[00:08:04]
[00:08:05]
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.GOOD MORNING TO THOSE OF YOU IN THE ROOM WITH US.
I LIKE TO WELCOME WHO IS JOINING US REMOTELY ON WEBEX.
FOR THOSE YOU ON WEBEK THAT LIKE TO SPEAK, WE NEED TO KNOW IN ADVANCE.
IF YOU'RE AN APPLICANT AND YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE CASE, PRESS THE CHAT BUTTON NOW.
IT'S LOCATED IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF YOUR SCREEN.
WHEN THE CHAT WINDOW OPENS, SELECT FROM A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS LET HER KNOW YOUR NAME AND WHICH CASE YOU'RE INTERESTED IN.
CHAT FEATURES WILL BE USED TO IDENTIFY SPEAKERS.
PLEASE DO NOT TYPE QUESTION OR COMMENTS IN THE CHAT.
THOSE OF US IN THE ROOM, AS SECRETARY, I WILL CALL EACH CASE.
I WILL ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THAT CASE TO STAND AND BE SWORN IN.
THEN FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES, A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF WILL GIVE A PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT WILL SPEAK.
THEN ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.
WE'LL HEAR FROM RESIDENTS IN THE ROOM FIST AND THEN FROM THOSE ON WEBEX.
AFTER EVERYONE A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE, ONLY THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SUMMARY.
WE WILL ASK EVERYONE TO SPEAK -- THERE IS ONE APPEAL ON THE AGENDA THIS MORNING.
FOR THAT CASE THE PROCEDURE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
THAT CASE IN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE APPELLANT WILL RENT THEIR CASE.
AFTER THAT, EVERYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.
EACH ADDITIONAL PERSON HAS A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES.
WE WILL HEAR FROM EVERYONE IN THE ROOM FIRST AND THEN WE'LL
[00:10:02]
HEAR FROM THOSE ON WEBEX.THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUMMARY OR REBUTTAL.
THIS MEETING IS BEING VIDEO RECORDED.
WILL BE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE.
WE WILL ASK -- IT'S TRANSCRIBED IN VERBATIM IN MINUTE.
WE WILL ASK EVERYONE TO SPEAK, STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.
SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND PLEASE SPELL YOUR LAST NAME.
IN CASE YOU'RE INTERESTED IS OVER, YOU'RE FREE TO LEAVE.
YOU DON'T NEED TO STAY FOR THE REST OF THE DAY.
THAT MR. CHAIR, I THINK WE'RE READY TO CALL THE FIRST CASE.
THAT WILL BE CUP-2025-102551 MAURICIO LINARES: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP UP TO SIX HENS IN THE REAR YARD AT 2815 DELLROSE AVENUE, HERMITAGE PARK ADDITION TO FAIRFIELD.
[3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ]
[3a. CUP-2025-102551 Fairfield Mauricio Linares: conditional use permit to keep up to six hens in the rear yard at 2815 Dellrose Avenue, Hermitage Park Addition, Fairfield. Parcel 777-746-4534. Zoning: R-4, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4420.G. ]
>> I APOLOGIZE, I NORMALLY DO THAT AS SOON AS ARRIVE IN THE MORNING.
>> SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED 2815 DELLROSE AVENUE.
IT'S SITUATED 210 FEET OF THE GALAXY.
THERE'S NO ROOSTER ON THE PROPERTY.
PLANNING STAFF ON THE PROPERTY IN NOVEMBER.
THERE WERE MORE THAN SIX HENS.
THAT HAS BEEN EARE -- RESOLVED.
THE APPLICANT REMOVED THE COOP.
IT WAS NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE.
RECRUITED OFFENSE TO HOUSE THE CHICKENS SO THEY CAN COME OUT AND ROAM A LITTLE BIT.
SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THEE CHANGES THAT STAFF HAS REQUESTED, MOVE THE COOP TO THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION.
STAFF DOES NOT SEE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITION IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS? WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> HI MY NAME IS ADRIANA LINARES.
SINCE WE MADE ALL THE CHANGES, WE WANTED TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THE APPROVAL NOW FOR THE CUP PERMIT.
>> WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE, ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS CASE? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
>> CAN WE HAVE A MOTION MR. MASSIE AND SECOND BY MR. GREEN.
[00:15:02]
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.NEXT CASE IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP-2025-103244 GAW PHAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF A DWELLING AT 5303 W GRACE STREET, SHENANDOAH PLACE, BROOKLAND.
FOR EVERYONE WHO SPENDS TO SPEAK PLEASE STAND TO BE WORN IN.
DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY BUT TO GIVE IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND SO HELP YOU GOD? I WILL CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THERE WERE TWO E-MAILS LEFT ON THE TABLE BEFORE THIS MORNING.
>> MR. BLANKENSHIP ONE OF THE E-MAILS WE ALREADY RECEIVED?
IT'S LOCATED IN THE SHANANDOAH SUBDIVISION.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS .22-ACRE PROPERTY IMPROVED WITH A 2071 CAPE COD STYLE HOME BUILT IN 1954.
THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN MARCH 2025 AND IS IN PRIMARY DWELLING FOR THE APPLICANT SON.
THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THREE BEDROOMS. ISN'T THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RENT THE PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS PER YEAR INITIAL OUT PERMIT IS REQUIRED.
PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TWO AND 2026 LAND USE MAP IN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION.
IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, SHORT-TERM DWELLING WILL NOT CHANGE THE DESIGNATION.
ARTICLE 4 ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A PRINCIPLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.
THE DWELLING MUST BE APPLICANT'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE, OFF STREET PARKING MAYBE PROVIDED.
IN THIS CASE IT'S FOUR SPACES.
THE OWNER DESIGNATED AGENT MUST RESPOND TO THE PROPERTY WITHIN 30 MINUTES TO RESOLVE ISSUE AND COMPLAINTS.
OCCUPANCY IS LIMIT TO TWO PERSONS PER BEDROOM.
OWNER MUST PROVIDE RENTERS WITH PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME, STUFF THAT IS REQUIRED AND NO MORE THAN THREE PETS CAN BE KEPT ON THE PREMISE.
WHEN EVALUATING THIS REQUEST, STAFF LOOKED AT THE SURROUNDING AREA, SURROUNDING AREA DOES CONSISTENT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SEVERAL HOSPITALS AND VERY CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN.
STAFF RECEIVED FOUR COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REQUEST.
ONE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, 5314, THEY CALLED IN.
SOME OF THE COMMENTS WERE NOT FROM NEIGHBORS OR FROM FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIKE TO POINT OUT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE TWO OTHER APPROVED SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
ONE ON GRAY STREET -- INDISCERNIBLE ] THAT'S WITHIN THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS APPROVED.
STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST IF THE PROPERTY IS WELL MAINTAINED, THE APPLICANT DOES STAY ON THE PROPERTY FOR HOSTED STAYS AND THEY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? I HAVE COUPLE MS. ROZMUS.
INSPECTING THE PROPERTY, LOOKS LIKE TO ME PROBABLY GET THREE VEHICLES IN THE DRIVEWAY.
IS THAT SUFFICIENT PARKING? I'M ASKING FOR THREE BEDROOMS?
>> THEY'RE ASKING TO RENT THREE BEDROOMS. A SOLT OF SIX INDIVIDUAL -- A TOTAL OF SIX INDIVIDUAL.
S YOU CAN PROBABLY GET FOUR CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY.
>> IT LOOK TO ME, I COULDN'T TELL WHETHER THE PARKING AREA GOES BACK BEYOND WHERE THE DRIVEWAY.
IT LOOKS TO ME THAT PROBABLY BE PUSHING IT TO GET FOUR CARS IN THERE.
UNLESS THEY ARE FOUR SMALL VEHICLES.
>> WE WOULD NOT ALLOW ON STREET PARKING FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
THAT WAS THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I
[00:20:01]
HAD.THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE TOO.
WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER IN OPPOSITION PRIOR TO TODAY.
SHE MENTIONED MONUMENTAL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPRESENT, SHE'S A MEMBER OF THAT ASSOCIATION.
WE RECEIVED COMMUNICATION ONE WEEK FROM THE ASSOCIATION.
>> MR. CHAIR, THIS PROPERTY IS NOT -- COMPLAINANTS PROPERTY.
>> I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THAT.
LOOKED LIKE A DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD?
BASED ON THIS APPLICATION, THREE BEDROOMS --
>> THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE BOARD'S CONTROL.
YOU CAN PUT A LOWER LIMIT ON IT.
>> LET HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WE'LL REVISIT THAT.
I ASK THAT THIS PERMIT BE APPROVED.
I KNOW THAT SOME SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS NOT IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE -- INTEGRITY OF PEACE AND IT'S HARMONY.
EVERYONE GETS ALONG WITH EACH OTHER.
IT'S REALLY GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T SEEK TO DISTURB ANYONE.
AS LONG AS I LIVE THERE, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE HOSTED STAYS.
I'LL BE MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE THAT RENTS FROM THERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE REASONABLE.
NARROW NOT GOING -- THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TOO NOISY AND MESSY.
>> SIR, REPEAT YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN.
>> ARE YOU THE APPLICANT THE NAME WE HAVE IS MR. GAW PHAW.
>> THESE WILL BE HOSTED STAYS.
>> YOUR REQUEST IS FOR THREE BEDROOMS? I LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.
WHAT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE PARKING? DO YOU THINK YOUR DRIVEWAY CAN ACCOMMODATE MORE VEHICLES?
>> THIS REQUEST WOULD ALLOW UP TO SIX PERSONS.
HOW WOULD YOU CONTROL THAT A MS. ROZMUS MENTIONED, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ALLOW OFF STREET PARKING.
YOU HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE VEHICLES ON YOUR PROPERTY.
YOU SEE A PROBLEM COORDINATING THAT?
>> WE DON'T PLAN TO DO ALWAYS SIX PEOPLE.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS, MR. BROADWAY POINT THIS OUT TOO.
WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE OVERFLOW PARKING ON THE STREET.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO GET THE ATTENTION OF NEIGHBORS.
>> IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO CONSIDER.
STAFF REPORT -- YOU GOT A PRIVACY FENCE?
>> LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TWO HOUSES AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF GRACE.
>> ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM MONUMENT AVENUE.
YOU'RE PRETTY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL AREAS AND SHOPPING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. TAUN.
IT'S TIME TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF FEMALES IN OPPOSITION.
WE HAVE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE CASE? ANYONE ON WEBEX.
[00:25:05]
DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE CASE OR ON WEBEX.>> COUPLE OF FOLKS ON WEBEX HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES.
NOBODY HAS IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES IN THIS CASE.
>> WE HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THE E-MAILS.
WE'LL GO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M GOING TO ON MY COLLEAGUES WITH THE PARKING.
HE SAID SAY IT WILL BE UP TO SIX PEOPLE.
I SUSPECT PROBABLY THAT'S NOT GOING -- PROBABLY GOOD PART OF THE TIME HE'S HAVE ONE OR TWO.
THREE BEDROOMS AND SIX WILL BE THE MAXIMUM.
ANYONE ELSE HERE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT?
>> I WILL SAY, ONLY ABOUT SIX PEOPLE.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WILL BE SIX CARS THERE.
WE SHOULD THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THE PARKING WOULD WORK HAVING THE SPACE THERE.
>> MR. ROZMUS, IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH PARKING, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS?
>> I DON'T WANT TO ANTICIPATE PROBLEMS. I WANT TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS IF WE DO HAVE THOSE.
THE NEIGHBORS ARE DEFINITELY PAYING ATTENTION.
>> IT WILL BE COGNIZANT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORS CONCERNS TOO.
I HAVE CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS.
I DON'T SEE WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS FROM THE JOINT PROPERTY OWNER.
YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS ON THIS? HAVE YOU HEARD ANY CONCERNS OR YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM?
I DID TALK TO THE IMMEDIATE SIDE NEIGHBOR A COUPLE OF TIMES.
SHE APPLAUDED THE NEW OWNERS FOR HOW THEY'VE BEEN UPKEEPING THE PROPERTY.
APPARENTLY IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF EYESORE.
SHE WAS QUITE PLEASED WITH THAT.
SHE DID NOT HAVE AN OPINION ON THE SHORT-TERM OPINION.
SHE WAS HAPPY THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO LIVE THERE.
I DON'T THINK SHE HAD A STRONG OPINION EITHER WAY.
I'M SURE YOU RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS BY STAFF THAT YOU NEED TO COMPLY WITH.
>> HAVING SAID THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED.
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, HOSTED STAYS, LESS THAN IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
MOTIONED BY MR. LAWRENCE, SECOND BY MR. BROADWAY AN ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> THE NEXT CASE IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP-2026-100073 MIKHAIL KARASIOU: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW HOSTED SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF A DWELLING AT 2004 HAVILAND DRIVE, WEDGEWOOD PARK, THREE CHOPT.
THERE ARE SOME E-MAIL MESSAGES THAT HAVE BEEN PRINTED AND LEFT ON THE TABLE FOR YOU.
ALL OF THESE WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE PACKET WENT OUT.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF THREE CHOPT ROADS.
IT CONTAIN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH FOUR BEDROOMS THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1962.
HERE'S PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE
[3b. CUP-2025-103244 Brookland Gaw Phaw: conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a dwelling at 5303 W Grace Street, Shenandoah Place, Brookland. Parcel 771-736-3776. Zoning: R-3, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4431.A. ]
RESIDENCE HERE.THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 2024 AND BEGAN OFFERING EACH OF THE FOUR BEDROOM FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
THE COUNTY RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING TWO VIOLATIONS.
ONE, THE HOUSE WAS NOT OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER AS REQUIRED FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
SECOND, HE WAS LISTING THE BEDROOMS AS SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL RENTALS ON AIRBNB.
THE COUNTY CONTACTED THE APPLICANT AND EXPLAINED THE REGULATIONS.
[00:30:01]
HE APPLIED FOR TODAY'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.DURING THE APPLICATION IT SOUNDED LIKE HE STILL WANTED TO RENT THE BEDROOMS INDIVIDUALLY SO THE COUNTY CONTACTED HIM AGAIN AND HE AMENDED THE REQUEST SHOWING IT WAS ONE LISTING.
THE PROPERTY ZONED -- LOT WITH AND SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS DISTRICT.
AS YOU KNOW, A SHORT-TERM RENTAL MAYBE APPROVED BY CONDITIONAL
[3c. CUP-2026-100073 Three Chopt Mikhail Karasiou: conditional use permit to allow hosted short-term rental of a dwelling at 2004 Haviland Drive, Wedgewood Park, Three Chopt. Parcel 753-750-8165. Zoning: R-3, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4431.A. ]
USE PERMIT AND IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING HOSTED STAYS WHERE HE WILL BE PRESENT.THE APPLICANT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED DWELLING MUST BE HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
STAYS WILL BE HOSTED NO MORE THAN ONE BOOKING WILL BE ACCEPTED ON ANY DAY WHETHER FOR ONE, TWO OR THREE BEDROOMS. ASSUMING MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IN CONCLUSION, THE APPLICANT STARTED RENTING ROOMS ON AIRBNB WITHOUT COUNTY APPROVAL.
A COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED THAT THIS WAS NOT AS MANY RESIDENCE AND THE BUILD -- ROOMS WERE BEING RENTED SEPARATELY.
ASSUMING THE BOARD HAD COMFORTABLE WITH THAT THE PROPERTYITE SHOULD BE SUITABLE -- PROPERTY ITSELF SHOULD BE SUITABLE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
THE BOARD WILL NEED TO HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS OBVIOUSLY BUT AGAIN THE PROPERTY ITSELF SHOULD BE SUITABLE FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT FOLLOWS THE RULES AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE WHOLE ASPECT OF I'M NOT HAVING SHORT-TERM -- HAVING AIRBNB WITHOUT APPROVAL? WAS THAT JUST LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR JUST A VIOLATION?
I DON'T KNOW IF I MORE OF THE BACKGROUND.
I KNOW THAT WE RECEIVED THIS AS A COMPLAINT.
YOU CAN FIND A LISTING ON AIRBNB.
IT WAS DONE IN VIOLATION I PRESUME THAT HE WASN'T AWARE OF THE REGULATIONS BECAUSE AS SOON AS HE WAS TOLD HE WAS IN VIOLATION, HE APPLIED FOR THE USE PERMIT.
>> DO WE FIND IT -- INDISCERNIBLE ] AT THAT TIME, WE CONTACTED EVERYBODY AND TRIED TO RAISE AWARENESS.
THIS HOUSE WAS JUST PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANT IN 2024.
MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR US TO DO ANOTHER OUTREACH.
>> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT FOR MR. GIDLEY? HEARING NONE.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NOW.
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS MIKHAIL KARASIOU.
ACTUALLY, I'M TRYING TO RENT OUT MY PROPERTY, IT'S AFFORDABLE TO PIE FOR MY MORTGAGE.
ELIVED THERE PERMANENTLY SENSE FEBRUARY 2025.
UNFORTUNATELY, I APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS LAW.
I CAN RENT OUT THE ROOMS LESS THAN ONE MONTH OR 30 DAYS.
UNFORTUNATELY, AT THIS POINT, WE CHANGED SOME THINGS AND NOW WE RENT OUT FOR THE SHORT-TERM JUST TWO ROOMS OF FIVE.
