for Builders Supply
which will go on from inside the home center, the storage yard
with storage internal to the area with no access to the outside,
other associated office space, and explained the layout.
84-655
Mr. Daniel stated there is a Route 10 study plan in progress and
for five years there have been no new zoning approvals made on
Route 10, but there have been conditional uses allowed of
existing zoning. He stated the western half of this property is
zoned B-3 and the applicant could place his primary business on
that tract without approval by the Board. He stated through the
conditional use process, the applicant has given every intention
to conform to the concerns that are being addressed on the Route
10 study plan for proper development. He stated he felt this
should be approved with condition #9 being amended to include an
additional paragraph that the ingress and egress would be per the
applicant's master plan and then when the neighboring properties
are developed, the Route 10 access would be closed and be moved
to the common ingress and egress for the industrial site along
Route 10, being the easement previously discussed. He stated
there would be no utilization for commercial purposes now and the
design entrances which were made for future flexibility which are
on the side would not be used until that road is built as a
commercial ingress and egress for that site on Route 10. He
stated no outside paging system would be allowed but pocket
beepers would be acceptable and that drainage would be addressed
in the County drainage plan requirements. Mr. Hurd stated this
was acceptable. Mr. Dodd stated he felt this would be an asset
to the County. He stated he did not agree with the road
ultimately being changed to the side easement as other businesses
are involved and will cause a gooseneck effect within. He stated
he did not feel this was practical. Mr. Daniel stated that this
will establish the tone that Iron Bride Road is not going to have
an ingress or egress every hundred feet. He stated this is
already zoned, the applicant has a legal right to develop the
parcel and use that particular site now but when the neighboring
property owners develop that the ingress/egress be reverted for
the entire parcel over to the easement site which is a dirt road
now. He stated the original entrance will then be closed. He
stated if other' land never develops, the site access will stay as
originally constructed. Mr. Dodd stated he could always seek an
amendment to this. Mr. Daniel stated that was correct. Mr.
Applegate inquired if this is in the area for four laning
eventually. Mr. Balderson stated it is two laned now but once
Route 10 is four laned, appropriate crossover studies will be
accomplished.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Dean E. Hawkins, dated July 15, 1984, shall be considered
the Master Plan. (P)
The structures to be erected on the site shall have an
architectural style as depicted in the renderings submitted
with the application. All structures shall employ subdued
colors. The outside storage area shall be enclosed and
screened from view of adjacent properties by the storage
barns. The facades of the storage barns, which are exposed
to the north and south property lines, shall contain false
doors and/or windows. Colored renderings shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. (p)
Ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted between the
storage barns and the north and south property lines to
break the visual monotony of the building facades. A
privacy fence, having a minimum height of six (6) feet,
shall be installed along the southern and eastern property
lines for a sufficient distance to screen this use from the
Taylor property (Tax Map 79-4 (1) Parcels 2, 52, 50 and 51).
A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval
in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Depart-
84-656
e
ment for approval in conjunction with final site plan
review. (CPC&P)
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
eastern property line. There shall be no facilities or
utilities permitted in this buffer. This buffer shall
be landscaped in accordance with the "Minimum
Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." A landscaping plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. (Note: This may require
relocation of a portion of the primary drainfield.)
(p)
Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Route 10, land-
scaping shall be installed to include one tree for each 50
linear feet of road frontage or fraction thereof. The
remainder of this landscaped area shall be planted with
shrubs, ground cover, or other landscaped treatment,
excluding pavement. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting
this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Com-
mission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan
review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with
final site plan review. (P)
The parking area shall have at least five (5) square feet of
interior landscaping for every parking space. Individual
landscaped areas shall contain a minimum of fifty (50)
square feet and shall have a minimum dimension of at least
five (5) feet and shall include at least one tree, having a
clear trunk of at least five (5) feet, with the remaining
area adequately landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or
other landscaping material not to exceed three (3) feet in
height. The total number of trees shall not be less than
one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of
the required interior landscaped areas. Landscaped areas
shall be located to divide and break up the expanse of
paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not
be calculated as required landscaped area. A conceptual
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be sub-
mitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in and around
driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so
as not to interfere with pedestrian access. (EE)
Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package depicting
typical sizes, colors, lighting and styles shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Signs
shall blend with the architectural style of the building.
