[1d. CUP-2026-101093 WITHDRAWN Larry Owens for Talliscia Irby: conditional use permit to build a detached accessory dwellling unit at 1601 Harvest Grove Lane, Harvest Crest, Fairfield. Parcel 809-731-6427. Zoning: R-3AC, One-Family Residence District (Conditional). Code Section: 24-4406. ]

LARRY OWENS FOR TALICIA IRBY. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 1601 HARVEST GROVE LANE AND THE HARVEST CREST SUBDIVISION IN THE FAIRFIELD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. THAT CASE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, SO IF ANYBODY IS HERE FOR THAT, YOU GET YOUR MORNING BACK. ALSO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2026 NUMBER 101260.

[1e. CUP-2026-101260 Tuckahoe Margaret Congdon: conditional use permit to keep up to six hens in the rear yard at 6 Carterham Court, Deer Lodge, Tuckahoe. Parcel 746-736-2117. Zoning: R-1, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4420.G. ]

MARGARET CONGDON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP UP TO SIX HENS IN THE REAR YARD AT SIX.

CARTER COURT IN DEER LODGE IN THE TUCKAHOE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

THAT CASE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.

WE DON'T AS I KNOW THAT I KNOW OF, HAVE ANY REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL IF WE'RE READY TO BEGIN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. BLANKENSHIP. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE CALL OUR FIRST REQUEST.

NOW, FIRST CASE IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2026, NUMBER 101038.

[1a. CUP-2026-101038 Varina Randy Hooker for J. E. Liesfeld Contractor, Inc.: conditional use permit to extract sand and gravel at 8951 Strath Road, Varina. Parcel 816-677-8788. Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District. Code Section: 24-4205 ]

RANDY HOOKER FOR JE CONTRACTOR INCORPORATED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXTRACT SAND AND GRAVEL AT 8951 STRATH ROAD IN THE VARINA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. WOULD EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STAND TO BE SWORN IN? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES. THANK YOU, MISS RASMUSSEN. THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY. PLEASE FEEL.

CONTRACTOR OWNS 147.611 ACRES ON BOTH SIDES OF STRATH ROAD.

[00:05:04]

MINING SAND AND GRAVEL WAS APPROVED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD BETWEEN 1990 AND BETWEEN 1988 AND 1994, BUT APPARENTLY ONLY THE WEST SIDE WAS EXCAVATED.

IN 2018, THE BOARD APPROVED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RECLAMATION OF 64.65 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF STRATH ROAD.

NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WERE APPROVED IN 2020 AND 2022, AND MOST RECENTLY IN 2024.

AS THE OPERATION THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD IS NEARING COMPLETION, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCAVATE SAND AND GRAVEL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BETWEEN STRATH ROAD AND INTERSTATE 295.

THE PROPERTY EAST OF STRATH ROAD MEASURES 73.14 ACRES, OF WHICH 41.11 ACRES WOULD BE DISTURBED.

SAND AND GRAVEL WOULD BE EXCAVATED TO AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 15FT.

WHEN THE EXCAVATION IS COMPLETE, THE OPERATOR WILL BRING SOIL, ROCK AND OTHER MATERIALS FROM CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATION SITES TO FILL AND RECLAIM THE PROPERTY. THE FILL WOULD BE COVERED WITH TOPSOIL, AND PERMANENT VEGETATION WOULD BE ESTABLISHED.

ON THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE SITE, THE PROPOSED FINAL ELEVATIONS ARE HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING GRADES, BUT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREAS. ON THE NORTHERN HALF, THE HIGHEST NATURAL GRADE IS 146FT, WHILE THE MAXIMUM FINISHED GRADE ON THE RECLAMATION PLAN SHOWS 164FT.

THE SITE ADJOINS INTERSTATE 295 FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.8.8 TENTHS OF A MILE.

FOR MOST OF THAT DISTANCE, THE HIGHWAY IS LOWER THAN THE ADJOINING LAND, SO THE EXCAVATION AND RECLAMATION SHOULD NOT BE NOTICEABLE. FROM THE ROAD CLOSE TO KINGSLAND, CLOSER TO KINGSLAND ROAD, WHERE THE GROUND IS MORE LEVEL, THE SITE IS IMPACTED BY WETLANDS, SO THE EXCAVATION WILL BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE HIGHWAY. FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE VIEW FROM THE INTERSTATE. OH THAT'S DIFFERENT. ALONG STRATH ROAD.

THERE ARE 13 HOMES ON PARCELS ABUTTING OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE.

OF THOSE, NINE ARE WITHIN 500FT OF THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION INFILL.

STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED TWO ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DESIGN THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HOMES WITHIN 500FT TO FOUR.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE INTENDED TO MITIGATE THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON NEARBY HOMES FOR THIS TEMPORARY USE.

AFTER EXCAVATION AND RECLAMATION, THE PROPERTY WILL BE STABILIZED WITH PERMANENT GROUND COVER. AT THIS TIME, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PLANS FOR FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF THE BOARD IS SATISFIED WITH THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL BE MITIGATED. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS RASMUS? I DO HAVE ONE.