ONE OF THE ROOMS I LIVE BY MYSELF PERMANENTLY.
WE GOT THE COMPLAINT ON THE 2024.
I TRIED -- I START TO LIVE THERE IN FEBRUARY 2025.
[00:35:05]
PLATFORM AND MOST SAFETY.UNFORTUNATELY, THE MOST PEOPLE LOOKING FOR STILL FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
I TRIED TO FIND SOMEBODY FOR THE LONG-TERM BUT EACH MY TENANT, I VERIFY THEM BEFORE THEY COME -- I VERIFY THEM BEFORE THEY COME IN MY HOUSE.
REGARDING THE PARKING. YOU CAN SEE ON THE PHOTO, I HAD ALONG THE DRIVEWAY.
SOME PEOPLE PARK THERE BUT THE MOST PEOPLE GOING FROM IN AND OUT OF STATES, THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN VEHICLE, THEY USE THE UBER, LYFT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SOMETIMES I PARK MY VAN ON THE STREET.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE WILL ASK -- IS THERE ANYONE HERE BESIDE THE APPLICANT HERE ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK?
>> CAN I ALSO SPEAK? MY NAME IS MALINA.
I'M HELPING TO MANAGE COHOST AIRBNB WITH MIKHAIL.
WHEN WE GOT THIS COMPLAINT IN 2024.
WE'RE NOT SURE, THE PAPERWORK SIGNED WAS IN NOVEMBER 2024.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S COMPLAINT RELATED TO US.
MR. JAMES WILL HELP WITH HIS MIC.
>> CAN YOU SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME?
>> YES, MARINA -- MIKHAIL, THE HOUSE WAS IN BAD CONDITION.
IT TOOK HIM TO FIND THE CREW THAT DO THIS IN COUPLE OF MONTHS.
HE MOVED IN FEBRUARY AND HE'S A CONTRACTOR.
HE DOES CARPET CLEANING IT WAS REALLY SLOW SEASON.
I SUGGEST WHY DON'T YOU RENT ROOMS WHILE YOU LIVING THERE.
THEY CAN PAY YOUR MORTGAGE, WHICH WAS $3000 A MONTH.
IN THE SHORT-TERM HE WAS RENTING.
HE GOT POSITIVE REVIEWS RANK ALMOST FIVE STARS.
THE PEOPLE COME FROM DIFFERENT STATES AND USUALLY LIKE 90% THEY DON'T HAVE VEHICLE BECAUSE THEY USE UBER OR SOMEBODY PICKING THEM UP.
NO CAR ISSUE PROBLEMS. AT ONE TIME, I REMEMBER THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR HE CAME TO ME AND HE SAID THAT THE CAR IS BLOCKING HIS DRIVEWAY.
I ADDRESSED THE ISSUE WITH THE PERSON WHO WAS LIVING AT THAT TIME.
SINCE THEN, NOBODY EVER COMPLAINED.
HE WAS SURPRISESSED HE GOT -- SURPRISED HE NOT THIS COMPLAINT.
HE WASN'T AWARE THAT HE NEEDS TO APPLY BECAUSE HE WAS LIVING THERE.
IT WAS SAYING IF YOU LIVE THERE, IT'S KIND OF LIKE OKAY, STAY.
HE DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD BUSINESS TO APPLY BUSINESS LICENSE.
I'M GLAD THAT WHOEVER COMPLAINED REACHED OUT, HE NEEDS OFFICIALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN.
LIKE I SAID, HE TRANSFERRED -- HE DIDN'T HAVE FOUR ROOMS SHORT-TERM, HE ONLY HAVE TWO ROOMS. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT TO MAKE IT ONE LISTING.
ONLY ONE ROOM AT THE TIME CAN BE RENTED FOR SHORT-TERM.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICANT?
>> YOU SAID YOU'RE HELPING WITH THE --
[00:40:02]
YES.I USED AIRBNB FOR MYSELF AND FOR MY TRAVEL.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO EXPLORE DIFFERENT PLACES.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? AT THIS TIME, I ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE?
I LIVE ABOUT 200 FEET FROM THE HOUSE JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
I SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I STATE WHAT IS IN E-MAIL THAT I SENT TO MR. BLANKENSHIP YESTERDAY.
MY MAIN POINTS IT'S TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
OURS IS SETTLED, QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY YOUNG FAMILIES.
HIS NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR YOU CAN SEE THAT WHITE PICKET FENCE HAS A BABY AND ANOTHER ONE ON THE WAY.
ANOTHER NEIGHBOR, TWO DOORS DOWN IS EXPECTING TWINS IN APRIL.
WE DON'T WANT CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD DISRUPTED.
THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THAT FOR MONTHS ON END, I WALKED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD EVERYDAY.
IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY, SINCE PREVIOUS OWNER, LARRY SOLD IT, THERE ARE ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO FOUR CARS EACH MORNING.
RANDOM AND DIVERSE SELECTION OF STATES.
SOMETIMES THE CARS -- WE SEE THE CARS LINED UP FROM CORNER OF FREESTONE AVENUE WHERE I LIVE ON THAT SIDE OF HAVILAND.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE IN THE PAST MONTH OR SO.
MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE COMPLAINT OR WHATEVER.
MY CONCERN IS THAT ESSENTIALLY, HE WAS RUNNING A HOTEL OVER THERE FOR MONTHS ON END.
THE WAY I LOOK AT IT SUREST WAY TO TELL WHAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO DO IS LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.
>> ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
WOULD YOU BE OFFENDED IF I HAD FOUR CARS?
>> IF HE HAD THREE CARS, HE HAS A CAR, HIS FIANCEE HAS A CAR AND LET'S ASSUME HE HAVE AN ADULT COLLEGE KID THAT'S HIS OR HERS, THAT'S THREE CARS.
>> ARE THOSE CARS FROM DIFFERENT SELECT OF STATE?
WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN WITH TRANSIENT PEOPLE COMING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BEING THERE NIGHT OR TWO NIGHTS AND BEING GONE.
>> MY DAUGHTERS WHO LIVE IN WASHINGTON, THEY COME AND SOMEONE CEASE THE WASHINGTON PLATE, D.C. PLATE, YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED? THAT RAISE CONCERN?
IF SOMEBODY GOT THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT BEDROOMS RENTED PER NIGHT, LOOKS LIKE A HOTEL PARKING LOT OUT IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE.
>> I THINK THE APPLICANT SAID HE'S GOING TO HAVE ONE.
YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S BEEN
[00:45:01]
MORE PROLIFERATION OF AIRBNBS IN COUNTY AND WE MONITOR THAT.GO BACK AND CHECK PLATES OR ISSUES.
I CAN ADD FOR MR. LEWIS ANORECTO.
ONE OF THE CONDITIONS RESTRICTED WITH THIS IF THE BOARD APPROVES THIS USE PERMIT, IS IT ALL VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST BE PARKED ON THE PROPERTY.
ANYBODY THAT IS THERE STAYING FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MR. LEWIS?
>> SIR, BESIDES THE PARKING ISSUE, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OTHER PROBLEM? LOUDNESS?
>> I THINK OUR NEIGHBOR, KAYLA, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, PICKET FENCE, SHE'S HAD SOME ISSUES WITH SOME TRASH AND STUFF.
I HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES MYSELF.
I CAN'T SAY THEY ARE ANGRY OR THEY ARE ARGUING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I'VE NEVER SEEN FIT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.
I CAN'T BE SURE THAT THEY ARE COMING FROM THAT PROPERTY.
I KNOW IT'S NOT FROM MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
I KNOW IT'S NOT FROM BILL I KNOW IT'S NOT FROM GEORGE AND HIS DOG AND IT'S NOT FROM KAYLA.
>> YOU'RE AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN?
YOU GOT ADDITIONAL E-MAILS BEFORE YOU AND PERHAPS SOMEBODY ON WEBEX THAT MIGHT SAY THE SAME THING.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU MR. LEWIS.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE ON WEBEX WHO WISHES TO SPEAK?
>> NO ONE ON WEBEX FOR THIS CASE.
WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF THAT IS CONSENT WITH THE LAND, BUILDING ORDINANCE, PROPERTY SUITABLE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
THERE WILL BE HOSTED RENTALS WHICH TEND TO HAVE LESS IMPACT.
>> BEFORE THIS SECOND, MR. GREEN, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE TWO ROOMS. THAT IS NOT IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION LIMITATION OF TWO.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD THAT TO THE CONDITION?
>> COULD YOU CLARIFY, SIR, ONE OR TWO? I THOUGHT I HEARD HER SAY ONE.
>> SO, WHEN WE GOT THIS PAPER ACCOMMODATIONS --
>> STARTING FROM NOW GOING FORWARD, HOW MANY ROOMS DOES HE WANT TO RENT?
>> HE WANTS TO RENT UP TO TWO ROOMS FOR SHORT-TERM.
MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ADOPT THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS WITH ONE AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD LIMIT NUMBER OF ROOMS TO TWO.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. GREEN.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> THE NEXT CASE IS ALSO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
CUP-2026-100151 INGRID AND JOSH ADDISON: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF A GUESTHOUSE AT 8320 FULHAM COURT, CHICKAHOMINY BLUFFS, FAIRFIELD.
ANYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK PLEASE STAND AN BE SWORN IN.
>> SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED 820 FULHAM COURT, CHICKAHOMINY BLUFF DISTRICT.
[3d. CUP-2026-100151 Fairfield Ingrid and Josh Addison: conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a guesthouse at 8320 Fulham Court, Chickahominy Bluffs, Fairfield. Parcel 795-754-7793. Zoning: R-2, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4431.A. ]
STYLE HOME.320 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GUEST HOUSE.
THE AREA ZONED R2 ONE FAMILY DISTRICT.
CHARACTERIZED SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2021 AND LIKE TO LIST DETACHED HOUSE TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
THE GUEST HOUSE HAS ONE BEDROOM
[00:50:02]
WHICH WILL BE RENTED TO TWO INDIVIDUALS AT A TIME.ARTICLE FOUR ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS PRINCIPLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS OF THE PROPERTY BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
DWELLING MUST BE THE APPLICANT'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
OFF STREET PARKING MUST BE PROVIDED.
IN THIS CASE, THERE'S ROOM FOR TWO SPACES.
THE OWNER MUST BE PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN 30 MINUTES TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES.
OCCUPANCY FOR THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO TWO PERSONS PER BEDROOM.
THE OWNER MUST PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SHUTOFF UTILITIES AND RECYCLING TRASH, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
AREA SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HEAVILY WOODED WITH AMPLE DISTANCE IN BETWEEN RESIDENCES.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF THE EXISTING DETACHED GUEST HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY FOR UP TO TWO RENTALS SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE GUEST HOUSE HAS EXISTED ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE IT WAS BUILT.
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A GREEN HOUSE I BELIEVE IN 1976.
IT HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO A GUEST HOUSE AND THE APPLICANTS DO HAVE A CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF BUILDING INSPECTION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
STAFF RECEIVED NO COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST.
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. ROZMUS.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NOW.
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS INGRID ADDISON.
>> WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR OUR COTTAGE TO BE RENTED OUT TO ONE TO TWO PEOPLE.
IT IS A SMALL COTTAGE ON OUR PROPERTY.
WE WILL HAVE ONLY HAVE HOSTED STAYS.
IT'S A SMALL PERFECT PLACE FOR ONE TO TWO PEOPLE.
WE HAVE AMPLE PARKING IN OUR DRIVEWAY.
WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, CHICKAHOMINY BLUFFS.
WE LIVED THERE NOW FOR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
WE ARE SEEKING YOUR APPROVAL TODAY.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE ADDISON'S?
I'M YOUR NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I'VE BEEN ADMIRING THIS HOUSE FOR YEARS.
>> THANK YOU, WE LOVE COLONIAL THINGS.
SHE HAD A LOVELY PICTURE OF THE INSIDE GUEST HOUSE.
I DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN THE PRESENTATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE OR WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE AND GUEST HOUSE SEEMS SUITABLE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
THE OWNERS WILL BE IN THE HOUSE DURING THE RENTAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MASSIE AND SECOND BY MR. GREEN.
ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
>> NEXT CASE IS CONDITIONAL USE CUP-2026-100162 TUCKAHOE ALESSANDRO RAGAZZI FOR PLANK ROAD PROPERTIES: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A PADEL COURT AND PAVILION IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARDS AT 2 COUNTRY SQUIRE LANE WESTHAM, TUCKAHOE MAGISTERIAL.
[3e. CUP-2026-100162 Tuckahoe Alessandro Ragazzi for Plank Road Properties: conditional use permit to build a padel court and pavilion in the front and side yards at 2 Country Squire Lane, Westham, Tuckahoe. Parcel 758-733-1636. Zoning: R-1, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24 4404.A.1. ]
I WILL CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION, WE RECEIVED AN E-MAIL IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE AFTER THE PACKETS WERE PROVIDED.LAST NIGHT, WE RECEIVED SECOND E-MAIL FROM THAT NEIGHBOR WITHDRAWING THEIR OPPOSITION.
PLEASE IGNORE THE E-MAIL THAT WAS LEFT FOR YOU THIS MORNING.
WE DID RECEIVE SECOND E-MAIL FROM ANOTHER NEIGHBOR EXPRESSING CONCERNS.
I APOLOGIZE IT CAME IN LATE LAST NIGHT AND NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE COPIES.
[00:55:04]
YOU PRESENTED THAT.>> THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON IN THE WESTHAM SUBDIVISION NEAR THE TUCKAHOE DISTRICT.
IT'S 3095 SQUARE FOOT RANCH STYLE HOME.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA IS ZONED R1 FAMILY RESIDENCE AS CHARACTERIZED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASE THE HOME IN 2023 AND REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A PADEL COURT IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE FRONT AND SIDE YARDS OF HIS PROPERTY.
THE COURT WILL BE REPLACING EXISTING SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE SIDE YARD OF THE PROPERTY SINCE 1973.
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BY THAT SAME YEAR.
THE COURT WOULD MEASURE 68 FEET WIDE BY 36 FEET DEEP AND WOULD BE SURROUNDED BY A COMBINATION OF MESH FENCE AND TRANSPARENT PANELS FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 13 FEET.
THE PAVILION, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WILL BE COMPRISING OF A BATHROOM, A PORCH AN STORAGE ROOM.
WOULD MEASURE APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET WIDE.
IT WILL BE LOCATED BEHIND THE COURT.
THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE, SINGLE FAMILY 12ING ACCESSORY.
SOME OF THE HOMES AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DO HAVE DETACHED STRUCTURES.
A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION.
THE SIZE AND SCALE OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
PROPOSED PADEL COURT AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS COULD BE SEEN FROM COUNTRY SQUIRE LANE.
HOWEVER, THE AREA TOTALLY WOODED.
THERE IS QUITE -- THERE'S A BIT OF A TOPOGRAPHY DIFFERENCE FROM THE ROAD TO THE SIDE YARD.
THERE IS SOME SHIELDING JUST DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY.
THE DENSE FOLIAGE DOES AID IN PROVIDING SOME SCREENING AND SOME PROTECTION FOR SOUNDS AND LIGHTS.
SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL TRAFFIC OF THE PADEL COURT. THE SOUND FROM PLAYING THE SPORT ITSELF AND LIGHT.
IN THE CONDITION IN THE STAFF REPORT, WE ADDRESSED SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
I'VE LEARNED MORE ABOUT PADEL.
APPARENTLY THE BALL IS MORE SIMILAR TO A TENNIS BALL, LESS SIMILAR TO A PICKLEBALL.
MR. RAGAZZI CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
>> PICKLEBALL MAKES A LOT OF NOISE.
HAS ANYONE DONE ANALYSIS TO SEE, OKAY, YOU GOT PICKLEBALL, PADEL BALL AND TENNIS BALLS.
IS THERE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE IN NOISE?
>> I BELIEVE ALESSANDRO HAVE DECIBEL NUMBERS TO SHARE.
>> I UNDERSTOOD TO SAY THAT THE PAVILION WILL BE ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR LOT.
>> YES, 5 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WHICH WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE, I GUESS ALMOST THE SIDE YARD OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE 5 FEET IS ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
[01:00:01]
CODE.>> WOULD THE COURT HAVE LIGHTING?
THE LIGHTS AREN'T VIEWED IN HERE.
WE CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT TYPE OF LIGHTING THEY WILL WANT TO USE.
YOU CAN GET SOME SPECIFICATIONS.
>> I WAS WONDERING THE SURROUNDING AREA.
>> THAT WAS A CONCERN OF MINE AS WELL.
I DID INCLUDE THAT IN THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE PROPER SHIELDING FOR THE LIGHT SO NEIGHBORS WON'T BE AFFECTED.
>> I HAD A QUESTION OR TWO, SIR, I SAW THE WORD PADEL.
>> WHEN I GREW UP, THIS IS BACK IN THE '60S AND '70S, WE HAD PADDLE TENNIS.
I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THE SPELLING.
IT WAS A SHORTENED TENNIS COURT, USING A PADDLE INSTEAD OF RACKET.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN A TENNIS BALL SMALLER THAN A TENNIS BALL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PADEL TENNIS IS THE SAME WHEN I WAS GROWING UP.
I WAS CURIOUS MOSTLY ABOUT THE SPELLING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD.
HE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NOW.
MY NAME IS ALESSANDRO RAGAZZI REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE.
I LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THEY'RE BEEN VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE, VERY HELPFUL.
THIS IS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR TWO COUNTRY SQUIRE LANE FOR PADEL COURT.
THE RELIEF REQUESTED IS FRONT YARD SET BACK TO COUNTRY SQUIRE, 35 FEET IS REQUIRED.
TWIN FEET IS -- 25 FEET IS REQUIRED.
THIS IS LOT FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF WESTHAM CREATED PRIOR TO 1960 WHICH IS DRIVING SOME SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE GOAL IS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PADEL COURT.
.WOULD REPLACE ANOTHER ACCESSORY USE, A POOL WHICH WAS BUILT IN THE SIDE YARD AND RECEIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM THIS BOARD IN DECEMBER 1973.
THAT POOL BEING BUILT IN 1973 IS NOT IN GREAT SHAPE.
IT'S BECOME SAFETY AND LIABILITY CONCERN.
ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG CHILDREN ON THE PREMISES.
PADEL ITSELF IS FACE PACED RACKET SPORT USUALLY PLAYS WITH DOUBLES ON A COURT.
PLAYERS USE A SOLID PADEL TO HIT LOW BOUNCING BALLS OFF THE WALL.
I CAN GIVE YOU LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL TO DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM PICKLEBALL.
THERE WAS QUESTION ABOUT THE BALL.
PICKLEBALL HAS A TYPICAL SOUND AROUND 60 TO 70 DECIBELS.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE BALL IS LIGHT AND PERFORATEED.
THE DIFFERENT WITH PADEL, IT'S CHARACTERIZED BY A SOFTER LOWER FREQUENCY THUD.
IT'S QUIETER BECAUSE IT'S PRESSURIZED BALL.
THE PADEL RACKET THEMSELVES HAVE HOLES AND FOAM.
THERE WILL BE A PAVILION WITH THE BATHROOM.
IT WILL BE NICE STRUCTURE TO HELP SCREEN THE COURT AS WELL.
I THINK STAFF DID A GREAT JOB IN THE REPORT DISCUSSING THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS WHERE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONCERNED.
I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT AS NOTED BY STAFF, IT'S CONSENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, COMPLIES WITH R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION AND SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
IT'S APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING CHARACTER.
[01:05:02]
IT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE.SURROUNDING PROPERTY INCLUDED STRUCTURES, POOLS AND OTHER ACCESSORY USES TO MAIN DWELLINGS.
THIS WOULD BE REPLACING EXISTING ACCESSORY USE AS MENTIONED PADEL IN COMPARISONS WITH OTHER RACKET SPORTS LIKE PICKLEBALL.
IT'S WELL BUFFERED BY MATURE FOLIAGE.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> I'M JUST WONDERING WHO OR WHAT IS PLANK ROAD?
>> PLANK ROAD PROPERTIES IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
OUR CLIENT IS ONE OF THEIR PRINCIPLES WHO ALSO HAS OWNS PROPERTY NEARBY AT 1 SOUTH RIDGE.
>> THE HOME, TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL, THE HOME -- ACTUAL SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE HOME, HIS NANNY LIVES THERE AND TAKES CARE OF THE CHILDREN.
THAT'S THE IDEA OF THE PADEL COURT.
THAT POOL IS IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
IT'S BECOME A SAFETY CONCERN TRYING TO CREATE SOME SORT OF OUTDOOR SPORTS ACTIVITY FOR THE KIDS THAT SUPPORTS THEIR HEALTH AND WELLNESS.
>> THE OWNER OF PLANK ROAD PROPERTY ACTUALLY LIVE ON SITE?
>> THE OWNERS -- ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PLANK ROAD PROPERTIES LIVES IN ADJACENT.
THE NANNY OF THAT PRINCIPLE LIVES ON PLANK ROAD.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE PERSON IS LOADED.
[LAUGHTER] HE GOT A HOUSE FOR NANNY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL JUST THANK YOU MR. RAGAZZI FOR CLARIFYING THE PADEL SPORT.
IT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE PADEL TENNIS I PLAYED BACK IN THE '60S.
THIS IS SOMETHING MORE MODERATE AN DIFFERENT.
>> MR. CHAIR, CAN I RAISE ONE ISSUE? IT'S REALLY UNUSUAL THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND A CONDITION AS WE DID IN THIS CASE CONDITION NUMBER 6.
THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND THE TWO PUBLIC STREETS THAT IS RIVER ROAD AND COUNTRY SQUIRE LANE MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY CONDITION.
WE PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE PART OF OUR ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTY IS AS LONG AS THERE IS THAT NICE NATURAL BUFFER, NOBODY REALLY GOING TO NOTICE THIS.
THAT WOODED BUFFER BELONGS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
HE WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO CUT ALL DOWN TOMORROW IF HE CHOSE TO.
I WANTED TO CALL THAT TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE NOTICE THAT IN THE REPORT.
WE'RE AMENDABLE TO ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE?
>> THERE'S NO ONE ON WEBEX FOR THIS CASE.
>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR WEBEX WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE? HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE SOMEONE? SORRY, I MISSED YOU.
I'M ONE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS TO THIS PROPERTY.
I HAVE A STATEMENT THAT I SUBMITTED LAST NIGHT ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE AND I.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU LIKE ME TO READ THAT OR IF IT'S SUFFICIENT BEFORE YOU.
>> THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS HANDED OUT EARLIER?
>> DID I HAND THE EXTRA COPY TO YOU?
>> THERE'S A COPY -- MY WIFE HAS
I WAS TRYING TO PROVIDE THE COPY TO THE APPLICANT.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE STATEMENT.
>> I CAN READ IT VERY QUICKLY.
[01:10:04]
WE'RE OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION CONSTRUCTION OF PADEL COURT AT THIS ADDRESS TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH AND BELIEVE THIS PROJECT WOULD TO PROCEED WILL REDUCE PROPERTY VALUE AS WELL AS OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.AFTER REVIEWING THE DESIGN, SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF THE COURT ON SAID PROPERTY, WE ARE CERTAIN THIS IS NOT IN KEEPING WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, NOISE AND LIGHTING OR SIGNIFICANT CONCERN AND THE PROJECT SEEM TO BE MORE OF A COMMERCIAL EFFORT THAN WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE IN A RESIDENTIAL SETTING.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY OTHER PADEL COURT IN RICHMOND IS LOCATED IN THE CITY IN PUBLIC VENUE FOR A PUBLIC USE.
THE SIZE AND SCALE ARE SIMILAR.
IF NOT EXACT WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS PROPERTY HAS CHANGED OWNERSHIP AND IT IS UNCLEAR WHO RESIDES IN THE HOME.
THERE'S ONGOING VEHICULAR AND FOOT TRAFFIC ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT INCLUDING UNKNOWN AND DIFFERENT PERSONS COMING TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY.
THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN OF CONCERN, HAS BEEN A CONCERN OF OURS FOR SOME TIME.
THIS APPLICATION RAISES QUESTIONS AND EVEN MORE CONCERNS AS TO WHAT THE FUTURE USE OF THIS PROPERTY MIGHT BE GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED AND EXPERIENCED THUS FAR AS A NEIGHBOR.
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR US AGAIN WHERE YOUR PROPERTY IS?
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. SCHRODER?
YOU SUGGEST A QUESTION ABOUT FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MIGHT ENCOMPASS?
WE HAVE YET TO MEET OUR NEIGHBORS.
IT'S BEEN, I THINK, 23 THE HOME WAS SOLD.
THERE HAVE BEEN -- AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THE -- ] TAG THREE.
PLANK PROPERTY THIRD OWNER INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL OWNER SOLD.
JUST CONCERNED WITH -- I DON'T THINK OVERALL NECESSARILY WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PADEL COURT.
>> EXCUSE ME, SIR, THEY STIPULATED UNDER OATH THAT THE NANNY LIVES IN THE HOME.
>> DO YOU SEE POTENTIAL -- WHY YOU MAY NOT MET THEM, DO YOU SEE THE NANNY? DO YOU SEE HER?
>> DO YOU SEE PEOPLE TRAVERSING TO THE PROPERTY BEHIND THIS? THOSE ARE CONCERNS GIVEN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
>> MR. ROZMUS, IS YOUR CONTACT BEEN EXCLUSIVE MR. RAGAZZI?
>> MR. RAGAZZI CAN YOU REACT TO THE QUESTION.
WHO WILL BE USING THIS COURT? IS THERE ANY COMMERCIAL ASPECT?
THIS IS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEIR GUEST AND STAFF STIPULATED THAT.
I CAN BROKER A MEETING BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE NEIGHBOR.
COVID HAS CHANGED A LOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO KNOW THEM.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT CONDITIONS OF CHANGES THAT COVID HAS OCCURRED AND ACTIVITY WITH NEIGHBORS AND ASSOCIATIONS AND ALL OF THAT.
>> IS THE PROPERTY CHANGED OWNERSHIP?
>> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
[01:15:01]
>> CAN YOU DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS.
I'M NOT BEYOND THE CURRENT OWNER IN THIS PURCHASE.
>> THEY PURCHASED THE PRESENT IN -- PROPERTY IN 2023.
THIS IS THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER OWNS.
I CAN SEE POTENTIALLY, CUTTING ACROSS THE YARD TO GET TO THIS HOUSE INSTEAD OF COMING OUT ON RIVER ROAD AND GOING DOWN THE STREET.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE -- THIS IS SPECULATING -- IT MIGHT BE THE FOOT TRAFFIC THAT MR. SCHRODER IS DISCUSSING.
IT WASN'T RELEVANT TO THE CASE.
>> IT DOES SEEM A LITTLE MYSTERIOUS WHO THE OWNERS ARE.
I CAN UNDERSTAND HAVING SOME CONCERN ABOUT ACTIVITIES GOING I DON'T KNOW THAT IS RELATED TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE COURT.
I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A REAL CORRELATION THERE.
THE STAFF HAS SET OUT SOME FAIRLY STRICT CONDITIONS HERE.
MR. RAGAZZI, YOUR CLIENT IS WELL CONFORM TO ALL OF THOSE?
>> I GUESS WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION.
I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. RAGAZZI WILL MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE AND IF YOU COULD FACILITATE A MEETING WITH MR. SCHRODER.
>> LAST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILLIAM BENSON: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP NINE DOGS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AT 5213 WHEAT RIDGE PLACE, CHAPPELL RIDGE AT WYNDHAM FORREST, THREE CHOPT MAGISTERIAL.
[3f. CUP-2026-100171 Three Chopt William Benson: conditional use permit to keep nine dogs for a period of one year at 5213 Wheat Ridge Place, Chappell Ridge at Wyndham Forest, Three Chopt. Parcel 748-774-9238. Zoning: R-3AC, One-Family Residence District (Conditional). Code Section: 24-4420.C. ]
>> UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO FOUR PETS.
NINE DOGS OVER THE LIMIT OF FOUR PETS ALLOWED.
THEY HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A PROPERTY IN A MORE RURAL AREA HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL.
THEY ARE ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP UP TO NINE DOGS ON THE PROPERTY FOR ONE TO ONE YEAR WHILE THEY CONTINUE TO SEARCH FOR THE NEW HOME.
PROPERTY ZONE R3AC LOT SET BACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT.
AS A GENERAL RULE, NINE BASSET HOUNDS WOULD SEEM EXCESSIVE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROPERTY IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THERE IS A SMALL COMMON AREA NORTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE.
[01:20:06]
REAR YARD IS FENCED.IN CONCLUSION, THE APPLICANT ADDED SIX PUPPIES.
WHILE THEY LOOK FOR A HOME IN A RURAL AREA, THEY ARE REQUESTING PERMISSION TO KEEP THE NINE HOUNDS ON THE PROPERTY FOR A YEAR.
THE HOA HAS APPROVED THIS REQUEST.
I'M NOT AWARE OF OBJECTIONS FROM NEIGHBORS.
>> WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY CAN'T FIND A SUITABLE PLACE IN ONE YEAR? WHAT HAPPENS?
>> TYPICALLY, DOGS ARE ADOPTED OUT OR SOLD AT YOUNGER AGE.
THESE DOGS WILL BE INTEGRATED INTO THE FAMILY.
THEY WILL BE IN CONDITION TO BE LOVING PETS AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE WHO TRYING TO REHOME THEM, SELL THEM OR WHATEVER.
>> AFTER ONE YEAR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD EXPIRE.
THEY COME BACK FOR ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE.
>> OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO REHOME THE ANIMALS.
>> WHY WOULDN'T THEY -- DID YOU ASK WHY THEY REHOME THEM? I CAN LITTER AND TRYING TO GET RID OF THE LITTER.
SEEM LIKE THESE INDIVIDUALS WANT NINE DOGS.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP THE NINE DOGS.
THAT'S ONE REASON THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN ALTERNATE LOCATION TO LIVE.
THAT DOES RAISE A QUESTION, OBVIOUSLY.
THEY ARE GIVING THEMSELVES A YEAR TO FINDING A HOME.
>> THIS GOES AGAINST OTHER -- INDISCERNIBLE ] I WANT 9 OR 10 DOGS -- I HAVE DOGS MYSELF.
BASSET HOUNDS HAVE UNIQUE BARK.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE WASTE THAT ANIMALS PRODUCE.
I UNDERSTAND THE ASSOCIATION HAS APPROVED IT BUT COUNTY SAYS FOUR.
>> THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION INTERNALLY SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU'VE RAISED ABOUT WASTE ALL DID COME UP.
THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK-AND-FORTH BEFORE WE MADE THE DECISION.
>> YOU HEARING WHAT I'M SAYING.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> I WOULD EXPECT YOU CAN TELL US WHAT THE WASTE MITIGATION PLAN IS.
NO OFFENSE, FOLKS CAN STAND UP AND TELL US WHAT WE WILL DO.
WE RELY ON YOU TO TELL US WHAT MECHANISMS TO PUT IN PLACE.
IF YOU WANT TO PUT CHICKENS IN, WE WANT PEST CONTROL COME OUT AND SURVEY AND DO THINGS TO MAKE SURE THE NEIGHBORS IS NOT IMPACTED.
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE WASTE MITIGATION WHAT YOU FOUND ABOUT THAT? IS THERE ANY PLAN?
I WAS ACTUALLY OUT TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS.
>> THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED IN HIS REQUEST THAT HE WOULD -- HE DOES, HE HAS WORKS FROM HOME.
HE IS ON THE PROPERTY DURING THE DAY.
HE DOES ESCORT THE DOGS OUTSIDE FOR THEIR PLAY TIME AND PICK UP AFTER THEM WHILE THEY'RE OUT THERE.
WE HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION HIS ABILITY.
>> I NOTICED THAT THE DOGS WERE OUT WHEN MS. ROZMUS TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
>> MR. GREEN, YOU MAY WONDER HOW I KNOW THIS.
THERE IS A MASSIVE HOUND RESCUE FACILITY AROUND BRISTOL.
WHICH MIGHT BE A HOME FOR THEM.
[01:25:01]
I DON'T HAVE BASSET HOUND.>> IT APPEARS THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO RE-HOME THEM AS MUCH AS THEY WANT OKEEP THEM.
>> THEY TRYING TO RE-HOME THE WHOLE FAMILY.
THEY TRYING TO FIND ANOTHER PLACE WHERE THEY CAN LIVE.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY RESCUE OR PUPPIES AND THEY TRYING TO SELL THEM.
THEY WANT TO KEEP BUYING DOGS.
>> IF THEY GET TO END OF ONE YEAR, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS.
>> THEN ME MAY HAVE TO MAKE OTHER ARRANGEMENTS.
>> MR. GREEN, WE HAD A CASE -- ONE OF THEM HAD SIX DOGS.
HER INTENT WAS TO ADOPT TWO OUT TO MEMBERS OF HER FAMILY WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO TIME.
ALSO DISCOVERED SHE HAD SOME CATS TOO.
IT WAS A LITTLE BIT -- COUNTED AGAINST THE ANIMALS.
SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT INTERNALLY.
WE HAD A RECENT CASE WHERE WE DID MAKE AN EXCEPTION.
>> LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF THE DOGS.
THESE LOOK LIKE PRETTY MATURE DOGS.
THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE LITTLE PUPPIES.
>> CAN YOU PULL MICROPHONE OR GET CLOSER TO IT?
THAT'S WHY I WROTE THAT LETTER.
I TRIED TO ADDRESS EVERYTHING I COULD IN THAT LETTER.
WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW THIS IS A BIG ASK.
WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR LITTLE BIT OF GRACE WHERE WE TRY TO MOVE.
IT WAS BIT OF -- WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SURGERY TO PREVENT THIS ON OUR YOUNGEST BASSET, SHE INITIALLY WENT INTO HEAT AND THEN WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER THAT.
WE FOUND OUT SHE WAS PREGNANT.
THAT WAS KIND OF DEVASTATING FAMILY EXPERIENCE WITH OUR KIDS.
WE DID NOT -- 50 PLUS I WAS NOT THINKING I WOULD HAVE NINE DOGS.
[LAUGHTER] WE'VE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE PURCHASED THIS HOME NEW BACK IN 2003.
I FEEL WHAT YOU GUYS SAYING ABOUT NEIGHBOR AND COVID.
IT'S KIND OF HARD TO KEEP UP WITH NEIGHBORS.
I HAVE TALKED WITH A MAJORITY OF THEM.