(CPC&P)
Access shall initially be provided to the site according to
the applicant's Master Plan. At such time as land south of
the gravel road along the applicant's southern property line
is converted to commercial or industrial uses, the initial
driveway onto Route 10 shall be removed, and access to Route
10 shall be constructed within the easement south of this
parcel. At that time, the existing fifty (50) foot ease-
ment, plus five (5) additional feet north of the easement,
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield,
free and unrestricted, from its intersection with Route 10
to the easternmost driveway into this facility. All access
to this right of way shall be located a minimum of 165 feet
from the western property line. At such time as other
property is developed and accesses this road and/or as
requested by the County, the remaining length of the fifty
84-657
(50) foot easement plus the additional five (5) feet shall
be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted. These dedications shall be accomplished
through recordation of subdivision plats.
A public road shall be constructed within this right of way
in accordance with VDH&T standards and shall have a minimum
pavement width of forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of
curb, from Route 10 to the easternmost access to this site.
This road shall be maintained by the developer until it is
taken into the State System. (T&BS)
10.
Turn lanes and curb and gutter shall be constructed along
Route 10, as deemed necessary by the Transportation
Department. (T)
11.
12.
Ail structures shall be set back a minimum of thirty (30)
feet and parking and driveway areas a minimum of fifteen
(15) feet from the fifty-five (55) foot right of way. (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, an
exception to the paving requirement for driveways in the
storage yard only shall be granted. (P)
13.
Should this development result in the contamination of the
Taylor well (Tax Map 79-4 (1) Parcel 2), the developer shall
be responsible for extending public water to serve the
Taylor property.
14. No loudspeaker paging system shall be used. (BS)
Vote: Unanimous
84S178
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Convenience Business
(B-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development on a 2.72 acre
parcel fronting approximately 230 feet on the south line of Iron
Bridge Road, approximately 360 feet east of Beach Road. Tax Map
95-8 (1) Part of Parcel 23 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Porter Vaughan was present representing the applicant. He
expressed appreciation for the Planning staff's cooperation in
this matter. He stated they have expressed their intentions
regarding the protection of Magnolia Grange and they will
continue to exhibit them. He stated that although these
conditions are more strict than normal, they can live with them
and they plan to make Magnolia Grange an outstanding, historic
landmark.
Mrs. Dottie Armstrong stated she had appeared before the Board for
many years on behalf of the Heritage Commission requesting the
establishment of a Courthouse Historic District which has not
been done. She stated she has also appeared before the Boar~
regarding other historic landmarks in the County. She state'
that when the zoning change was made we were very protective ~
Magnolia Grange with buffers, berms, no buildings were to iL ~'!de
on the site of Magnolia Grange, buildings were to be
architectural pleasing, no fast food, etc. She stated that since
that original zoning there has been downgrading of the zoning in
the area. She stated now Magnolia Grange will have 3/4's of an
acre of land which she did not feel satisfactory for public use,
buffering, the planting of trees to enhance the value, etc. She
referred to the original plan of the home site which has been
changed drastically. She inquired what the Board stood for as
far as the Courthouse complex, historical sites, etc. in the
County. She stated this is a State and National Landmark.
84-658
She stated she protested this as there had been no creative
management of Magnolia Grange as a property. She stated the
developer has dictated the terms with no initiative on the part of
the Board in terms of the needs of Magnolia Grange. She stated
of course the County must progress, but isn't progress planning
for the future. She stated respect for one's heritage is a state
of mind and attitude and no law or zoning ordinance will give you
anything if you do not want it.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt the end result of this negotiation is
something that will be pleasing to the citizens and something
that will be appreciated. He stated this did not upset him as
much as Warfield Manor which was bulldozed and had tremendous
historical value. He inquired what government can do when
something is owned by an individual. Mrs. Armstrong stated the
County could promote historical quality of certain areas. She
stated the developer decided whatever he wanted to do. Mr. Dodd
stated there are more restrictions placed on this area than any
other area in the County. He stated that he felt what has been
built to this point has been a credit to the County. Mrs.
Armstrong stated she felt Magnolia Grange was being placed in an
environment of impermanence--in a commercial atmosphere--when it
should stand as long as the Courthouse. She stated it was a
contradiction that one of the wealthiest counties in Virginia
cannot afford to protect its historical resources. She stated
she felt like she wasted her time appearing and trying to save
Magnolia Grange for public use and it was being treated as ~
another business and nothing special. She stated she still hoped
in 50 years, that what has been written will save Magnolia
Grange.