YES, SIR. IS THE MAXIMUM FINISHED GRADE ON THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE SITE GOING TO BE 146FT, 156FT, OR 164FT. STAFF EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE HIGHEST GRADE SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS 18FT HIGHER THAN THE NATURAL GRADE, SO IT WASN'T CLEAR FROM THE STAFF REPORT WHETHER THAT HAS BEEN IN STAFF'S OPINION.

THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED WITH THE APPLICANT.

I BELIEVE THAT THE THE YEAH YOU'RE CORRECT. THE CONCEPT PLAN HAS SHOWN 164, BUT THE MAXIMUM FINISHED GRADE WOULD BE 156, WHICH IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURAL GRADE OF ONE.

146 AND SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WHAT THE NATURAL GRADE IS AND WHAT THEIR ORIGINAL CONCEPT.

IT SEEMS LIKE, YEAH, WITHIN LIKE A 1010FT MARGIN OF ERROR.

IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS LIKE THIS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE COUNTY? YEAH. IT IS. YEAH. AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GRADE AROUND THE AREA AS WELL. WE, WE LOOK AT THOSE CASE BY CASE AND IN SOME EXAMPLES, A NEIGHBOR OR SOMEONE PASSING BY ON THE ROAD WOULD BE LOOKING AT ESSENTIALLY A NEW MOUNTAIN WHERE THERE HADN'T BEEN ONE BEFORE.

AND ON THOSE, WE HAVE ASKED APPLICANTS TO MAKE REVISIONS TO THEIR PLANS.

HERE IT'S DEEP IN THE REAR YARDS OF MOST OF THOSE HOUSES AND FACING THE INTERSTATE.

AS MISS RASMUS WAS EXPLAINING, IT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE VISIBLE BECAUSE OF THE THE WAY THE LAND IS SHAPED AROUND THE INTERSTATE ITSELF.

IT SLOPES UP AND THEN BACK DOWN AGAIN. SO THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T REALLY DWELL ON THAT CONCERN IN THIS REPORT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE MOVE ON? THANK YOU. I DO HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THAT. ONE IS THAT WE LEFT ON THE TABLE FOR YOU THIS MORNING.

A REVISED SET OF CONDITIONS. THEY ARE THE STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATIONS OF THIS TYPE.

SO YOU'VE SEEN THEM BEFORE, BUT SOMEHOW WE HAD AN ERROR WHEN WE PRINTED THOSE.

AND CONDITIONS FOUR AND FIVE WERE KIND OF RUN TOGETHER ON THE DOCUMENT.

I'M STILL NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THAT HAPPENED. SO WE JUST PRINTED A CLEAN SET FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE.

THE OTHER IS THAT AFTER THE STAFF REPORTS WERE SENT OUT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAILS, BUT I HAVE RECEIVED TWO TELEPHONE CALLS FROM RESIDENTS

[00:10:07]

ALONG STRATH ROAD EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT TRUCK TRAFFIC AND PARTICULARLY THE SPEED OF TRUCK TRAFFIC USING THE, THE EXISTING SITE. SO I HAVE MENTIONED THAT TO THE APPLICANT SO THAT THEY HAVE JUST THIS MORNING SO THAT THEY'D HAVE A MINUTE TO PREPARE THEIR RESPONSE TO THAT.

BUT WE HAVE HAD THAT CONCERN EXPRESSED BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT FROM THE SPEED OF TRUCKS TRAVELING ON STRATHROY.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. BLANKENSHIP. THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. I BELIEVE MR. HUCKER IS GOING TO BE REPRESENTING JAY ELLIS, CONTRACTOR.

GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PLANNING STAFF.

MY NAME IS RANDY HOOKER. I'M WITH ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOCIATES HERE TO REQUEST YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS USE PERMIT.

AND WE HAVE REVIEWED THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED AND THE USE PERMIT AND AGREE TO THOSE CONDITIONS.

AS STATED, THERE IS SOME HISTORY WITH THIS SITE BEING THE PROPERTY ITSELF BEING MINED.

THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS UNDERWAY OF THE RECLAMATION PROCESS AND IS STILL REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THAT AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE, EXCUSE ME, THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE WOULD BE RECLAIMED, MINED AND RECLAIMED. THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE WOULD BE CONTINUED TO BE RECLAIMED.

REGARDING THE TRUCK TRAFFIC WE CAN ONLY REQUEST THAT POLICE ENFORCE TRAFFIC SPEEDS WITHIN THE AREA. THE CONTRACTOR J.E. LITCHFIELD USED UTILIZES CONTRACTORS FOR HAULING PURPOSES AND THEY REALLY CAN'T IT'S NOT THEIR OWN STAFF THAT THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER.

SO AGAIN, WE REQUEST THAT POLICE ENFORCE TRAFFIC SPEEDS IN THAT AREA.

IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THOSE FOR YOU. KELBY MORGAN IS ALSO HERE WITH ME TODAY WITH J.

E LITCHFIELD. HE MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AS WELL.

JUST TURN THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT TO YOU. BUT THANK YOU, MR. HOOKER. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. HOOKER OR WHO WAS THE OTHER KELBY MORGAN. KELBY MORGAN.

HE'S MORGAN. THANK YOU SIR. THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS.

THEN WE'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON WEBEX.

WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? HEARING NONE, I WILL ASK IF THERE IS ANYONE HERE OR ON WEBEX WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.