SOME OF THEM DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD THAT MANY DOGS.
THERE WAS A LITTLE GIRL WALKING HOME FROM SCHOOL THE OTHER DAY, AND HER PAL SAID TO HER ON THE STREET, THEY WERE WALKING BY, SHE SAID, ARE THOSE ALL PUPPIES? THE LITTLE GIRL SAID, I DON'T KNOW.
HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS ALL THESE PUPPIES.
[LAUGHTER] YES, I'M OUTSIDE WITH THEM.
BASSET HOUNDS, I APPRECIATE THEY DO HAVE A WOLF.
GENERALLY, IT'S ABOUT TWO OR THREE WOLFS AND THEY'RE OFF TO SOMETHING ELSE.
THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR MISCHIEF.
NOT TO MINIMALIZE, THERE'S A JOKE THAT BASSET HOUNDS ARE MORE LIKE FURNITURE THAN DOGS.
[LAUGHTER] I'M OUT THERE WITH THEM ALL THE TIME.
I'M PICKING UP AFTER THEM WHILE I'M OUT THERE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT I CAN TELL YOU.
I DO BELIEVE THAT A MAN'S WORD MEANS SOMETHING.
I AM VERY AWARE THAT I NEED TO STEP UP FOR MY NEIGHBORS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO INCONVENIENCE THEM IN ANY WAY.
[01:30:01]
LOOK, I'M HOPING TO BE OUT WITH ANY LUCK BY MAY.I CANDIDATE FOR 12 -- I ASKED FOR 12 MONTHS.
I'M IN THE BUSINESS DOING REQUESTS.
IF WE GET TO THE END OF THIS, WE DO HAVE SOME BACKUP PLANS PLAN B, C, WHETHER IT'S A TRAILER ON MY INLAW PROPERTY.
WE WILL FIGURE THIS OUT AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT SO THAT OUR NEIGHBORS DO NOT HAVE ISSUES.
>> YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TWO ADULT CHILDREN.
MY DAUGHTER GRADUATES IN MAY AND AS SOON AS SHE'S SETTLED, SHE WANTS TO TAKE TWO.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A BIT OF ATTRITION OVER A TIMELINE.
ULTIMATELY OUR GOAL IS TO TAKE ALL OF THEM AND GO.
WE'VE GOT TWO CHILDREN, BOTH WHO ARE IN COLLEGE.
BOTH HAVE INTEREST IN TWO DOGS.
I CAN'T GUARANTEE TIMELINES ON THAT.
WE ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A HOUSE.
>> THE HOA GIVEN THEIR BLESSINGS.
THEY PROVIDED ANY STIPULATIONS.
ARE THEY SAYING WE'RE OKAY WHAT COUNTY WILL DO IF COUNTY APPROVES THIS? YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION MR. GIDLEY WITH THE HOA?
>> WHAT WE HAVE IS JUST THE LETTER.
MY WIFE IS ALSO A FORMER BOARD MEMBER.
THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS AND I DO REFER TO COUNTY.
I SAID TO THEM, LOOK, IT'S A TEMPORARY THING.
IF YOU WRITE A LETTER, PUT IN THERE THAT IT'S TEMPORARY.
I DON'T WANT TO CREATE A PRECEDENT FOR THEM.
>> THAT IS WHAT THEIR LETTER SAID, UP TO 12 MONTHS?
I PROVIDED THEM THE ENTIRE PACKAGE THAT I PROVIDED THE BOARD.
>> MR. BENSON, YOUR COVENANT ACT ADDRESS PETS OR ANIMALS? DO YOUR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ADDRESS A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF PETS YOU CAN HAVE?
IT DEFERS TO THE COUNTY GUIDELINES.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
OTHER FOLKS CAN COME IN AND USE THIS --
IF YOU'RE THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER -- THEY'RE NOT HELPING YOU TO CARE THE ANIMALS?
MY DAUGHTER IS AWAY AT COLLEGE.
AT WHICH POINT SHE WILL BE MOVING TO THE NORFOLK AREA.
I'M JUST TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
WE TRIED TO GET OUT AHEAD OF THIS REALIZING THAT WE HAD PUPPIES.
IT COULD HAVE GONE UNTIL SOMEBODY NOTICED.
WHICH APPARENTLY ACCORDING TO MY NEIGHBORS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A WHILE.
[01:35:02]
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF GRACE TO GET US THROUGH THIS SO WE CAN GET TO AN APPROPRIATE PIECE OF PROPERTY.>> YOUR REQUEST WASN'T FROM COMPLAINT FROM THE NEIGHBOR?
>> WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANYONE.
>> YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BENSON BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE OR ON WEBEX?
>> NO ONE ON WEBEX FOR THIS CASE.
>> ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO IS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE EITHER HERE IN-PERSON OR WEBEX?
I AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN, IF YOU SET A PRECEDENCE FOR EXCUSING INDIVIDUAL FOR HAVING MORE DOGS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE OF IT.
BESS -- BASSET HOUNDS ARE PRETTY NICE DOGS.
THE NEXT PERSON MIGHT HAVE EIGHT, DOBERMAN PENGUIN.
I HAVE A FRIEND IN CHESTERFIELD WHO IN A PUBLICIZED CASE WHO HAD HER DOG ATTACKED AND KILLED AND NEIGHBOR KILLED BY A VICIOUS DOG THAT WAS JUST ONE DOG NEXT DOOR.
HERE YOU POTENTIALLY SETTING YOURSELF UP TO HAVE SOMEONE HAVE EIGHT OR MORE VICIOUS DOGS LIVING WITH THEM.
>> ARE YOU A RESIDENT OF HENRICO COUNTY?
>> I'M NOT A RIGHT OF THAT DISTRICT.
I'M A RESIDENT OF HENRICO SENSE JUNE.
ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO PEEK IN -- TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>> I THINK IT'S A TYPE OF DOG.
THE SECOND THING THAT IS GOOD AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, TIME LIMITATION.
HE VOLUNTARILY BECAME BEFORE US.
THE LADY THAT COMPLAINED, SHE DIDN'T LIVE IN HIS DISTRICT.
ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO COMMENT OR HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION?
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATION FOR ANIMALS.
>> RELUCTANTLY I MOVE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL PERMIT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IT'S ONLY FOR ONE YEAR.
UNTIL THE FAMILY CAN FIND MORE SUITABLE LOCATION.
THE REAR YARD IS ENCLOSED BY A FENCE.
WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT ALL IN CONSIDERATION.
I'M A BELIEVER THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES.
IN THIS CASE, I'M GOING TO -- INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> WE HAVE A RELUCTANT MOTION BY MR. GREEN.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. GREEN.
>> THAT COMPLETES THE VARIANCES PORTION OF OUR -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
WE HAVE ONE VARIANCE AND ONE APPEAL.
VAR-2025-102369 GEORGE GRAY III FOR KATHERINE AND JONATHAN KENNEDY: VARIANCE
[01:40:01]
FROM THE PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 8701 SEPTEMBER DRIVE IN THE TUCKAHOE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.ANYONE PLAN TO SPEAK PLEASE STAND TO BE SWORN IN.
[4. VARIANCES ]
[4a. VAR-2025-102369 Tuckahoe George Gray III for Katherine and Jonathan Kennedy: variance from the public street frontage requirement to build a single-family dwelling at 8701 September Drive, Tuckahoe. The applicant has 0 feet public street frontage where the Code requires 50 feet public street frontage. The applicant requests a variance of 50 feet public street frontage. Parcel 755-736-1968. Zoning: R-3, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4306.E.1. ]
THIS CASE IS PREVIOUSLY HEARD JUST OVER A YEAR AGO BUT WAS WITHDRAWN LAST FEBRUARY TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO ADDRESS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND POTENTIAL RUNOFF FROM THE PROPERTY.SUBJECT PROPERTY RED CONTAIN OVER ONE-HALF ACRE OF LAND.
IT IS LOCATED AT THE SEPTEMBER DRIVE.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF A 1.587-ACRE PARCEL ZION TOWN ROAD WHICH WENT FROM HERE RIGHT DOWN THROUGH HERE.
IN 1982, THIS PARCEL WAS DIVIDED ONE LOT CONTAINED JUST OVER ONE ACRE.
THAT HAD FRONTAGE, REMAINING 5.555 ACRES IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS LEFT WITHOUT PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE.
UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT.
PART OF 19 -- PRIOR TO 1987 THIS DIVISION WAS EXEMPT.
IT WAS SUBJECT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT MUST BE PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED AT $37,600 ON THE SMALLER LOT.
8702 SEPTEMBER DRIVE WAS ASSESSED THE LAND WAS ASSESSED AT $204,300.
FAST FORWARD TO TODAY, THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONTRACT AND THE CONTRACT PURCHASER HAS APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FOR PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE TO ALLOW THE HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.
IN REVIEWING THIS REQUEST, ONE OF THREE THRESHOLD TESTS MUST BE MET THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE.
THE PROPERTY JUST OVER ONE-HALF ACRE.
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CREATED.
REASON FOR NOT COUNTING THE TERMINAL OF THE PUBLIC STREET IS ALLOW FOR FUTURE EXTENSION.
YOU HAD THIS SUBDIVISION OVER HERE CONSTRUCTED.
SINCE THE DIVISION AND OBVIOUSLY THE STREET IS NOT GOING TO BE CONTINUE ON.
REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING THE -- IS NO LONGER IN PLAY HERE.
IF A THRESHOLD TEST IS MET ALL FIVE SUBTESTS MUST BE MET, THE KEY ONE WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON IN THE PAST FOCUS ON RUNOFF FROM THE PROPERTY BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IT DOES SLOPE QUITE A BIT DOWN TOWARDS A SMALLER CREEK THAT RUNS ON THIS GENTLEMAN'S REAR PROPERTY LINE RIGHT HERE.
THEY HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL INCREASE IN RUNOFF AND FLOODING THE PROPERTY.
IN RESPONSE, THE APPLICANT HAS COME BACK AND THE APPLICANT IS MAKING TWO CHANGES.
THIS WOULD BE UNDERGROUND DETENTION FACILITY DESIGNED TO HELP CAPTURE RUNOFF.
THUS LIMITING RUNOFF INTO THE CREEK.
IN ADDITION, RATHER THAN JUST HAVING A CALVERT HERE OVER THE CREEK, THE THEY ARE PROPOSING A BRIDGE OVER THE CREEK TO PROVIDE ACCESS.
THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT THE STORMWATER FLOOD.
I BELIEVE THERE'S AN ENGINEER FROM PUBLICS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
IN CONCLUSION, THE PLANNING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED.
THE REASON, HOWEVER, NOTED FOR NOT COUNTING THE ROAD WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE.
IF THE BOARD BELIEVES THIS IS UNREASONABLE -- IF THE BOARD APPROVES VARIANCE EFFORTS, --
[01:45:03]
INDISCERNIBLE ]>> THANK YOU MR. GIDLEY? DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. GIDLEY?
>> THIS IS AGAIN, BASICALLY THE SAME CASE WE HEARD LAST YEAR.
>> YES, SIR, WITH THE TWO CHANGES.
>> WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT AND JUST TO EXPLAIN PARTIES ON THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY JONATHAN AND KATHERINE KENNEDY.
THE CONTRACT IS UNDER -- THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONTRACT TO BE PURCHASED BY MR. GRAY WHO'S HERE TODAY AND HIS WIFE.
WE DO HAVE THE ENGINEER THAT PERFORMED THE ENGINEERING STUDIES ATTENDING REMOTELY.
HIS NAME IS CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON.
MR. THOMPSON WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF THE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
AS HAS BEEN INDICATED, THIS CASE DOES HAVE SOME HISTORY WE APPRECIATE THE COUNTY'S PATIENCE IN WORKING WITH US AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AGAIN REQUESTING FOR A VARIANCE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT, THAT THE ORDINANCE UNREASONABLY RESTRICT USE OF THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO ADD TO WHAT THE STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDES FOR AND WHAT MR. GIDLEY HAS ALREADY TOLD THE BOARD THIS MORNING.
OTHER THAN TO SAY I THINK WHERE THE STAFF IS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE PURPOSE FOR THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE IS NOT EVEN BEING SERVED BY THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE ON THIS PROPERTY.
CERTAINLY, THERE WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION IN THIS CASE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 50 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE AND THE SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT.
THE PROPERTY DOES FRONT 50 FEET.
IT HAPPENS TO BE THAT IT'S ON THE TERM UNANIMOUS -- IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE THRESHOLD THAT THE IS MET.
JUST TO EMPHASIZE A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO SOLVE STORMWATER RUNOFF ISSUE, ONCE THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH OUR PROPOSALS FROM A STORMWATER STANDPOINT, ESSENTIALLY, WON'T EVEN EXIST.
BASED ON THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON HAS PERFORMED WITH STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THERE'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A LESS RUNOFF FROM THIS PROPERTY WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED THAN IT CURRENTLY IS OCCURRING IN ITS NATURAL STATE.
ANOTHER NOTE ON THE STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITY YOU CAN SEE IT ON THIS PLAN VIEW.
IT APPEARS TO BE FAIRLY LARGE DETENTION FACILITY.
I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT ONCE THAT'S IN PLACE AS WELL, ESTHETICALLY YOU CAN'T SEE IT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE A NEGATIVE ESTHETIC IMPACT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR FOR ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
WE FEEL THAT'S JUST AN EXCELLENT SOLUTION FOR THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS AND THE COUNTY'S CONCERNS AS WELL, THE BRIDGE WHICH WILL ESSENTIALLY RESULT IN THERE BEING NO IMPACT TO THE STORMWATER CHANNEL THAT RUNS ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
OVERALL, WE THINK THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL IMPROVE THE CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER ALLOWING THE PROPERTY TO EXIST AND CONTINUE
[01:50:02]
TO EXIST IN ITS NATURAL STATE.I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE THIS MORNING.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. GRAY? ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE.
WE WILL THEN NOW ASK FOR THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
ANYONE HERE WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE?
>> ONE PERSON I KNOW OF ON WEBEX IS THE ENGINEER APPLICANT MENTIONED MR. THOMPSON.
>> WE LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE ENGINEER.
IS ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE? WE HAVE NO ONE ON WEBEX? WE'LL HEAR FROM THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE FIRST.
I'M OWNER OF 400 ZION TOWN ROAD.
IT SITS BEHIND THE PARCEL IN QUESTION TO THE RIGHT ON THAT PICTURE.
I OPPOSE THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE.
MY CONCERNS WITH THIS PROPOSAL REMAIN THE SAME AS IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS.
WE HAVE CONCERNED THAT THE CLEARING OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THE GRADING REQUIRED TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL ON OUR PROPERTY AND OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
SERVELY, -- OUR PROPERTY HAS SEVERAL LARGE TREES.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT CLEARING OF THE LOT AND SIGNIFICANT GRADING WILL INCREASE RUNOFF ISSUES AND IMPACT THOSE TREES.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS HOUSE COULD DISRUPT THE CREEK AND INCREASE DOWNSTREAM WATER FLOW IMPACTING OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SECOND, PRIVACY PROVIDED BY THE WOODED AREA BEHIND OUR HOME WAS A FACTOR IN OUR PURCHASE OF 400 ZIONTOWN.
IT'S A VALUABLE CHARACTERISTIC OF OUR PROPERTY.
WE REMAIN CONCERNED THE CLEARING OF THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE WILL REDUCE OUR PRIVACY AND THEREFORE THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY.
IN MY OPINION, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MENTION OF POSSIBLE WETLANDS BEING PRESENT, BETTER USE OF THE PARCEL WILL BE TO PRESERVE IT BETWEEN PARTNERSHIP OF HENRICO COUNTY WHICH 6.4 ACRES OF LAND NEARBY FEW BLOCKS AWAY WOULD PROTECT IT TO FACILITATE THE PERPETUAL RESERVATION.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
RIGHT? IF THEY DID NOT WANT TO BUILD THE HOUSE AND SAY I WILL APPLY EVERYTHING DOWN AND CLEAR IT AND MAKE AN OPEN FIELD THEY CAN DO THAT?
>> A HOUSE WOULD ADD VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD A TAX BASE FOR THE COUNTY AND ALSO CREATE JOBS FOR FOLKS BUILDING IT AND BASED ON THE DESIGN, SEEMS LIKE IT'S A VERY NICE HOUSE.
THIS IS MORE ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY THAN IT IS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
>> I THINK THERE BEEN NUMBER OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT TO THE DRAINAGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A LOT OF NEIGHBORS.
I THINK SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ON WEBEX WILL SPEAK TO THAT.
THAT'S AN ISSUE AND PERHAPS, DISRUPTION SHOULD CLEARING UP AGAINST OUR LINE DISRUPT THOSE TREES.
LIKE I SAID EARLIER IN MY COMMENT CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE TWO ISSUES AS WELL ANY PRIVACY AND PROPERTY.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THEY'VE OWNED IT, THAT'S A CONCERN, WHY DIDN'T A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS JUMP TO TRY TO BUY IT AND KEEP IT AS IT IS? I GUESS, I'M SEEING MORE AND MORE CASES WHERE FOLKS HAVE WOODED LOTS, NEIGHBORS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE LOT BEING WOODED BUT DON'T OWN IT.
NOW SOMEONE ELSE WHO OWNS IT AND COMES IN WANTS TO DO SOMETHING, FOLKS ARE RESISTANT.