Mr. Daniel stated that decisions were made in zoning and trends
were established, and this Board has been extremely careful
guarding the concept put forth in the original zoning. He stated
there have been suggestions to downgrade the facade, etc. and
that has been denied. He stated plans would be announced in the
future regarding this site and hopefully it will achieve some
public accessibility as suggested by Mrs. Armstrong. He stated
the County has taken deliberate steps to preserve the integrity
of the site and to preserve the house.
Mr. Mayes stated the Historical Society felt principally the same
as Mrs. Armstrong and worked out a plan to preserve the site.
Mr. Applegate stated that he had served with Mrs. Armstrong on
the Virginia Red Cross and he did not feel she was foolish for
trying to preserve the historical area but he felt she was a
guardian angel of the County. He stated some information in the
near future may come about which will make every one happier
about the situation.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt staff had done a good job on preserving
this and that the Historical Society has incorporated in their
plans some of Mrs. Armstrong's thoughts.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
the request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated August 21, 1984, for
this 2.72 acre parcel, shall be considered the Master Plan.
(p)
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along the
entire Route 10 frontage. (T and VDH&T)
84-659
10.
11.
12.
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, a left-turn lane
shall be constructed on the Route 10 northbound lane at the
existing crossover. (T and VDH&T)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed along the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Concrete curb
and gutter shall be constructed using pea gravel aggregate
with a brushed surface. Drainage shall be designed so as
not to interfere with pedestrian access. This condition may
be modified at the time of schematic plan review if an
acceptable alternative treatment is proposed which maintains
the historical and architectural character of the property.
(EE)
Driveways and parking areas shall be paved with tar and
gravel with the top layer consisting of washed brown pea
gravel. (P)
The parking area in front of Magnolia Grange (Building T)
shall be relocated to the sides of the driveway which
parallels Route 10. The driveway and parking area shall
either be depressed or a berm constructed along Route 10,
both of which accomplish screening of the driveway and
parking area and provide maximum visibility of Magnolia
Grange. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning
Commission may allow phasing of construction of parking and
driveway areas serving Magnolia Grange (Building T). This
condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at the
time of schematic plan review if an alternative parking and
driveway scheme is proposed which maintains the historic and
architectural character of the property. (P)
Buildings AA, U, V and Q shall be limited to professional
office use. (P)
In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a
plan showing the location and species of existing trees and
shrubs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission.
Driveways, parking areas and buildings shall be designed to
preserve existing vegetation, as deemed necessary by the
Planning Commission, at the time of schematic plan review.
(p)
Ail structures shall have a Colonial Williamsburg design
compatible with Courthouse Commons. (P)
The parking area shall have at least ten (10) square feet of
interior landscaping for every two (2) spaces. Each
landscaped area shall contain a minimum of fifty (50) square
feet and shall have a minimum dimension of at least five (5)
square feet; and shall include at least one tree, having a
clear trunk of at least five (5) feet, with the remaining
area adequately landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or
other authorized landscaping material, not to exceed three
(3) feet in height. The total number of trees shall not be
less than one (1) for each two hundred (200) square feet, or
fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area.
Such landscaped areas shall be located to divide and
break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as
required setbacks shall not be calculated as required
landscaped area. (P)
Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval in conjunction with site plan
review. Landscaping shall be accomplished on parcels
adjacent to Magnolia Grange to enhance the historical
and architectural character of the structure. (p)
SIGNS
a. Each freestanding building or separate business
84-660
establishment shall be permitted one (1) sign attached
to the facade, not to exceed a total aggregate area of
0.5 square feet for each one (1) foot of building
frontage. These signs shall not be luminous, but may
be illuminated. Signs shall blend with the colonial
architectural style of the development and shall comply
with the previously approved sign package for
Courthouse Commons.
No other advertising signs, other than those
identifying the name and nature of the commercial
establishments, shall be permitted (i.e., adver-
tisement of products or services).
Except for directional signs, which shall be governed
by the Zoning Ordinance requirements for B-1 District,
there shall be no freestanding business signs. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated the Budget and Audit Committee feels there are
some unresolved questions that the Board needs to discuss and
requested a work session in the near future. It was generally
agreed that the Committee should call the meeting when they are
ready.
10. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adjourned
at 5:35 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on November 14, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
Ri~d-L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Chairman
84-661