MR. BLANKENSHIP, YOU MENTIONED WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL, I BELIEVE WE HAD NOT RECEIVED EMAIL, BUT WE HAD TWO PHONE CALLS, TWO PHONE CALLS THAT THAT WERE CONCERNED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.

YES, BUT NOT THEY DIDN'T REALLY EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE CASE PER SE.

JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THAT COMPONENT OF IT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CHARACTERIZATION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.

I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION AT THIS TIME. YES, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONDITION PERMIT SUBJECT TO A CONDITION RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND STAFF HAS NOT HEARD MANY COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PROJECT AROUND THE ROAD. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. JOHNSON AND A SECOND BY MR. GREEN. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. AYE.

IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED? I HEAR NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.

IN THIS CASE IS APPROVED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

[1b. CUP-2026-101049 Varina Charisse Cofield: conditional use permit to convert an attached garage to an accessory dwelling unit at 1401 Neblett Court, Village at Olde Colony, Varina. Parcel 803-696-8956. Zoning: R-3C, One-Family Residence District (Conditional). Code Section: 24-4406. ]

THE NEXT CASE IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2026, NUMBER 101049.

SCOFIELD. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 1401 NEBLETT COURT IN THE VILLAGE OF OLD COLONY IN THE VARINA

[00:15:02]

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS JOINING US ON WEBEX.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE? PLEASE STAND TO BE SWORN IN. ALL RIGHT, MR. GIDLEY.

GOOD MORNING. I DIDN'T GET SWORN IN TO, IF THAT'S IMPORTANT.

DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE OLD COLONY SUBDIVISION.

THIS IS BETWEEN ROUTE FIVE AND OSBORNE TURNPIKE, JUST NORTH OF LABURNUM AVENUE.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONVERT THE GARAGE INTO AN ADU TO HOUSE AN ELDERLY PARENT.

THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE HERE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WOULD CONTAIN A BEDROOM, A BATHROOM, A LIVING ROOM, AND A KITCHEN. AFTER YOU GET THROUGH ADDING ADDITIONAL WALLS AND INSULATION, IT WOULD COME TO AROUND 400FT², WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR AN ADU ON THIS PROPERTY.

THIS IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE AT THE END.

AS FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS, STAFF ANTICIPATES FEW, IF ANY, ON.

CONVERTING THE EXISTING GARAGE TO AN ADU WOULD NOT INCREASE THE SCALE OF THE HOME, AND HAVING AN ELDERLY PARENT RESIDE ON THE PROPERTY WITH THEIR FAMILY WOULD HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE DRIVEWAY, EVEN ONCE THE GARAGE IS CONVERTED, THE DRIVEWAY IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THREE VEHICLES, SO THAT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM EITHER. AS A RESULT, STAFF SEES LITTLE, IF ANY, IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. GOODLEY THIS TIME? OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT WHO'S ON WEBEX.

YES. THAT'S CORRECT. STAFF, CAN WE CONNECT TO MISS CAUFIELD, PLEASE? WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY SOUND IN THE MEETING ROOM.

RIGHT NOW, HE'S WORKING ON IT. APOLOGIZE. OKAY.

HELLO. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. OKAY. GOOD MORNING AGAIN.

MY NAME IS CHERISE COFIELD. I JUST AM ON HERE IN CASE I NEEDED TO SPEAK, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO WHAT THE GENTLEMAN PRESENTED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING. CAN YOU TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE AND WHO'S GOING TO LIVE IN THE UNIT AND THAT SORT OF THING? YES, SURE. WE ARE CONVERTING THE GARAGE SPACE SO THAT MY MOTHER CAN LIVE WITH US.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY PURPOSE OF CONVERTING THE SPACE JUST TO GIVE HER A PLACE TO STAY THAT HAS A LITTLE BIT OF INDEPENDENCE FROM THE MAIN DWELLING OF THE HOME. SO NO FURTHER PLANS THAN THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MISS COFIELD, IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE BOARD THAT HAS QUESTIONS OR NO QUESTIONS? COULD YOU PUT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PASSED SOME LEGISLATION OR RELATIVE TO ANY USE? COULD YOU JUST GIVE US A QUICK REFRESHER AUDIENCE MYSELF AND HOW THAT IMPACTS US? I KNOW WE'RE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN DIFFERENT, BUT JUST JUST TRYING TO REFRESH MYSELF A LITTLE BIT.

YES, SIR. AS PART OF OUR OVERALL EFFORT TOWARD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOES NOW, AS OF JULY. WELL, ON JULY 1ST AND AFTER COUNTIES IN VIRGINIA AND CITIES AND TOWNS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BY RIGHT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, UNLESS THEY ALREADY HAD AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION.

BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN REVIEWING AND APPROVING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR MANY FOR SEVERAL YEARS, FIVE YEARS, OUR LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT FACT IN FRONT OF OUR LEGISLATORS AND THEY SAID, WELL, IF IT'S WORKING FOR YOU, YOU CAN CONTINUE DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE STATE IS GOING TO START ALLOWING THEM BY. RIGHT? SO IS THAT GOING TO LEAD TO CONFUSION WHERE PEOPLE IN HENRICO THINK THAT THEY CAN JUST DO THINGS WITHOUT REALIZING THEY STILL MAY HAVE TO COME TO US?