AS A PROPERTY OWNER MYSELF, I CAN'T TELL -- THIS IS SO MY NEIGHBOR HAS A BIG WEEPING WILLOW TREE IN HIS YARD AND DECIDE TO TAKE IT DOWN.
THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT TO.
>> I'M RECEPTIVE TO CHANGE CONCERNING YOUR COMMENT WHETHER -- I'M PRETTY CONCERN, THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER OFFERS ON THE
[01:55:02]
PROPERTY.>> ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE BOARD WITH REFERENCE TO MR. GREEN'S COMMENTS.
WE HAVE HEARD CONCERNING THIS CASE IN THE PAST THAT THE WOODED AREA IS AN ASSET FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS SOMEONE ELSE OWNS IT.
MR. GREEN NOTED, THAT OWNER COULD SIMPLY CLEAR IT.
WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY BE A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE ISSUE IS WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE WITH IT? YOU REFERRED TO OTHER OFFERS ON WHAT WOULD THOSE -- WHAT WOULD THE DISPOSITION IN THAT CASE?
>> I DON'T HAVE WHOLE A LOT OF DETAILS ON THAT.
I DON'T THINK I CAN PROVIDE ANYTHING ELSE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER OFFER ON THE PROPERTY.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THAT OFFER WOULD BE TO -- WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITH IT? YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.
>> WE HEARD A CASE, AND THIS BACKGROUND, SOMEONE AT THE BEGINNING OF STREET DIDN'T WANT SOMEBODY TO BUILD A HOME AT THE END OF THE STREET BECAUSE THEY LIKED THE TREE LINE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THEIR LOT.
THEY WANTED SOMEONE ELSE'S LOT TO BE WOODED.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FOLKS TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR LOT.
AS LONG AS THEY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE IT, YOU MAY LIKE IT.
I LIVE IN -- I LOVE WHEN WE MOVED THERE WERE COWS AND NO MALL.
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M NOT SEEING ANY REAL IMPACT IN HOW I LOOK AT IT NOW.
I JUST REMEMBER HOW IT WAS AND HOW IT IS NOW.
I SUSPECT THIS IS A VERY EXPENSIVE HOUSE AND ADD SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO YOUR PROPERTY AND OTHERS.
HAVE YOU SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO THEM TO SEE HOW YOU CAN KEEP THE TREE LINE IN PLACE IF THAT'S A CONCERN? IT SEEM LIKE YOU WANT THAT BUFFER.
>> I HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONVERSATION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE OTHER FOLKS WHO WANT TO SPEAK? WE'LL GO ON TO WEBEX?
>> WE HAVE THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
TAKE THEY ARE ON THE HONOR SYSTEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ON MUTE.
IT'S THE ONE WITH THE DRAINAGE CONCERN.
GOOD MORNING, WE'RE STILL NOT HEARING YOU.
STAFF IS TELLING ME YOU'RE UNMUTED ON OUR END.
CAN SHE BE CONNECTED? WE TRYING OUR BEST.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT PERSON?
>> THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT THING TO DO I GUESS.
>> JAIME AND CORNELIA GREGORY.
CAN THEY BE CONNECTED? STAFF, CAN YOU SPEAK?
[02:00:10]
SO WE KNOW THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM BETWEEN US AND YOU? CAN WE TRY FOR THE OTHER TWO?>> DO ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. GREGORY? THANK YOU, MA'AM.
WE'LL TRY TO GET ONE OF OTHER SPEAKERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US THIS MORNING.
[02:05:07]
>> ARE YOU ENGINEER? WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE AND ALL OF THAT? ARE YOU AN ENGINEER? HAVE YOU DONE ANY SURVEYS? IT'S YOUR OPINION? IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION.
>> ANOTHER THING, I JUST TAKE ISSUE WITH YOU SAYING SOMEONE SMIRKING.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISPARAGE ANYBODY.
MAYBE WE NEED TO HEAR THE ENGINEER.
SOMEONE PAID TO -- WHO HAS A PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS TO DEAL WITH THIS.
>> WE HAVE BOTH THEIR ENGINEER AND OUR ENGINEER.
>> CAN WE GO BACK TO HEAR THEM.
I RATHER HEAR FROM THE EXPERT.
>> LET'S FINISH THE HEARING FIRST.
>> AS LONG AS IT'S NOT DISPARAGING COMMENTS.
>> WE'RE STILL NOT ABLE TO HEAR FROM THEM.
STAFF, CAN WE SEE IF CHRIS THOMPSON CAN RESPOND ON WEBEX? MR. THOMPSON? GOOD MORNING.
WE ARE WITH NEIGHBOR WHO IS IN OPPOSITION.
[02:10:50]
>> FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO READ AND SUMMARIZE FROM YOUR E-MAIL.
YOU ASKED IF THIS WAS APPROVED THE BOARD WILL REQUIRE COMPLETE STORMWATER IMPACT ANALYSIS FROM LICENSED ENGINEER.
NUMBER TWO, REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
NUMBER THREE, REQUIRE THE POST CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE NOT INCREASE RUNOFF TO ADJACENT DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES.
NUMBER FOUR, REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE AND MEASURES TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
ALLOW NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND COMMENT.
THE FIRST FOUR ARE ADDRESSED IN THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF DRAFTED.
WE DO NOT NORMALLY INVITE NEIGHBORS TO COMMENT ON ENGINEERING PLANS.
THEY ARE WELCOME TO REVIEW THEM AND COMMENT ON THEM.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BLANKENSHIP.
I'M HEARING THAT WE DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
>> THIS HAS BEEN AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE.
THEY TOOK A FULL YEAR TO DO ALL THE ENGINEERING THAT HAD TO BE DONE.
>> MR. BLANKENSHIP, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ALSO ON WEBEX.
YOU MENTIONED MR. AND MRS. GREGORY?
>> WE DO HAVE THE ENGINEER FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> STAFF, CAN WE CONNECT MR. THOMPSON? GOOD MORNING.
[02:15:08]
>> YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSES FROM ANYONE FROM THE BOARD? THANK YOU, SIR.
>> WE DO HAVE ONE OTHER PERSON ON WEX WHO -- WEBEX WHO WANT TO SPEAK.
[02:20:34]
ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MS. RUBY? ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM PUBLIC WORKS HERE?
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. JACKSON.
>> CAN WE HAVE BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE ISSUE.
HE'S BEEN WORKING WITH MR. THOMPSON I BELIEVE, THE APPLICANT.
>> MY NAME IS SCOTT JACKSON I'M WITH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
>> YOU'VE REVIEWED WHAT MR. THOMPSON HAS PROPOSED? I KNOW THAT ALL DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO REALLY REVIEW THE CASE.
THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THE CASE WAS WITHDRAWN.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON WHAT YOU HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS?
>> THE CONCERNS REGARDING FLOODING, THEY AGREED TO PUT IN A DETENTION SYSTEM ON THEIR LOT.
THEIR FUTURE MAINTENANCE TO RUNOFF AND RELEASE IT AT A RATE THAT'S LESS THAN THE FORREST CONDITION NOW.
EVEN THOUGH THEY CLEARED THE LOT AND PUTTING GRASS AND DRIVEWAYS AND WHAT NOT, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE RUNOFF, THEY ARE CAPTURING THAT AND RELEASING IT AT A SLOWER RATE.
>> WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT DECADES AGO THAT HAD DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAD NEW FEDERAL STANDARDS, EPA STANDARDS THAT COME INTO EFFECT.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD RESIDENTS ADDRESSING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT RUNOFF FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY.
ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE WILL NOT AGGREGATE SITUATION WOULD IMPROVE IT?
>> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE BOARD HAVE SOME QUESTIONS?
>> THE LADY THAT JUST SPOKE SAYING THEY JAMMING IT UP AND TRASHING ALL THAT.
>> THEY ARE PROPOSING A BRIDGE WHICH WOULD ALLOWS LOT -- PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING TO FLOW STRAIGHT THROUGH.
A LOT OF TIMES YOU WILL SEE CALVERTS.
SO THEY CAN HAVE THE ROAD OVER TOP OF IT.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IT HAS THE WATER HAS TO STAGE UP, PUSH THROUGH THE PIPES WHICH INCREASES THE FLOODING ON THE PROPERTIES.
THE BRIDGE THEY ARE PROPOSING IS BEING DESIGNED SO IT PASSES STRAIGHT THROUGH.
>> BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, SEEM LIKE THERE'S BEEN CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
I LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE IS AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU'RE MAKING TO DO THIS.
TYPICALLY, I GUESS WOULD NOT SEE WITH OTHER AREAS.
>> IF THEY CAN ASK -- IF THEY CAN ADDRESS THE COST OF THE HOUSE AND CROSS-OF IMPROVEMENTS.
>> THAT'S A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS PRICED THE HOUSE.
WE'RE EXPECTING -- THERE WERE PLANS ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION.
>> MY NAME IS CORDON GRAY, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER IF THE VARIANCE APPROVED.
IT'S TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL COLONIAL STYLE HOME.
MY WIFE AND I ARE YOUNG FAMILY.
PROBABLY GOING TO BE BETWEEN 32,000 TO 3600 SQUARE FEET.
I DO KNOW, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS FAIRLY HIGH PROPERTY VALUES.
I KNOW DOWN THE STREET, THERE WAS A HOUSE THAT WAS A SMALL RANCH THAT WAS BUILT.
SOMEONE ACTUALLY BUILT A WHOLE SECOND FLOOR ON IT.
NOW IT SOLD OVER MILLION DOLLARS.
WE KIND OF EXPECT THIS PROPERTY BEING A NEW CONSTRUCTION TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND $1 MILLION OR STORMWATER, I DON'T THINK THE
[02:25:04]
BRIDGE OR STORMWATER OR DETENTION FACILITY WILL BE A NEGATIVE COST IMPACT.THAT'S PART OF THE NEGOTIATION ME AND MR. KENNEDY HAD.
>> THAT'S COST ASSOCIATED WITH ALL DOING THAT?
>> I SUSPECT THAT SIGNIFICANT YOU WOULDN'T SEE ANYWHERE ELSE? THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT.
IT'S KIND OF -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO BUILD.
WE HAVE ROUGH ESTIMATE NUMBERS.
WE DO DEEM IT TO BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR US.
>> I THINK IT'S SUFFICE TO SAY IT'S A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT TO MAKING SURE WE'RE ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS WITH THE STORM WATER ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE RAISING.
WHICH, OF COURSE, THE CURRENT OWNER AND MR. GRAY SHARE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE OWNER AT THAT TIME AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORS.
>> JUST SEEM LIKE -- SOMEONE REFERENCED THIS HOUSES COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T THINK YOU WILL COME IN AND BUILD A $300,000 HOUSE -- BUT ALSO MAKING SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE SURE YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE RAISED.
ESPECIALLY YOUNG LADY THAT WAS ON BEFORE, TRASH AND KIDS BUILDING DAMS AND BICYCLES AIL -- ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.
>> ELIKE TO ADD -- I LIKE TO ADD.
IF THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS RUNNING AMUCK ON THE PROPERTY, WE DEVELOP IT, THAT WILL CONTROVERT THAT -- PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPEN THE BRIDGE WE'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD, IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE OUR DRIVEWAY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PUBLIC ACCESS.
ONLY THING YOU WILL DO TO GO ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CAN BE USED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO CROSS ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
ALSO, OUR UNDERSTAND THAT PUBLIC WORKS IS GOING IT REQUIRE US THE BOTTOM OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE BRIDGE WILL BE WELL ABOVE TOP OF THE EMBANKMENT.
IF IT DID OVERFLOW THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT PROPS FOR EVERYONE -- PROBLEMS FOR EVERYONE IN THE AREA.
>> IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EXTENDING SEPTEMBER DRIVE? THE APPLICANT IS DOING THAT?
>> THAT'S ANOTHER FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT.
WHEN I SPOKEN TO MEMBERS OF PUBLIC WORKS, ONE OF CONDITIONS WE HAVE TO PAY TO EXTEND SEPTEMBER DRIVE.
EVEN THOUGH THE BRIDGE WILL PARTIALLY BE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WE'LL HAVE TO GET A PUBLIC USE PERMIT AND SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT WILL BE OUR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
>> THE COUNTY HAS CONFIRMED THAT SEPTEMBER DRIVE WILL NEVER EXTEND BECAUSE OF WAY THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN HAS OCCURRED? IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SEPTEMBER DRIVE YOU CAN SEE ALL THOSE HOUSES HERE.
>> CURRENTLY, IT'S CURRENTLY ENDS WHERE --
>> COULD YOU ESTIMATE, MR. GIDLEY ABOUT HOW MANY FEET WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXTEND THAT.
>> WHAT'S THE WIDTH THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THAT? IS THAT 20 FEET?
>> THAT WOULD BE PAVED OR GRAVEL?
>> I BELIEVE PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRE IT TO BE PAVED TO THE END OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
MR. BROADWAY, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM THE ENGINEERS.
IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL HAVE IT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AS BEEN NOTED THIS CASE HAS BEEN WITH US FOR SOME TIME.
WE STARTED IN DECEMBER OF 2024 AND IN THE INTERVENING TIME, IT DOES SEEM THAT THE APPLICANT IS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO MITIGATE ANY DRAINAGE IMPACTS.
FURTHER, I WOULD OBSERVE THERE'S
[02:30:03]
NO OTHER REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.THE LEGAL TEST REQUIRED BY CODE SECTION 15.2-2309 HAVE BEEN MET.
ON THAT BASIS, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. BROADWAY.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
I'M GO TO REQUEST MR. BLANKENSHIP.
>> HELLO, WEBEX, PLEASE SPEAK SO WE CAN MONITOR LEVELS, PLEASE.
CAN YOU GET US A MIC CHECK ON WEBEX PLEASE.
[02:43:19]
[02:43:21]
DARBYTOWN ROAD.FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT OF THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE COUNTY CON SEND CONTENDS THE APPELLANT MUST OBTAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF THE APPELLANT WISHES TO PURSUE A DATA CENTER PROJECT.
THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT IT DOES NOT NEED CONTAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE BOARD WILL HEAR FROM OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK TO THE CASE.
PERSONS OTHER THAN COUNTY STAFF OR THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PEEK TO THE -- SPEAK TO THE CASE.
THE BOARD RECOGNIZES DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STRONG REACTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
HOWEVER, THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY, PROS AND CONS OF DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT.
ALL COMMENTS PLEASE MUST BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CASE ITSELF.
>> THE MATTER WE ARE ABOUT TO HEAR IS APPEAL NUMBER, APP-2026-100056 ANDREW CONDLIN FOR DARBYTOWN ROAD LLC: APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 2300 DARBYTOWN ROAD, VARINA.
EVERYONE WHO INTEND TO SPEAK, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN IN.
FOR THE RECORD, LET ME NOTE THERE IS A COURT REPORTER PRESENT.
[02:45:01]
THEY HAVE BEEN SWORN IN ALREADY SEPARATELY THIS MORNING.LET ME ALSO SAY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IF YOU SPEAK -- WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE AUDIO.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AS YOU SPEAK, PLEASE TRY TO LEAN TOWARDS YOUR MICROPHONES.
THOSE OF YOU ON STAFF WHO SPEAK FROM AND MR. CONDLIN, PLEASE SPEAK.
SPEAK AS CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE AS YOU'RE COMFORTABLE.
THE C -- CENTR IS ASKING THIS BOARD TO IGNORE COUNTY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAW.
[5. APPEALS ]
[5a. APP-2026-100056 Andrew Condlin for Darbytown Road LLC: appeal of an administrative Varina decision regarding the property at 2300 Darbytown Road, Varina. Parcel 812-704-4612. Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial District. Code Section: 24-2320. ]
IN ORDER TO GRANT IT, BESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS SO THAT CENTR CAN AVOID THE PROCESS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REFUSE TO DO SO.THIS BOARD SHOULD REFUSE TO DO SO AS WELL.
AS THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT HELD, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT LANDOWNERS DO NOT HAVE A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT AND EXPECTED USES OF THEIR LAND, OR THEIR LAND'S EXISTING ZONING STATUS.
ZONING IS LEGISLATIVE MATTER, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS ENTITLED REGULATE THE ZONING OF PROPERTY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.
IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DOCTRINE VESTED RIGHTS PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE.
STATE CODE ESTABLISHES THREE PRECONDITIONS ALL OF WHICH MUST BE MET BEFORE LANDOWNER ACQUIRES PROPERTY RIGHT AND PLANNED USE OF ITS LAND.
LANDOWNER NEED TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENTAL ACT, MUST RELY IN GOOD FAITH AND IT MUST INCUR SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES OR OBLIGATIONS IN RELIANCE ON THE ACT.
CENTRA HAS SATISFIED AND DONE THESE CONDITIONS.
FIRST, CENTRA CONTENDS THERE WAS RECRUITED BY THE COUNTY.
FOR THE REASON STATED IN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S WRITTEN STATEMENT, IT'S A GROSS OVERSTATEMENT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
REGARDLESS, THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDERED CLAIMS AND REJECTED CLAIMS LIKE THE ONES MADE BY CENTRA.
IN CASELAND, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FORMALLY ADOPTED A RESOLUTION.
IT AUTHORIZED THEIR BOARD CHAIR TO GIVE A COMPANY A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A PLANNED MEDICAL AND WASTE INCINERATOR.
IT AUTHORIZE THE BOARD AND CERTIFY THE STATE TO AUTHORIZE OF THAT INCINERATOR WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL ORDINANCES.
THE COMPANY WENT OUT AND PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR ITS PROJECT.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ZONED THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY AND PROHIBITED THAT USE.
THE COMPANY ARGUED THAT IT HAD OBTAINED A SIGNIFICANT AFFIRMATIVE GOVERNMENTAL ACT AND THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT DISAGREED.
IT EXPLAINED THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS JUST A SHORT-LIVED EXPRESSION OF THE BOARD'S ENTHUSIASM AND THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF NOTHING MORE THAN A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS EXISTING AT THE TIME.
IT WAS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED.
CENTRA CAN CALL THE INTERACTIONS WHATEVER IT WANTS.
LIKE THE COMPANY IN CASELAND, CENTRA OBTAINED NO APPROVAL.
NO AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH THIS DATA CENTER PROJECT.
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT AFFIRMATIVE GOVERNMENTAL ACT.
CENTRA REFERS TO THE BOARD TO A ZONING CONFIRMATION LETTER THAT WAS SENT BY THE COUNTY ZONING DIVISION MANAGER TO A GREENHOUSE COMPANY.
IT'S EXHIBIT A, CENTRA'S APPEAL.
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT STATES THE PROPERTY IS ZONED M1.
SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED ZONING MAP.
THE INDUSTRIAL SCALE GROWING OF GREENHOUSE PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING OF THOSE AND MIXED KITS IS ALLOWED AS A PRINCIPLE USE IN THE M1 DISTRICT.
AS LONG AS IT INCURS INDOORS, SECTION 2024 -- THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE AIRPORT SAFETY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
A GREENHOUSE IS NOT DATA CENTER.
CENTRA POINTS TO THAT EXCEPT THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE LETTER.
[02:50:37]
JUNE 16TH, 2025.THE ZONING AMENDMENTS WERE APPROVED JUNE 10TH, 2025.
NOTICE GOES OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, GOES OUT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS.
THEY REQUEST COMMENTS BACK TO ASSIST WITH THE REVIEW OF THE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT.
CENTRA'S POSITION IS LESS JUSTIFIED THAN THE OWNERS.
THE OWNERS HAD ZONING CONFIRMATION LETTERS FOR THEIR OWN PROJECT.
CENTRA HAS A ZONING CONFIRMATION LETTER FOR A GREENHOUSE.
SECOND, BY THE TIME IT APPLIED FOR APPROVALS, CENTRA KNEW IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INTENDED TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR DATA PROPERTIES.
IN THE 17 MONTHS BETWEEN WHEN THEY FIRST REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY AND FOLLOWED BACK UP WITH THE EDA.
THEY TOLD THE DIRECTOR THEY WERE BUSY WITH THEIR DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA.
CENTRA IS NOT UNSOPHISTICATED.
CENTRA KNEW BACK ON APRIL 10, 2025, ITS DESIRE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT RISK IT WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
CENTRA BEGAN TO ASK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO GRANDFATHER THROUGH ZONING AMENDMENTS.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DID NOT.
CENTRA ASKED THE EDA TO INTERVENE AND SUPPORT ITS PROVISIONAL USE PERMIT.
CENTRA APPLIED FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION ON APRIL 21ST.
IT TRIED TO PUSH A NOTE ABOUT ITS DESIRE DATA CENTER USE PASSED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
PLANNING STAFF REQUIRES CENTRA TO REMOVE THE NOTE BECAUSE THE NOTE CONFLICTED WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE MINOR SUBDIVISION.
WHICH IS TO APPROVE A NEW BOUNDARY LINE.
IT ALSO CONFLICTED WITH THE COUNTY STANDARD APPROVAL BLOCK FOR MINOR SUB TELEVISIONS.
WHICH STATES THAT NO USE IS BEING APPROVED TO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
THE BOARD CAN SEE THE STANDARD APPROVAL BLOCK IN EXHIBITS 20 AND 21 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATEMENT.
WHY DID CENTRA APPLY FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION? THEY APPLIED TO SATISFY ONE OF ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.
IT NEEDED TO HAVE THE PROPERTY PROVIDED BY MAY 13TH.
CENTRA WAS LOOKING TO MOVE QUICKLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT CENTRA PURSUE A MINOR SUBDIVISION.
LIVED BY THE SWORD, DIE BY THE SWORD.
BY THAT, I MEAN THAT A MINOR SUBDIVISION IS NOT A FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAQUE.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBMITTABLES GO INTO GREAT DETAIL, I THINK THE BOARD CAN QUICKLY SEE FOR ITSELF BY COMPARING THE CHECK LIST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 18 AND THE CHECKLIST FOR A FINAL SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 19.
QUITE SIMPLY, MINOR SUBDIVISION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DETAIL NECESSARY TO APPROVE OR AUTHORIZE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT JUMPS OUT, A FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAQUE REQUIRES CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
IT MAY ALSO REQUIRE SPECIAL NOTES ABOUT BUILDABLE AREAS, WETLANDS, THINGS THAT INFLUENCE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
CENTRA WAS ELIGIBLE TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY BY MINOR SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THE PARENT TRACK WAS SUBJECT TO A PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
[02:55:03]
REVIEWED TO CONFIRM THAT THE NEW BOUNDARY LINE THAT WAS REQUESTED BY CENTRA WOULD NOT AFFECT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, THE EXISTING MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR CAUSE IT TO NO LONGER CONFORM WITH THE COUNTY'S ORDINANCES.CENTRA WANTED A NEW BOUNDARY LINE, WANTED IT FAST.
WHEN THE LANDOWNER ALLEGES THAT GOVERNMENT ACT OCCURS, COURT REVIEWED THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ALLEGED ACTION.
THEY DETERMINED WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY APPROVED.
NOT WHAT'S CONTAINED IN PENDING APPLICATIONS.
THE COUNTY INFORMED CENTRA THAT IT WAS NOT APPROVING ANY USE OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH THAT APPROVAL.
THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF A MEAN SUBDIVISION.
THE ONLY THING THE COUNTY APPROVED WAS A NEW BOUNDARY LINE.
OTHER TWO PRECONDITIONS REQUIRES GOOD FAITH ON A SIGNIFICANT AFFIRMATIVE GOVERNMENT ACT AND INCUR EXTENSIVE OBLIGATIONS IN SUCH RELIANCE.
CENTRA'S TO DIVIDE AND PURCHASE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE INCURRED BECAUSE THE CONTRACT REQUIRED IT TO DO SO.
THE EXPENSES THAT CENTRA OCCURRED TO PURSUE A DIVISIONAL USE PERMIT, OBTAIN OTHER APPROVALS, THEY WERE EXPENSES INCURRED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ZONING AMENDMENTS.
THOSE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED TO GET A GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL.
TO WRAP UP, THE LAW ESTABLISHES CLEAR STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING RIGHTS.
EVERYONE MUST BE HELD TO THOSE STANDARDS.
THE BOARD SHOULD REFUSE TO IGNORE THE LAW REQUESTED BY CENTRA.
SHOULD UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION, THE BOARD'S MOTION SHOULD ADOPT THE FINDINGS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED IN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S STATEMENT.
>> WE LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT ATTORNEY BEFORE QUESTION OR DISCUSSIONS.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT NOW MR. CONDLIN.
>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE A POWERPOINT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M ANDY CONDLIN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF HENRICO.
WE ARE PROPOSING A DATA CENTER ON THE PROPERTY AS YOU SAID THIS HEARING IS NOT ABOUT A DATA CENTER.
YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE.
THEY ARE PUBLIC OPINION WHY DATA CENTERS SHOULD NOT GO ON THIS PROPERTY AND ITS IMPACTS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING TONIGHT.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IS CORRECT THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DETERMINATION HAS CORRECTNESS.
THE APPLICANT -- PRESENTING OTHER EVIDENCE THAT'S LEGITIMATE.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE SECRETARY OF THE EDA DOING THEIR JOB AND DOCK IT WELL THEY ARE DOING IT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY AND NOT THE EDA.
WE WILL PROBABLY DISAGREE REGARDING FACTS AND LAW.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN A LOT OF BACKGROUND, YOU GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION BOTH IN THIS MATERIAL THAT WE'LL SHOW YOU TODAY.
THE COUNTY HAS TREATED THIS PROPERTY AND APPLICANT DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNER.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD A DATA CENTER.
THEY WERE ENCOURAGED TO DO SO BY THE EDA AND THE STAFF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GOT WIND OF THIS AND THE ORDINANCE REGARDING THE DATA CENTER WAS PASSED.
THE MULTIPLE ACTIONS BY THE COUNTY THAT VEST THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO BUILD THE DATA CENTER PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THAT ORDINANCE.
AFTER WORKING YEAR, WE GOT A TIMELINE PROVIDED UP THERE AS WELL PROVIDING OVER YEAR PLUS OF THE COUNTY.
APPLICANT MET WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON MARCH 12, 2025.
[03:00:01]
INFORMED THEM THEY'LL BE FILING A POD FOR DATA CENTER ON THE PROPERTY.ONE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEMBERS NOTIFIED THAT POTENTIAL POD AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, THE BOARD INTRODUCED A PAPER ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER ON MARCH 25TH.
NO A COINCIDENCE THEY WILL REQUIRE A PUD.
ON MAY 1ST, FIRST TIME THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS MADE PUBLIC NOT TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING.
NO COMMUNITY MEETING AND JUST TWO WEEKS THAT WENT IMMEDIATELY TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND JOINT WORK SESSION ON MAY 15TH OF BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
SOMETHING I NEVER SEEN 30 YEARS OF PRACTICE TO HAVE A VOTE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION -- INDISCERNIBLE ] PASS THE ORDINANCE.
IT WAS 77 DAYS FROM THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THAT ORDINANCE.
I COMPARED TO A COUPLE OF RECENT ORDINANCES INCLUDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE.
SAY THIS TO CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
NOTHING MORE THAN A BOARD RUSHING AN ORDINANCE TO KEEP A DATA CENTER BEING BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY.
AS COUNTY AND ENCOURAGE THIS APPLICANT TO APPLY AND PURSUE A DATA CENTER, TOLD THEM THE RULES THE GAME AND THEN CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME AND LEFT MY CLIENT HOLDING THE BAG.
MY CLIENT DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, AS YOU WILL SEE, AS WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH THE STAFF, FILED A POD ALL BEFORE THE BOARD ACTUALLY APPROVED ON JUNE 10TH THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE.
NOT WHEN WE THINK THEY MIGHT OR COULD.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHEN WE WENT FORWARD OF ON JUNE 10TH ALL OTHER ITEMS I'LL COVER HAVE OCCURRED.
WITH RESPECT TO THE VESTED RIGHTS, IT'S AN EXCEPTION BUT IT HAS TO DO FAIRNESS.
WHAT DID YOU RELY ON WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY THAT THE COUNTY ASSURED YOU OF.
THAT'S WHAT THE STATE CODE PROVIDES FOR SPECIFICALLY.
THE FIRST ONE HAS BEEN ENUMERATED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING 2307A THAT SET FORTH EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A GOVERNMENTAL ACT.
I WOULD SAY IN RESPECTIVELY DISAGREE, WE HAVE ALL THREE IN THIS INSTANCE.
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR AN ITEM SECTION B THAT THERE'S A LIST THAT IS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED BUT IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE.
THERE COULD BE OTHER ACTIONS THAT THE COUNTY HAS TAKEN.
WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON NUMBER WHICH SAYS THERE'S DESIGNATED AGENT HAS APPROVED A FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAQUE.
NUMBER SEVEN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER REQUIRING DECISION OR DETERMINATION.
I WILL FOCUS FIRST ON NUMBER 7.
REFER TO THE 2024 ZONING LETTER THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR YOU IN EXHIBIT A.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CAN MAKE FUN OF THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT INDUSTRIAL GREENHOUSE AND SAY WE'RE NOT MAKING SALADKY KITS.
WHEN WE CAME FORWARD, MY CLIENT WAS TALKING TO THE STAFF.
THEY SAID YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD A DATA CENTER ON THIS PROPERTY.
THEY HANDED HIM THIS REFERENCE AND REFERENCE THIS LETTER AND SAY IT'S ZONED M1 AND ATTACH TO THIS LETTER THE SPECIFICALLY A LIST OF USES THAT ARE PERMITTED THAT INCLUDES ENUMERATED A DATA CENTER.
THERE'S NO NEED TO ASK FOR SPECIFIC ZONING LETTER, IT WAS HANDED TO THEM IN RELIANCE YOU CAN BUILD A LAT CENTER, LOOK AT THIS LETTER.
THE JUNE 16 DATE SAYS WHEN YOU HAVE TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS ON THE MODEL.
THIS WAS ISSUED AND MAILED OUT AND RECEIVED BY THE LANDOWNER AND MY CLIENT ON JUNE 4TH OF 2025.
MORE THAN SIX DAYS BEFORE THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE.
THIS PARTICULAR LETTER THAT WAS SENT BY THE COUNTY AND CALL IT WHAT IT IS, NOTICE OF REVIEW, SAYS THAT NOTE THAT THE STUDGE PROPERTY ALREADY HAS ZONING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PROPOSED USE.
IN WRITING, BY THE ZONING OFFICE.
WHAT THE PROPOSED REFERENCES AS A DATA CENTER PROJECT TOTALLY OVER 1.8 MILLION SQUARE FEET.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ASKED FOR US TO STATE EXPLICITLY THAT THE PROPERTY HAVE PROPOSED USE AND IDENTIFIED.
ON THIS LETTER, IN WRITING THAT WAS MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.
IT'S A FORMAL WRITTEN DECISION ISSUED BY THE COUNTY ADDRESSING SPECIFIC USE OF THE PUD.
THE APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT ON ALL THESE WRITINGS TO RELY ON THEM AS A VESTED RIGHT BOTH WITH THE
[03:05:01]
ZONING LETTER AND WITH RESPECT TO THE POD COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED AND ALSO ALLOWED FOR BY THE STATE CODE AND THE NOTICE OF REVIEW THAT THEY ALL SATISFY ITEM 7 THAT SAYS IT ONLY HAS TO BE ISSUED A WRITTEN ORDER, REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION.ALL OF THESE QUALIFY FOR THAT PARTICULAR DESIGNATION.
IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR A FINAL SUBDIVISION.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 7 THAT REQUIRES WHEN A WRITTEN DETERMINATION MUST IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC USE OR DENSITY WHICH OUR WRITINGS DO.
NUMBER 6 SPECIFICALLY SAYS DESIGNATED AGENT HAS TO APPROVE A FINAL SUBDIVISION PLOT OR POD.
HERE'S A CERTIFICATE OF SUBDIVISION NOT ONLY IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HENRICO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WE CAN SAY ALL ALONG THAT A MINOR SUBDIVISION IS NOT A SUBDIVISION.
IT'S IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
IT'S CONTROLLED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
IT DIVIDES A PROPERTY FROM ONE PARCEL TO TWO PARCELS.
I WILL POINT OUT TO YOU THAT WE ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR THE USE AS A DATA CENTER ON OUR APPLICATION AND THE INITIAL SUBDIVISION AND SAID A WILL BE USED FOR DATA CENTERS.
THE COMMENTS ON RIGHT SIDE FROM THE STAFF SAID, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
IN ONE INSTANCE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT BUT NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD, WELL, IT'S TOO BAD THAT YOU TRIED TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T DO THAT YOU'RE NO LONGER VESTED FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE STATE CODE.
THE STATE CODE SAYS APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION PLAQUE VEST YOUR PROPERTY FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT.
FINALLY WITH RESPECT TO RELIANCE AND GOOD FAITH, AS FOR THE LAST TWO REQUIREMENTS THE STATEMENTS BY THE COUNTY, WRITTEN DETERMINATION, REQUIREMENTS AND DECISIONS THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAQUE AND APPLICANT PAID $13 MILLION FOR THE PROPERTY BEFORE THAT TIME, BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED THEY SPENT OVER $500,000 NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS AND ENGINEERING FEES TO MAKE COMMITMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE COUNTY.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING OWNERSHIP.
WE AS A SUCCESSOR TO THE EXISTING OWNER HAVE THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT FROM THE OWNERS AS WELL.
THAT'S ESTABLISHED LAW FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
IN CONCLUSION, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE RECEIVED MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT AFFIRMATIVE GOVERNMENTAL ACTS.
WROTE IN DETERMINATION FROM THE ZONING LETTER AND NOTICE OF REVIEW RECEIVED ON JUNE 4TH.
THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL VESTED RIGHT THAT WE RECEIVED THROUGH A SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENTAL ACT.
YOU HAVE TO READ THE CODE AS IT IS WRITTEN.
THE REALITY IS THAT COUNTY HAS CREATED THE SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENTAL ACTS WHICH APPLICANT RELIED ON IN GOOD FAITH BY INCURRING SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSENS AND OBLIGATION.
THE COUNTY CONFIRM RIGHT TO BUILD THE DATA CENTER PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN CHANGED THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.
WE ASK THAT YOU OVERTURN THE DETERMINATION THAT WE DO NOT HAVE VESTED RIGHTS BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED.