[00:20:03]

AND IS THAT WHAT IS THAT GOING TO CAUSE FOLKS TO HAVE TO STOP, GET APPROVAL? I MEAN, HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THAT MESSAGE OUT THAT WE'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE? WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF THOSE PHONE CALLS ALREADY AT OUR PERMIT CENTER, JUST ASKING, WHY DO I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS? DIDN'T YOU GUYS HEAR ABOUT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION? AND WE'VE HAD TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THEM. BUT THEY'RE PICKED UP AT BUILDING PERMIT. THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR CAME IN APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. THE RENOVATIONS THEY WERE DOING SHOWED A KITCHEN, WHICH WOULD BE THE SECOND KITCHEN IN THE HOUSE.

AND AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT KIND OF TRIGGERS US TO START ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS.

IS THIS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT? SO THAT'S THE POINT AT WHICH WE PICK IT UP AND WOULD EXPLAIN TO THE APPLICANT THAT YOU, YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO US.

BUT, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WELL, I GUESS EVERYBODY'S GOING TO ALWAYS GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

THEY'RE REQUIRED TO. NOT EVERYONE DOES. BUT IT IS A REQUIREMENT.

OKAY. JUST JUST WANT TO REFRESH IT. THANK YOU.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT, MR. GREEN. GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS GETTING MORE AND MORE INTRUSIVE IN LOCAL ZONING MATTERS, BUT AS USUAL, HENRICO KIND OF LEADS THE PACK.

WE TEND TO BE PROACTIVE. SO I THINK WE ANTICIPATED WHAT WAS COMING DOWN THE LINE AND ADOPTED OUR ORDINANCE BEFORE WE GOT PREEMPTED.

SO I THINK THAT WAS GOOD FOR HENRICO. BUT I AGREE THAT IT MAY CAUSE SOME CONFUSION.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS LIKE CHESTERFIELD, HANOVER, RICHMOND, THEY ALL HAVE ORDINANCES AS WELL.

OR. I KNOW THE CITY OF RICHMOND HAS ALLOWED THEM BY RIGHT FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

THEY ORIGINALLY DID IT THE SAME WAY AS US, AND THEN THEY DECIDED TO JUST ALLOW IT BY RIGHT.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, CHESTERFIELD REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC ORDINANCE THAT WOULD.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE STATE LEGISLATION WILL AFFECT THEM.

AND JUST TO. ALSO FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE PEOPLE HERE TOO, IF MISS COFIELD SIMPLY WANTED TO TURN HER GARAGE INTO ANOTHER BEDROOM OR A LIVING AREA THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

RIGHT. WHAT TRIGGERS IT IS THE BATHROOM AND KITCHEN FACILITIES.

THAT'S THE MAIN THING. AND YOU KNOW, IT DOES HAVE A SEPARATE ENTRANCE.

SO YOU CAN COME INTO AND OUT OF THIS UNIT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE HOUSE AT ALL.

SO IT IS AN INDEPENDENT DWELLING UNIT. IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE PRINCIPAL.

OKAY. YES. THIS ONE. YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU. MR.. YES, SIR. WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

WE DID HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. PUBLIC HEARING. MR. GAILEY CONFUSED ME BECAUSE HE'S STILL AT THE PODIUM. SO I FORGOT WE'D ALREADY HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT.

OKAY. SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE? THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE ON WEBEX FOR THIS BESIDES THE APPLICANT. OKAY.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE? HEARING NONE. THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UNLESS THERE IS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.

I THINK WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.

YES. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING.

THE UNIT WILL BE PART OF THE HOUSE NOW. IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT LIVING SPACE FOR FAMILY AS WELL. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. WE HAVE A WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. JOHNSON AND A SECOND BY MR. MASSIE. YES, SIR.

YES. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. AYE.

ANYONE OPPOSED? I DON'T HEAR ANY OPPOSITION. THE MOTION CARRIES.

THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS APPROVED. THANK YOU, MISS COCO.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2026 NUMBER 101050. DAMON MURPHY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT A POOL HOUSE TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT

[1c. CUP-2026-101050 Varina Damon Murphy: conditional use permit to convert a pool house to an accessory dwelling unit at 1030 Berryhill Road, Richmond Heights, Varina. Parcel 800-693-2105. Zoning: R-3, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4406. ]

AT 1030 BERRY HILL ROAD IN RICHMOND HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION IN THE VARINA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WITH EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE? PLEASE STAND AND. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.

DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES. THANK YOU, MISS ROSS.

THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1030 BERRY HILL ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 0.41 MILES WEST OF WILTON ROAD IN THE VARINA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY IS 1.64 ACRES IN AREA, IMPROVED WITH A 3466 SQUARE FOOT COLONIAL STYLE HOME, A SWIMMING POOL, A DETACHED GARAGE AND A STORAGE BUILDING, WHICH WE CAN ALSO REFER TO AS THE POOL HOUSE.

[00:25:01]

ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ARE ZONED R-3 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, THE LOTS RANGE FROM 1 TO 5 ACRES IN SIZE. THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED IN THE FRONT CENTER OF THE LOT, 80FT FROM BERRYHILL ROAD. THE REAR PORTION OF THE LOT IS WOODED.

THE STORAGE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2005 BY A PREVIOUS OWNER.

THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2018.

COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE DID RECEIVE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE.