DO YOU WANT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS NOW? AND GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLIC COMMENT? CAN WE OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW MR. BLANKENSHIP? AGAIN, IF YOU CAN KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES AND ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE ARE DECIDING TO DO.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO DEBATE DATA CENTERS OR LAND USE OR APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR DATA CENTERS.
THAT'S A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.
ACTED ON BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE FIRST MR. NELSON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AT THIS POINT, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I WANT TO MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO RESPECT WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED.
MY PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE VERY SHORT.
I AM -- I WANT TO BE ON RECORD TO SAY THAT I STAND WITH THE DECISION TO DENY THE VESTING RIGHTS AND ASK THE BZA TO DENY
[03:10:02]
THE APPEAL.I WILL SAY THAT MR. CHAIR, YOU SAID THAT THIS PROCESS IS GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
IT DID NOT GO COMPLETELY THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECIDED THAT NO MORE DATA CENTERS WOULD BE BY RIGHT.
EVERY DATA CENTER CASE HAS TO COME THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THIS PARTICULAR CASE WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUT IT WAS PULLED.
I THINK THE DAY OR THE DAY BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER HAVING COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND ALL THAT THE COMMUNITIES AROUND HAVING THEIR VOICE.
I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WOULD HAVE DENIED THIS PROVISIONAL USE PERMIT.
WE DIDN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
I WANT TO SAY THAT AGAIN, I'M ASKING THE BZA TO NOT OPPOSE THIS APPEAL AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
>> IS ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE QUESTION TO MR. NELSON? HEARING NONE.
MR. COOPER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> GOOD EVENING, GOOD AFTERNOON.
SINCE THIS PROPOSAL WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL BY OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEIR CASE FOR CONSIDERATION THEY WITHDREW FOR US TO HEAR THE HENRICO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
LAST YEAR, WE REMOVED BIRIGHT OPTION FOR THE DATA CENTER TO REQUIRE ALL DATA CENTERS TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
CENTRA ARGUED THEY VESTED RIGHTS TO BUILD THE DATA CENTER COMPLEX UNDER THE RULES THAT WERE PLACE WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY FILED THEIR CASE.
OUR VERY OWN PLANNING DIRECTOR SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE RIGHT.
I WANT YOU TO SAY YES TO THEIR PLANS AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID NO.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WERE PREPARED TO SAY NO IN AGREEMENT WITHOUT PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY ASK IS SIMPLE THAT YOU TOO SAY NO AND DENY THE REQUEST OF APPEAL TODAY.
WE WANT YOU TO MAKE SURE GOING FORWARD WE HAVE A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR SIDE OF TOWN.
ANYBODY FROM THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR DR. COOPER? WE'LL MOVE ON WITH OTHER SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
WE PROBABLY HAVE SOME ON WEBEX.
WE WILL ASK EACH PERSON TO STATE YOUR NAME AND PLEASE SPELL YOUR NAME.
I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE NEW MARKET VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR VESTED RIGHT DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER.
THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR PROTECTION UNDER VIRGINIA'S VESTED RIGHT LAW.
THE FACT SHOWS THAT IT DOES NOT.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY UNTIL NOVEMBER 2025 MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER THE FILING OF THIS APPEAL.
EAT THE TIME THE APPEAL WAS FILED, THEY WERE NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY LACKED STANDING TO PURSUE A VESTED RIGHTS CLAIM.
ONE CANNOT VEST DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN PROPERTY THEY DO NOT OWN.
ADDITIONALLY, PRIOR TO PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT HAD ALREADY RECEIVED REJECTIONS RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL.
THOSE DENIALS PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT APPROVALS WERE NOT IN PLACE.
VESTED RIGHTS REQUIRE RELIANCE ON A SIGNIFICANT AFFIRMATIVE GOVERNMENT ACT, HERE THERE WAS NO SUCH APPROVAL ONLY PRIOR ADVERSE DECISIONS.
ALLOWING A VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD UNDERMINE BOTH THE LEGAL STANDARD AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE ZONING PROCESS.
FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO DENY THE REQUEST.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO HENRICO COUNTY.
I RESIDE IN NEW MARKET VILLAGE
[03:15:01]
I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY TO URGE YOU TO DENY THE APPEAL OF THE VESTED RIGHTS CLAIM FOR 2300 DARBYTOWN ROAD.
TODAY REPRESENTS ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY THIS COMPANY TO CONTINUE A PATTERN USURPING THE PROTECTIONS PUT IN PLACE BY THE PROVISIONAL USE PERMITTING PROCESS REGARDING HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS IN HENRICO.
AND I ALONG WITH SEVERAL RESIDENTS ARE OPPOSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF HYPER SCALE DATA CENTER.
EQUIVALENT 27 FOOTBALL FIELDS ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR HOMES, THREE SCHOOLS WHICH SERVE OUR DISTRICT AND LOCAL BUSINESSES ON A LOT UNSUITABLE FOR WHAT IT WILL PRODUCE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS DATA CENTER.
WE ALREADY HAVE A DEDICATED WHITE OAK TECHNOLOGY PARK WHERE WE HAVE THREE OPERATIONAL HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS FOR MET AA, QTS.
IT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
THIS COMPANY WASTED VALUABLE COUNTY RESOURCES, OUR TIME AND YOURS ON A CLAIM THAT THEY DO NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR ON A PARCEL THEY DID NOT OWN AT THE TIME OF THE FILING.
MAKING THE CONTINUED PURSUIT OF THIS DATA CENTER A MOOT POINT.
INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE WAREHOUSE AND CONSULTING THE COMMUNITY FOR THE MOST OPTIMAL CONDITIONS TO MAKE IT A LIVEABLE SITUATION WITH MINIMUM IMPACT ON RESIDENTS, WE ARE HERE BELABORING A DATA CENTER PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN BURDENSOME, UNNECESSARY AND UNWANTED.
BY WITHDRAWING FROM THE PUBLIC USE PERMIT PROCESS, TWO WEEK'S THEY HAD ALREADY FILED A VESTED RIGHTS CLAIM WITHOUT INFORMING RESIDENTS OR THE PUBLIC THAT THEY HAD FILED IT, THEY SHOWED INCREDIBLE DUPLICITY AND LACK OF GOOD FAITH AND DETERMINATION TO PLEAD THEIR CASES.
ALL WHILE KNOWING THAT RESIDENTS IN HENRICO AND BEYOND ARE OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST DIXONING DATA CENTERS ON VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOODS.
OUR VOICES MATTER AND SO DO THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE CASE FILE.
THIS COMPANY DOES NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD.
WHAT WE HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG IS THEIR INTENT IS TO BUILD THIS DATA CENTER WITHOUT REGARD TO THE BALANCE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL INTEREST IN HENRICO COUNTY WITH REGARD FOR THE PROVISUAL USE PROCESS AND WITHOUT RESPECT FOR OUR RESIDENCE A DISREGARD FOR HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
I WILL ASK YOU TO DENY THIS APPEAL.
I'M THE OWNER AND CEO OF THE APPLICANT.
A SMALL LOCAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER.
I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON CENTRA AND DO EXPLAIN AS A LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER WHO ACTIONS ETOOK AND WHY I TOOK THEM.
I WAS BORN IN HENRICO DOCTOR'S HOSPITAL AND ATTENDED HENRICO COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
I MOVED BACK TO RICHMOND WITH MY FAMILY.
WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE THIS SITE AND DEVELOP A DATA CENTER, WE BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY WAS STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE.
IN 2017, HENRICO LOWERED THE TRACK RATE.
THE COUNTY REZONED 600 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF DATA CENTER USE.
WE DIDN'T JUST RELY ON WHAT WE SAW PUBLICLY.
AS PART OF OUR DILIGENCE IN EARLY 2025 WE MET WITH COUNTY STAFF AND TOLD THIS SITE WAS APPROPRIATE AND ALLOWED DATA CENTERS.
IT MID-MARCH, I WAS FACED WITH A KEY DECISION POINT.
WE WERE DAYS AWAY FROM SIGNING A PURCHASE CONTRACT AND PUTTING UP $200,000 NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT.
WE SET UP A MEETING ON MARCH 12TH WITH DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.
MY TEAM AND I WERE ALL ON SAME PAGE.
IF THERE WAS ANY HESITATION FROM THE COUNTY ON BUILDING A DATA CENTER ON THIS SITE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE SIGNED THE CONTRACT.
IN THE MEETING, WE WALKED THROUGH OUR SITE PLAN AND THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
WE WERE ASSURED THAT THE DATA CENTER USED WAS BIRIGHT.
WE SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
[03:20:02]
OF DOLLARS ON ENGINEERING, SUBMITTING PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT AND FOLLOWING STAFF DETECTIVE INCLUDING RECORDING THE SUBDIVISION PLAQUE.WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APOLOGIZED.
THEY TOLD US THE PERMIT WILL BE EXPEDITED.
COMMITTED ANOTHER $300,000 TO BE TOLD PUBLICLY IN SEPTEMBER THAT THE PERMIT WILL BE DENIED.
AS A SMALL LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER, THE VESTING LAWS IN QUESTION EXIST TO CREATE PREDICTABILITY FOR THESE SITUATIONS.
WHEN THE COUNTY TELLS SOMEONE A PROJECT IS ALLOWED AND ENCOURAGES THEM TO MOVE FORWARD, THEY CAN DO SO WITHOUT FEAR THAT THE RULES WILL SUDDENLY CHANGE MID STREAM.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT COMING TO THE BZA APPEAL FOR VESTED RIGHTS WAS NOT OUR PREFERRED OUTCOME.
I'M HERE BECAUSE AFTER FOLLOWING EVERY STEP THE COUNTY ASKED US TO FOLLOW, THIS IS THE ONLY FORM LEFT TO EXPLAIN WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
>> HI, MY NAME IS MARIE STELLA.
WE WERE TOLD TO STICK TO WITH THE VESTED RIGHTS ISSUE.
ACCORDING TO THE BA CODE 152-2307.
BOTH THE -- THERE'S SOMETHING IN EVERY CAUSE OF THAT.
THAT IS THAT THE PERSON WHO'S APPLYING FOR VESTED RIGHTS MUST BE THE LANDOWNER.
WHEN THIS DATA CENTER WAS SUGGESTED -- AFTER THE COMMUNITY, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION TWO TIMES DENIED THE RIGHT TO A DATA CENTER.
THEN WAGNER OR CENTRA OR DARBYTOWN ROAD LLC, A NEW ENTITY THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN JANUARY, STILL PROCEEDED WITH THIS VESTED RIGHTS ISSUE.
THEY DIDN'T BUY THE LAND UNTIL NOVEMBER 2025.
TO ME, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HERE.
THERE IS NO VESTED RIGHT ISSUE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THE LANDOWNERS.
I THINK THIS WILL BE A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT IF WE APPROVE THIS.
WE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.
WHAT'S TO STOP MYSELF ANYONE ELSE FROM THINKING, I WILL GO INTO COMMUNITY.
I WILL BE FACETIOUS HERE AND SAY, START A VAPE CENTER A GENTLEMAN'S CLUB.
AFTER IT'S DENIED, GO AND BUY THE LAND AND SAY, I HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO THIS.
I THINK THIS WHOLE CASE IS BIZARRE AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REJECT IT.
IT SETS A VERY BAD PRECEDENT FOR THE COUNTY, FOR THE STATE FOR THE NATION.
I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT.
I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN EVALUATION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS.
I ALSO HAVE AN ENGINEERING BACKGROUND.
I STUDIED PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING OUTSIDE.
THE REASON I CAME DOWN HERE IS BECAUSE I KNEW THAT THE STAKEHOLDER WILL BE HERE.
IT'S LIKE A LIGHTNING BOLT HIT ME THE OTHER DAY THAT I THOUGHT, OPTIMISTICALLY, MAYBE THIS COULD WORK.
I SEEN THIS BEFORE, HUNDREDS OF TIMES.
MY BACKGROUND IS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING.
I HAVE A MASTERS DEGREE IN PUBLIC POLICY.
I WORKED 20 YEARS IN CAPITAL PROJECT.
SORT OF AS A STATISTICIAN AND A ADVISOR TO PROJECTS.
I INTERVIEWED THOUSANDS OF PROJECT TEAMS AND WHAT S GOING ON HERE, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THAT ACRONYM.
IT STANDS FOR NOT IN MY BACKYARD.
THE ONLY WAY TO GET AROUND NIMBY PROBLEM IS TO GET A SOCIAL LICENSE TO OPERATE.
YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE COMMUNITY BUY-IN IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY WHETHER YOU CAN FORCE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO DO YOUR BIDDING TO END UP
[03:25:01]
MESSING WITH YOUR PROJECT A LOT.PARTICULARLY, IN THIS PARTICULAR POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT WITH AS INFLAMMATORY AS THE RHETORIC IS, DIVIDED AS WE ARE.
FOR GUY WHO GREW UP IN RICH WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD TO COME IN AND ENFORCE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY TO TAKE ON A BIG FACILITY AND UNKNOWN HEALTH RISK YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE SAYING TO THEM THAT YOU CAN MAKE A LOT OF MONEY.
IT'S TOUGH SITUATION TO MANAGE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS THING WILL GHOST AROUND -- COST ABOUT $8.5 BILLION.
>> WE'RE DISCUSSING THE VESTED RIGHTS ISSUE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT QUESTION?
WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS JUST GET ON THE RECORD THAT THIS VESTED RIGHTS ISSUE IS ACTUALLY IRRELEVANT.
IF YOU WANT YOUR INVESTMENT TO PAY OFF AND YOU DON'T WANT TO GO BANKRUPT OR ANYTHING, YOU NEED TO SOLVE THIS.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT YOU GUYS WITHDRAW THE APPEAL UNTIL YOU CAN TALK MORE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND TRY TO GET THIS SORTED OUT AND COME BACK.
I WOULD SAY IF THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT, YOU GUYS AS STEWARDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITIZENS THAT VOTED FOR YOU, YOU SHOULD TELL THESE GUYS, NO.
>> CORRECT YOU ON ONE POINT, SIR.
WE WERE APPOINTED AND NOT ELECTED AND APPOINTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT.
>> I DON'T KNOW LOT ABOUT LOCAL POLITICS.
I'M HERE BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU GUYS ARE FACING NOW.
>> BEAUTY WHAT I'M HEARING SO FAR, NOBODY BROUGHT UP ANYTHING RELATED TO RACE.
THEY ARE STICKING WITH THE VESTED INTEREST ISSUE AND FOLKS DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD ASK THEM TO DO.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE OR COMMUNITY.
I APPRECIATE THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
THEY NOT USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE.
I WON'T TALK ABOUT AI OR CLOUD OR ANY OF THAT STUFF.
MY MAIN CONCERN IS HOW THE COUNTY CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDS SO QUICKLY ON A PARTICULAR TOPIC AND PUT FOLKS THAT HAVE A LOT OF VESTED WORK INTO THINGS OUT THE DOOR REALLY QUICKLY.
I THINK THAT ALIGNS WITH THIS VESTING RIGHT BECAUSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY GENERAL SHOULD BE ALIGNED ON HOW THE COUNTY IS MOVING FORWARD WITH REGARD TO A LARGE SUBJECT MATTER LIKE THESE.
THERE'S A LOT TO BE SAID ABOUT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.
I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION THERE.
I DO THINK THAT THE COUNTY NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF THINKING ABOUT DATA CENTERS IN GENERAL AND WHETHER OR NOT -- INDISCERNIBLE ]
I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
AS A CIVIL ENGINEER, I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO MOVE THE PROJECT THROUGH THE COUNTY REVIEW PROCESS.
CENTRA LOGISTICS CONTACTED ME TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING DATA CENTER CAMPUS ON THE PROPERTY.
WE HAD MANY MEETINGS AT THE BEGINNING OF 2025 TO DISCUSS THEIR VISION FOR THE SITE AND WE START WORKING ON A CONCEPT PLAN AND VERIFYING ZONING AND OTHER COUNTY RELATED ZONING REGULATIONS.
IN LATE FEBRUARY, I ASKED COUNTY PLANNING STAFF A DIRECT QUESTION, PROCESS QUESTION ABOUT SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY.
SINCE THE PROPERTY NEEDED TO BE SUBDIVIDED TO PURCHASE.
I ASKED WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL, WHETHER DEVELOPMENT NEED TO BE APPROVED AND HOW LONG THE APPROVAL WILL TAKE.
AT THE TIME, STAFF DISCUSSED INTERNALLY WHETHER THE SITE SHOULD PROCEED AS A MINOR SUBDIVISION OR IF A POD WAS NEEDED TO BE APPROVED BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION.
ULTIMATELY, STAFF ADVISED US TO
[03:30:01]
PROCEED USING A MINOR SUBDIVISION, COORDINATED WITH THE POD AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID.WE FOLLOWED STAFF'S RECOMMENDED PROCESS FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND WE STARTED WORKING ON THE POD.
IN MARCH, WE STARTED WORKING ON THE PLAN FOR SITE IN COORDINATION WITH HENRICO AND WHAT THE SITE WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE PUBLIC ROADS AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
AT THE BEGINNING OF APRIL, WE STARTED PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY ON APRIL 29TH.
WE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE PLANS WERE ROUTED TO STAFF ON MAY 1ST.
WE MET COUNTY STAFF ON JUNE 4TH.