THE COMPLAINANT CLAIMED THAT SOMEONE WAS LIVING IN THE STRUCTURE.

THE. INSPECTOR CAME OUT, REVIEWED THE CASE, AND THEN MR. MURPHY APPLIED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO HAVE EVERYTHING COME UP TO LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

THE PROPOSED ADU. MEASURES 768FT² IN SIZE. THIS IS ACTUALLY AN ERROR IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE STAFF REPORT SAYS 384FT². THAT WAS MY MISTAKE.

IT'S TWO STORIES. SO IT IS 768FT². BUT IT'S STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ALLOWED 800FT².

FOR A ADU ON THIS PROPERTY. THE BUILDING IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE LOT AND CONNECTED TO THE DRIVEWAY.

THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE RIGHT ON THE EAST SIDE IS WOODED AND UNIMPROVED PARCEL.

THE BUILDING HAS EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS.

THE STRUCTURE IS SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING, AND THERE SHOULD BE NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND YOU CAN SEE SOME PICTURES OF THE STRUCTURE. IT'S EXISTED.

AND MR. MURPHY IF THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED, WE'LL HAVE TO APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO MAKE SURE ALL OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE IS UP TO CODE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE STAFF REPORT FOUND NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OH, WE DID RECEIVE SOME COMMENTS.

I'M SORRY, I SHOULD MENTION THAT WE RECEIVED FOUR EMAILS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REQUEST.

THOSE WERE LEFT ON THE TABLE FOR YOU THIS MORNING. THANK YOU, MISS MR. RASMUS. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, MR. JOHNSON OR MISS RASMUS.

I SEE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD? YEAH. YES, SIR.

THE FACT THAT IT'S IN SUCH A RURAL AREA IS PRETTY CONSISTENT.

HOW HOW IS SOMEBODY KNOW THAT THEY STAND IN THERE? I MEAN, HOW? I MEAN, WHOSE BUSINESS IS THAT? BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER.

I MEAN, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU GOT THE COMPLAINT, HOW DID IT COME IN IF SOMEBODY.

WAS IT A LOUD NOISE. DOGS BARKING, PARTYING. I MEAN THERE WAS NO DETAILS ON IT, JUST THAT THE COMPLAINANT SAID THAT THERE WAS SOMEONE LIVING IN THE STRUCTURE.

SO I'M NOT ENTIRELY POSITIVE HOW THEY KNEW THAT.

I DIDN'T INQUIRE FURTHER. THANK YOU. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME.

CONCERNS ABOUT RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORS TO IT.

YES. YEAH. THE NEIGHBORS FEEL KIND OF OUR STANDARD COMMENTS THAT WE GET ON ADU APPLICATIONS.

FOLKS JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT.

I THINK THAT IN COMPARED TO SOME OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN, THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD LOT FOR THIS USE.

IT'S A LOT LARGER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER ADUS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE COUNTY.

THE IMMEDIATE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR IS AN UNIMPROVED LOT.

HE HAS A LOT OF YOU KNOW, WOODED AREA IN THE REAR.

SO I THINK THAT THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT IN GENERAL IS, IS MINIMAL, IF ANY.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONFUSION, MR. JOHNSON, THAT THIS MIGHT BE A THIRD UNIT, BECAUSE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS KNEW THERE WAS A HOUSE AND KNEW THAT THIS BUILDING HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO AN ADU, AND THE TERM POOL HOUSE WAS USED IN THE APPLICATION.

AND SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT WAS A THIRD STRUCTURE THAT WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A DWELLING.

SO YES, THE STRUCTURE IS THE FURTHEST FROM THE POOL, WHICH I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSION.

BUT THE THREE THE THREE CAR GARAGE IS NOT WHAT'S BEING CONVERTED.

IT'S THIS IT'S THIS ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE OVER HERE.

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO CHANGE INTO THEIR BATHING SUITS WHEN THEY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE JUST OUT IN THE OPEN, I DON'T KNOW, I DIDN'T ASK YOU MIGHT GET SOME WORK IN PLACE.

MAYBE NOT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE THIS WAS LEFT AND I'M JUST NOW SEEING THIS ONE OF THE IF YOU GO THROUGH AND YOU READ THE JUNE 22ND TO US IN REFERENCE TO THAT YOU KNOW, NUMBER, ITEM NUMBER THREE ADDRESSES SOME CONCERNS, I THINK I'M NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY PUBLICLY SAY, BUT I WOULD ASK US TO LOOK AT IT.

SO I GUESS I CAN SEE NOW WHY NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT'S A CONCERN.

[00:30:04]

THEY COULD DO THAT WITHOUT THE DWELLING UNIT. YEAH.

SO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

THANK YOU, MISS ROSS. AT THIS TIME WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

MR. MURPHY, I GUESS. GOOD MORNING SIR. GOOD MORNING.

BOARD. THIS IS PRETTY, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, SARAH I THINK ANSWERED MOST OF THE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M WILLING TO TAKE YOUR NAME, TOO. OH. I'M SORRY.

IT'S DAMON MURPHY, LAST NAME, MURPHY. I KNOW, I ALSO GOT SOME THE COPIES OF THE OPPOSITION.

THEY ARE EXTRAORDINARILY DISCONCERTING TO ME.

BUT RATHER THAN MAYBE ADDRESS SOME OF THE. OTHER ISSUES, I FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT BE BEST IF I JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THIS STRUCTURE WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY FAMILY ONLY.

IT WOULD NEVER BE USED AS AN AIRBNB. IT WOULD IT WOULD BE STRICTLY USED FOR FAMILY.

BUT I KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE WATCHING AND I'M SURE THAT THEY'LL KEEP ME HONEST.

SO THIS IS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE.

I BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 2018 AND YOU KNOW, WHEN THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT.

YES, SIR. IT WAS BUILT IN 2005. AND AT THAT TIME, AT THE TIME THAT YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WHAT SHAPE WAS THIS BUILDING? IT WAS IN REALLY GOOD SHAPE. IT HAD BEEN I MEAN, IT WAS IT WAS IT WAS LIVABLE IN 2018.

SO SO THE KITCHEN, BATHROOM, ALL OF THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE.

WE, WE DEFINITELY IMPROVED IT WITHOUT EVEN THINKING OR HAVING ANY IDEA.

AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BASED ON THE CONFUSION THAT EXISTS HERE, ALSO KNEW THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, A LIVABLE STRUCTURE. I THINK THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE BEFORE US HAD PRETTY MUCH OUTLINED THAT, AND EVERYONE SORT OF ASSUMED IT. YOU ASKED A MINUTE AGO, MR. GREEN, IF YOU HAD TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THESE. AND I SAID, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES. THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY CONVERTED THAT TO A DWELLING WITHOUT ANY BUILDING PERMITS.

SO IF HE THEN IMPROVED IT, JUST MODERNIZE IT.

BUT HE NECESSARILY NEEDED TO HAVE GOTTEN A BUILDING PERMIT.

WELL, HE BOUGHT IT. SO IT'S NOW HIS VIOLATION.

SO. THAT'S. RIGHT. THAT'S WHY HE'S HERE THIS MORNING BECAUSE HE WAS NOTIFIED THAT THAT WAS NOT LAWFUL.

HE OWNS IT NOW. SO IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO CURE IT.

CORRECT? NO. I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT IF IT WAS HE BOUGHT IT.

HE JUST WANTED TO DO A SLIGHT RENOVATION TO THE KITCHEN, PUT IN A NEW.

WHAT DO YOU NEED, A BUILDING? YEAH. PUT IN A NEW PUT IN CABINETS, PUT IN A NEW DISHWASHER, SINK AND ALL THAT. I MEAN, YEAH, IT DEPENDS ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

IF YOU'RE RUNNING NEW ELECTRICAL, YOU CERTAINLY KNEW.

HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE ON THE PROPERTY? NOW FOR.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. MURPHY? OKAY.

HEARING NONE, WE WILL THEN HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE, PLEASE LET US KNOW AT THIS TIME.

ANYONE ON WEBEX? MR.. NOT FOR THIS CASE. OKAY.

AND DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE? I DO NOT HEAR ANY. SO HEARING NONE IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? OR ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION, MR. JOHNSON, OR DO YOU WANT TO GET SOME MORE QUESTIONS, YOU ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE JUST MENTIONED.

I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY OUR STAFF AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND THE BUILDING HAS BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS, AND THERE WILL BE ALLOWED, IT WILL ALLOW THE OWNER TO BRING THE PROPERTY TO OUR COMPLIANCE.

THANK YOU. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. JOHNSON AND A SECOND BY MR. GREEN. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. AYE.

IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. THE MOTION IS APPROVED AND THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS GRANTED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE NEXT TWO CASES HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE HAS JOINED US SINCE THEN, BUT 1011093 AND 101260 HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN,

[00:35:03]

WILL NOT BE RELEASED. SO WE ARE FINISHED WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.

WE HAVE FIVE VARIANCES THIS MORNING. THE FIRST IS VARIANCE 2026.

[2a. VAR-2026-100864 Varina Remnant Real Estate Solutions, LLC: variance from the lot area requirement to build a single-family dwelling at 4307 3rd Street, Windsor Place, Varina. The applicant has 5,000 square feet lot area where the Zoning Ordinance requires 6,000 square feet lot area. The applicant requests a variance of 1,000 square feet lot area. Parcel 809 721-1027. Zoning: R-4, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-6402.A.2. ]

NUMBER 100864. REMNANT REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS LLC.

A VARIANCE FROM THE LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 4307 THIRD STREET IN WINDSOR PLACE IN THE MARINA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

FOR EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN IN. OH, I'M SORRY, THE APPLICANT IS ON WEBEX FOR THIS ONE AS WELL. YES, SORRY. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON WEBEX. NO ONE ELSE IS STANDING, SO MR. GOODLEY. THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M AT YOUR DESK AS A FLOOR PLAN THAT CAME IN CAME IN WHEN THE STAFF REPORT WAS PREPARED.

WE. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW THE PROPOSED RESIDENTS WOULD LOOK.

SO THE APPLICANT EMAILED THAT AND OVERNIGHT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE WINDSOR PLACE SUBDIVISION, WHICH, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE FROM THE AERIAL IS ACROSS FROM THE MASONIC HOME.

THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED IN 1921, AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE WITH A NUMBER OF 25 FOOT WIDE LOTS THAT TYPICALLY GET COMBINED SO YOU CAN BUILD A HOME ON THEM.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THIS CASE CONSISTS OF 525 FOOT WIDE LOTS AND CONTAINS A DWELLING THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE.

THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY, THE HOUSE AND THE PICTURE WOULD BE ON THREE LOTS.

THOSE THREE LOTS WOULD COMBINE AND COMBINE WOULD MEET THE LOT AREA AND LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS.

THE OTHER TWO LOTS ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BUILD A NEW HOME ON IT.

AND THESE ARE THE OTHER TWO LOTS HERE. ONCE THE DETACHED GARAGE IS REMOVED, THE TWO LOTS WOULD MEET THE LOT WITH REQUIREMENT OF 50FT.

BUT AT 5000FT², THEY WOULD BE SHY OF THE 6000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA REQUIREMENT.

AS A RESULT, THEY ARE APPLYING FOR A LOT AREA VARIANCE AND REVIEWING THE TEST FOR VARIANCE.

AS YOU KNOW, ONE THRESHOLD TEST MUST BE MET. THE SECOND TEST IS MET IN SACHSE OPINION.

THE REMAINING TWO LOTS ARE BUILDABLE ONTO THE ADOPTION OF THE LOTTERY AND LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS IN 1945.

SO THERE WAS A CHANGE IN CODE THAT RENDERED THESE TWO LOTS UNBUILDABLE.

SINCE THE THRESHOLD TEST IS MET, ALL FIVE SUBTESTS NEED TO BE MET.

WE BELIEVE THOSE ARE MET. WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL CASES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE PRETTY SIMILAR TO THIS.

SOME WE'VE RECOMMENDED APPROVALS. FOR, SOME WE'VE RECOMMENDED DENIAL.

IT REALLY DEPENDS UPON WHAT'S IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.

BECAUSE IT DOES VARY. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS KIND OF A MIXED PICTURE.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. THE HOMES BESIDE IT ARE ON LARGE LOTS, BUT ACROSS THE STREET, IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET ARE MUCH NARROWER LOT.

SO IT WAS KIND OF A MIXED PICTURE. THE LOT DOES MEET THE LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS.

AND WE WENT AHEAD AND DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THIS CASE BASED ON THE MIXTURE OF LOTS.

THERE IS ROOM FOR A HOME ON THE SITE TO MEET SETBACKS, SO THAT'S ANOTHER PLUS IN THIS CASE.

SO AS A RESULT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. GOODLEY? OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT STAFF.

CAN WE CONNECT JOANNA LOWE, PLEASE.

WE ARE NOT HEARING ANYTHING IN THE ROOM.

MISS LOWE, ARE YOU WITH US? STEPH, WE'RE STILL NOT HEARING ANYTHING FROM MISS LOWE.

I'M GETTING A MESSAGE NOW. OKAY. APPLICANT IS TRYING TO UNMUTE.

OKAY. MISS. WE'RE STILL WE'RE STILL NOT HEARING YOU. IF YOU'RE SPEAKING. I'M SORRY.

WE'RE NOT HEARING YOU.

[00:40:17]

THEY'VE ALL BEEN THERE. CAN WE HEAR FROM YOU? YEAH. YEAH. THAT MAY BE BEST IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MISS LOW, YOU CONTINUE TO TRY TO GET YOUR SOUND WORKING AND LET US KNOW AS SOON AS YOU DO, AND WE'LL PROCEED. OKAY, SO LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANYONE.

OKAY. OH, THERE WE GO. SORRY. I WAS WAITING FOR PERMISSION TO BE UNMUTED.

OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. YEAH. YES. SO YEAH, I'M JOANNA LOWE WITH REMNANT REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. AND YES, AS YOU HAVE SAID, I WANT TO TAKE TWO OF THESE FIVE LOTS TO BUILD A NEW HOME.

IT, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE'S OTHER NEW CONSTRUCTION GOING ON IN THE AREA RIGHT ON THE NEXT STREET OVER.

AND THOSE LOTS ARE SMALLER AS WELL AS THE LOTS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM MY PROPERTY.

I'LL KEEP THE, THE MAIN HOUSE THAT IS EXISTING AS A RENTAL AND THEN BUILD NEW CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS 14 AND 15.

THAT IS THE PLAN. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS LOWE.

DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS, MISS LOWE? FROM ANYONE ON THE BOARD? THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS WHEN WE BUILT THIS.

NOT FROM THIS LITTLE STAFF, REMEMBER? WE RAN INTO THAT THING.

WHEN YOU BUILD THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, YOU MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THE ADDRESS OF THOSE NEIGHBORS.

HOUSES HAVE TO CHANGE. IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE? YES, SIR. I DID LOOK INTO THAT. AND HER HOUSE 4307, WHICH SHE JUST PURCHASED, IS THE ONE THAT WILL HAVE TO BE RENUMBERED.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE NUMBERS GO FROM 43 TO 5. THEN THERE'S SOME SPACE AND THEN 43, OH SEVEN AND THEN A LITTLE SPACE AND THEN 4317.

SO THE HOUSE THAT SHE OWNS, THE EXISTING HOUSE WILL BE BUMPED UP TO PROBABLY 4313 AND THEN THIS NEW HOUSE WILL BE 4309 OR 4311.

I DID ASK STAFF ABOUT THAT. SO THERE WILL BE ONE PERSON INCONVENIENCE THAT IT WILL BE THE APPLICANT.