THE COUNTY ISSUED THE NOTICE OF POD REVIEW AND THE POD PLANS WERE SCHEDULED TO BE ON THE DIRECTOR'S AGENDA FOR APPROVAL ON JUNE 26TH, 2025.
THE REASON I'M HIGHLIGHTING THIS IS BECAUSE DURING THIS TIME, CENTRA LOGISTICS INCURRED ENGINEERING AND PLANNING EXPENSES THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD IN EXCESS OF $300,000.
THE SURVEY, THE CIVIL ENGINEERING, THE DESIGN, THE MEETINGS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
ALL OF THAT WAS IN OUR POD PLANS THAT WE SUBMITTED IN APRIL.
THE CENTRA TEAM DID MORE UP FRONT DUE DILIGENCE AND SPENT MORE MIME AND -- MORE MONEY AND TIME TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THE PROJECTS THAN MOST CLIENTS EWORKED WITH IN HENRICO.
WE NEVER GOT TO THE 26TH DIRECTOR'S AGENDA.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER THEM LATER.
I'M AN HENRICO COUNTY RESIDENT.
I WORK FOR A DESIGN BUILDER ACROSS THE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF CENTRA.
MAINTAINING HENRICO'S POSITION IS ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE AND COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY.
TODAY, OUR TEAM HAS SEVERAL PROJECTS UNDER WAY IN HENRICO COUNTY.
ALL WITH SEVERAL ADDITIONAL PROJECTS IN GREATER RICHMOND AND VIRGINIA REGIONS.
WE EXPECT TO HAVE MORE THIS YEAR AND OTHERS ACTIVE DISCUSSIONS FOR THE YEARS AHEAD.
WE WORKED DILIGENTLY ALONG WITH COMPANIES LIKE CENTRA.
THEY ARE EVALUATING WHETHER TO EXPAND OPERATIONS AND MAKE NEW CAPITAL INVESTMENTS.
THOSE CONVERSATIONS, HENRICO CONSISTENTLY STANDS OUT.
THE COUNTY BUILT A REPUTATION BEING BUSINESS FRIEND, RESPONSIVE AND SOLUTIONS.
COMPANIES MAKING LONG-TERM INVESTMENT DECISIONS LOOK CLOSELY HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ENGAGE.
THOUGHTFULNESS AND PREDICTABILITY AROUND ZONING MATTERS.
OBVIOUSLY THE WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER.
HENRICO'S PROFESSIONAL STAFF, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADVISORY PARTNERS AND COLLABORATIVE POSTURE ALWAYS HAVE CREATED CONFIDENCE WHERE BUSINESSES.
INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AND DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE ZONED AREA ARE DIFFICULT TO COME BY.
PRESERVING THESE INDUSTRIAL AREAS IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE SAME TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE AND RETAIN THE UP STREAM AND DOWNSTREAM SUPPLY TRAIN FOR MANUFACTURING.
ONE OF THESE TYPES OF -- ONCE THESE TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL LAND ARE CONVERTED, IT'S CHALLENGING TO REPLACE.
MY TEAM, LIKE MANY OF OUR CLIENTS AND PARTNERS WE ALWAYS DO MORE THAN JUST INVEST CAPITAL.
WE INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY ITSELF THROUGH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS, CHARITABLE OUTREACH AND THAT ALWAYS EXTEND WELL BEYOND OUR PROJECT SITES.
COMPANIES WANT TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THEY CAN OPERATE.
INFLUENCES WHERE COMPANIES DEPLOY CAPITAL WHICH HELPS THEM BECOMING CREATED.
AS A RESIDENT AND SOMEONE WORKING CLOSELY WITH TERMS EVALUATING THIS REGION, I WOULD ENCOURAGE CONTINUE FOCUS ON POLICIES THAT RESERVE COMPETITIVENESS AND CAPACITY, REINFORCE, PREDICTABILITY AND MAINTAIN HENRICO STANDING AS A PREMIER LOCATION FOR INVESTMENT.
[03:35:01]
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.THE DECISIONS THAT A LOT OF THE FOLKS IN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, ANYONE IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN GENERAL MAKE WHEN THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT EITHER INVESTING CAPITAL AND A LOCALITY AND PIECE OF PROPERTY OR DECIDED TO MOVE THEIR BUSINESS THERE IS ONE THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US.
THE RELIANCE, RELYING IN GOOD FAITH IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THAT.
HENRICO HAS TRADITIONALLY HAD AN INCREDIBLE TRACK RECORD IN THAT SPACE.
WHICH IS WHY BECOME THE PREMIER COUNTY FOR BUSINESSES TO WORK IN THE RICHMOND REGION.
I THINK THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY HIGHLIGHTED A NUMBER OF ITEMS HERE.
RELYING ON GOOD FAITH PIECE IS GOOD THING THAT CAUGHT OUR EYE AS WE WERE WATCHING THIS PROCESS UNFOLD WHERE THE DATA CENTERS HAVE BEEN A BUY RIGHT USE UNDER M1 FOR MULTIPLE DECADE.
THEY HAVE BEEN UNDER OFFICE ZONING CATEGORY WHICH WITHIN M1 YOU CAN DO AS WELL UNTIL THE ZONING ORDINANCES WERE REVISED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.
THE APPLICANT TOOK UNDER THIS PROCESS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE UNDERLYING ZONING ALLOWED FOR DATA CENTERS.
AS WAS HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER, THERE WAS A POLITICAL SHIFT THAT CAUSED THE PROCESS TO BE RUSHED THROUGH THAT UNDERMINED THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.
I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS PROPER FOR THE COUNTY TO SAY THAT THERE'S NO VESTING RIGHTS WHEN ALL OF THE ACTIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO ANY CHANGE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCES AS THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNTY TO PUSH FORWARD.
I THINK THAT BASED UPON THE TIMELINE IN THIS PROCESS THAT THE APPLICANT HAVE DONE EVERYTHING, GOOD FAITH TO BE HERE AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS BODY TO UPHOLD THAT PIECE SO THAT IT DOESN'T UNDERMINE GENERAL BUSINESS CONFIDENCE IN THE COUNTY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS SHARON SEAMON.
THIS HAS BEEN VERY EMOTIONAL FOR BOTH SIDES.
POLITICAL DIVIDE AND THAT AND THAT AND OTHER THING.
THE OWNER, CENTRA DIDN'T OWN THE PROPERTY.
YOU ALREADY SIDE WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO.
YOU GUYS DECIDED THIS IS NOT A GOOD FIT.
HE TRIED TO GO THROUGH BACKDOOR AND CHANGE EVERYTHING.
EVERYTHING WAS AGREED ON HOW WE WERE GOING TO PROCEED.
THAT THIS DATA CENTER WAS NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED.
DURST YOU WITHDREW AND THEN YOU APPEALED.
IF WITHDREW IT, THAT MEANS YOU WEREN'T GOING TO DO IT.
YOU DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE, BUILD THE DATA CENTER.
FOR US, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THAT OUR VOICES DON'T MATTER IN THE COMMUNITY.
HENRICO IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO LIVE IN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU BEEN TO THE PARK, THE PARK RIGHT DOWN THE STREET WHERE FAMILIES GO EVERYDAY TO ENJOY THE PARK, THE NATURE, THE FISHING.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, WE LIVE HERE.
WE CONTRIBUTE TO VARINA, OUR TAX DOLLARS, OUR TIME AND VOLUNTEERING IN OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'S GREAT THAT YOU HAVE A BUSINESS.
I HOPE THAT THE BOARD REJECTS THIS APPEAL BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.
THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY DECIDED.
WE NEED WHAT'S BEST FOR HENRICO.
WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS ON WEBEX.
[03:40:03]
MS. STAR BROWN.I HAVE TO IMPLORE YOU, PLEASE, DENY CENTRA'S REQUEST.
THIS HAS BEEN AN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND.
EVERYONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT GOOD FAITH -- THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
I HAVE TO IMPLORE YOU PLEASE DENY THIS APPEAL REQUEST.
WE ARE A COMMUNITY OF CIVIC-MINDED PEOPLE.
I UNDERSTAND THE PHRASE "THE GOOD FAITH" AND "DUE DILIGENCE" THAT CENTRA IS PUTTING FORTH.
HOWEVER, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND EVERY PLACE THAT A DATA CENTER HAS BEEN BUILT IN A COMMUNITY, IT HAS NOT BEEN BENEFICIAL TO THAT COMMUNITY.
PLEASE, LET'S DO THE RIGHT THING.
KEEP THIS OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
IF IT'S SO GOOD, ASK CENTRA'S ASSOCIATES WHY THEY DON'T HAVE IT IN THEIR BACKYARD? WE DOT NOT WANT IT HERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.
I WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THE VESTED RIGHTS.
IT SAYS THAT -- TALKS PAYING TAX FOR THE PREVIOUS 50 YEARS.
IT SAYS THAT ORIGINAL INTENT OR ANYTHING ABOUT STRUCTURE HAS CHANGE, THE VESTED RIGHTS ARE VOIDED.
I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT M1 IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE.
THE APPLICANT IS ADAMANT TALKING ABOUT THE DATA CENTERS CAME UNDER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
I LIVE ABOUT LESS THAN A MILE FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THIS IS DEFINITELY DATA CENTER COMES UNDER A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RULE.
IT'S ANYTHING THAT MAY ADVERSELY SURROUNDING LANDS AND IT WILL DISRUPT SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL USE AND PERMITS WERE GRANTED UNDER M1 COMPLETELY VOIDS THE VESTED INTEREST CLAIM EVEN IF IT WERE GROUNDS TO GRANT THIS.
I WOULD ASK THAT THIS APPEAL BE DENIED.
MR. CHAIR, THERE IS ONE OTHER PERSON WHO HAS JOINED THE WEBEX BUT NOT IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES.
DO YOU WANT US TO TRY TO CONNECT THEM?
>> STAFF, CAN WE CONNECT THE PERSON WHO JUST CALLED IN SEE IF
[03:45:02]
THEY CAN SPEAK?>> WE CAN HEAR THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING, WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> I'M NOT COMING THROUGH CLEARLY?
>> CAN YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME.
>> YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THE APPEAL?
AS A RESIDENT OF HENRICO AND COMMUNITY MEMBER TO THIS SITE, I TOO WOULD APPEAL TO THE BOARD TO CONSIDER REJECTING THIS NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH IT.
I WANT TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT WAGNER REALLY DID IN MY OPINION, DID PEEK TO THE COMMUNITY AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
I APPRECIATED THE TIME THAT THEY GAVE US RESIDENTS.
HOWEVER, IN THOSE MEETINGS, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF A DATA CENTER UNDERNEATH THE ORIGINAL M1 STANDING AS IT CHANGED TO NO LONGER APPROVE DATA CENTER.
THEY WERE NOT GRANDFATHERED IN.
SO CLOSE TO JOHN -- I DON'T THINK ENOUGH RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE TO BETTER FIGURE OUT TO REDUCE EMISSIONS.
I DON'T THINK THEY PRESENTED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO TALK ABOUT HOW IT PROVIDES CLOSED WATER CIRCUIT AND REDUCE NICE POLLUTION.
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE POLLUTION IMPACTS THAT VARINA UNDERGOES BY BEING SO CLOSE TO THE AIRPORT.
I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT INDUSTRY AND HOW INDUSTRY HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BE PART OF IF WE THINK ABOUT OUR ECONOMY.
WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY LOOKS LIKE.
UNTIL WE CAN REALLY REVIEW HOW TO BE COMPLIANT, HOW TO BE CONSCIOUS OF OUR COMMUNITY, HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE OPERATING WITH THE LOWEST EMISSION AND NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT.
I REALLY THINK THAT I WOULD URGE THE BOARD TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND ONTO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS APPEAL
THEREFORE ONE CALLER ON WEBEX AND WHO LEFT AN E-MAIL THAT THEY WERE UPSET THAT IT WAS A DAYTIME HEARING.
I DID WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE GO FURTHER.
JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT MR. CONDLIN.
HE IS CORRECT IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR HENRICO COUNTY AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO HAVE A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING.
IT IS COMMON AND SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
THEY DO IT TO REDUCE ADVERTISING COSTS.
THEY DO IT SOMETIMES TO MOVE THINGS MORE QUICKLY.
HE IS CORRECT THAT IT'S NOT TYPICALLY DONE IN HENRICO BUT IT HAS BEEN DONE ON MAYBE A FEW OCCASIONS.
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE STATE CODE ALSO TO ADOPT SO-CALLED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.
I KNOW THE COUNTY HAS DONE THAT BEFORE ALSO.
YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND ALLOW PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AFTER YOU DO THAT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT APPLIES TO LAND USE.
I'M NOT SURE I SEEN THAT NUMBER OF LAND USE ISSUES BEFORE.
THERE ARE WAYS FOR THE GOVERNING BODY TO ACCELERATE ISSUES THEY FEEL ARE MAJOR IMPORTANCE.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD.
AT THIS POINT, DID WE GIVE THE
[03:50:04]
COUNTY AND THE APPELLANT, REBUTTAL TIME?>> I WILL ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS THEY LIKE TO POSE? NO QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD? MR. MASSIE.
WE WILL MOVE FORWARD AND DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY -- WOULD THE BOARD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH A MOTION? WE'LL PROCEED WITH A MOTION AND I WOULD THINK THAT PROBABLY MR. JOHNSON WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT SINCE HE'S THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT DISTRICT OR LIVES IN THAT DISTRICT.
MR. JOHNSON, ARE YOU READY TO MAKE A MOTION? DO YOU NEED MORE TIME TO DELIVER
>> FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, IN THIS PRESENTATION, LETTERS OF THE BOARD I MOVE THAT THE BOARD FIND THAT THE DIRECTOR CORRECTLY DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING.
APPELLANT DID NOT OBTAIN A SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENT REMOVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT DATA AND THE PROJECT.
THE TENANT DID NOT REALLY IN GOOD FAITH UNDER THE SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENT ACT.
IT IS INQUIRED THAT THE OBLIGATIONS AND THE EXPENSES FOR THOSE REASONS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO RESUME THE DATA CENTER.
>> MOTION MR. JOHNSON AND SECOND BY MR. GREEN.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
THAT COMPLETES THE NORMAL PORTION OF THE AGENDA.
THAT BRING YOU TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 22ND MEETING.
DID WE HAVE MINUTES TO DISTRIBUTE OR WE GOING TO DO THAT? THOSE TO YOU.
>> HOLD ON MR. BARRY -- MR. LAWRENCE IS NOT GOING INTO WITHDRAWAL?
>> I'M JUST CHECKING ON YOUR HEALTH, SIR.
[6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 22, 2026 OTHER NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ]
>> I DO HAVE AN UPDATE FOR YOU.
TWO MONTHS AGO YOU HEARD AN APPEAL ON NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION ON A JUNKYARD.
YOU MR. GREEN, SPECIFICALLY THAT THE BOARD ASK THAT WE UPDATE YOU
PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE.
WE HAVEN'T FINISHED OUR MEETING YET.
>> TWO MONTHS AGO YOU HEARD AN APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION ON KIND OF A JUNKYARD.
YOU REMEMBER PHOTOGRAPHS WITH ALL THE SCHOOL BUSES.
YOU UPHOLD THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION IN THAT CASE.
YOU ASKED TO COME BACK IN TWO MONTHS WITH AN UPDATE.
I REACHED OUT TO COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE ON MONDAY.
WAS TOLD WE VISITED THE PROPERTY LAST WEEK.
FOUND THEY ARE MAKING SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN CLEANING THE PROPERTY.
MAJORITY OF THE BUSES VEHICLES AND OTHER ITEM HAVE DECREASED.
>> YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT WE BRING YOU AN UPDATE IN TWO MONTHS.
THERE'S THE UPDATE IN TWO MONTHS FROM THAT.
>> I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET MR. SEAL.
HE'S OUR NEW ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.
HE'S BEEN IN THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALMOST AS LONG AS I HAVE WORKING HIS WAY UP.
HE WAS MOST RECENTLY THE SENIOR PRINCIPAL PLANNER FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DIVISION.
WHICH HANDLES REZONING, PROVISIONAL USE PERMITS, LARGER APPLICATIONS OF BROADER COUNTY IMPACT.
[03:55:02]
HE'S BRINGING ALL THAT WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE NOW TO OUR SIDE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND HE WILL BE ATTENDING THE MEETING IN THE CAPACITY.>> WE'RE NOT HAVING A WELCOME LUNCH FOR HIM?
>> I HAD A PLEASURE WORKING WITH MR. SEAL OVER THE YEARS.
IT'S A FINE DECISION BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
GLAD TO HAVE HIM IN THAT POSITION.
>> YOU CAN GIVE HIM THE $20 AFTERWARDS? [LAUGHTER]
>> I HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE WE ADJOURN.
DID WE GET A RESPONSE BACK FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THE PORCH ISSUE?
>> THAT IS BEING WORKED ON NOW? SCREEN PORCHES OVER DECKS WHERE THE VARIANCES.
>> THEY WANTED TO RECONSIDER THE ORDINANCE?
>> WE ARE RIGHT NOW WORKING ON A PACKAGE OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL PROBABLY INCLUDE SOMETHING ON THAT TOPIC.
IT HASN'T GOTTEN TO THE BOARD YET.
>> YOU GOT THE GRAND JURY TOO?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.