OKAY. THAT'S SIMPLE. OKAY. THAT'S AN EASY FIX.

I WAS PREPARED FOR YOUR QUESTION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, MS. LOWE? AND ARE OKAY WITH THAT? I DO, YES. MR. JOHNSON, YOU WILL BE DOING THAT AS WELL.

MAKING SURE THAT'S DONE. OH OF COURSE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE? OTHER THAN IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE? THERE'S NO ONE ELSE ON WEBEX. OKAY. HEARING NONE THEN UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD, WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND IF YOU CONDITION DO THE CONDITIONS YOU JUST MENTIONED, THEN I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR THE. AND THE PROPERTY IS OTHERWISE ARE SUITABLE FOR DWELLING AND THE PROPOSED DWELLING WILL FIT INTO THE. THE OTHER TEST ARE MET AS STATED IN THE STAFF AS WELL. AGAIN. DO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. JOHNSON? IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. BROADWAY? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NO. HEARING? NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES. AND THE CONDITIONAL.

I'M SORRY. THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED. THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU MISS. THE NEXT CASE IS VARIANCE 2026 NUMBER 101029.

[2b. VAR-2026-101029 Tuckahoe Jennifer Radakovic for Bryan and Erin Fratkin: variance from the accessory structure setback to build a swimming pool at 5 Cedaridge Road, Cedar Ridge, Tuckahoe. The applicant has 28 feet accessory structure setback where the Zoning Ordinance requries 50 feet accessory structure setback. The applicant requests a variance of 22 feet accessory structure setback. Parcel 748-733-2739. Zoning: R-1, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4404.A.9. ]

JENNIFER RADAKOVIC FOR BRIAN AND AARON FRADKIN.

A VARIANCE FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL AT FIVE CEDAR RIDGE ROAD IN THE CEDAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION IN THE TUCKAHOE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

BUT EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN IN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,

[00:45:04]

MISS. THANK YOU SIR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF RIVER ROAD IN THE CEDAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION.

IT IS BOUNDED BY CEDAR RIDGE ROAD, GREEN TREE DRIVE AND HERNDON ROAD.

THE FRONT OF THE LOT FACES CEDAR RIDGE ROAD, MAKING HERNDON ROAD THE REAR LOT LINE BECAUSE THE REAR YARD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS A PUBLIC STREET, ANY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MUST MEET THE SAME SETBACK AS THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS 50FT. THIS REGULATION IS INTENDED TO MAINTAIN A CONSISTENT CHARACTER ALONG THE STREET, RATHER THAN HAVING ONE REAR YARD IN THE MIDDLE OF SEVERAL FRONT YARDS.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION FROM A PHYSICIAN THAT A LAP POOL IN THE REAR YARD IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE WITH A PERSON, A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY. THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS A LAP POOL, A POOL HOUSE AND A SEATING AREA.

THE POOL HOUSE AND SEATING AREA AND A PORTION OF THE LAP POOL WOULD MEET THE 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM HERNDON ROAD.

HOWEVER, PART OF THE LAP POOL WOULD EXTEND INTO THE SETBACK.

THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY SLOPES STEEPLY DOWN THE STREET AND IS SCREENED BY MATURE LANDSCAPING.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS WHERE THE POOL WILL BE LOCATED. AND THEN THE YARD DOES SLOPE.

THERE ARE NO DWELLINGS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HERNDON ROAD FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND IT'S.

IT'S EASIER TO SEE IN AN AERIAL MAP, BUT I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A PHOTO AS WELL.

THIS IS THE PHOTO FROM HERNDON. AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DRIVEWAY.

WHILE THE POOL CANNOT MEET THE 50 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED AT THIS LOCATION, IT WILL BE SET BACK 28FT FROM THE REAR LOT LINE, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE IN MOST SITUATIONS.

ONE PART OF THE THREE PART THRESHOLD TEST HAS BEEN MET, AND BECAUSE OF VARIANCE, IS NECESSARY TO MAKE A REASONABLE MODIFICATION FOR A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MISS RASMUS.

DOES ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST HAD ONE, MISS ROSS.

WILL THE POOL HOUSE THAT'S SHOWN ON THE PLANS, WILL THAT REQUIRE A SEPARATE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? NO, IT'S LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD. SO THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT'D BE ALLOWED BY.

RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, MR. JOHNSON. I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST I WAS LOOKING AT THE SCENE BEFORE.

WAS THAT ANOTHER ROAD OR SOMETHING? YEAH. SO IT'S THE AERIAL IS A LITTLE EASIER TO SEE.

SO THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS TWO DRIVEWAYS.

THERE'S THIS DRIVEWAY UP HERE, AND THEN THEY KIND OF HAVE LIKE A SECOND DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO THE BACK.

SO THIS IS GREEN TREE. AND THEN HERNDON KIND OF LIKE COMES I'M SORRY, HERNDON COMES OVER HERE.

SO THIS PHOTO IS I WAS STANDING IN THIS CORNER RIGHT HERE TAKING A PHOTO, TAKING THE PICTURE FACING THE HOUSE.

SO HERNDON IS KIND OF BEHIND ME. AND THEN THIS IS THE WAY TO THE DRIVEWAY.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE IS A LITTLE BIT OVER HERE. SO IT'S VERY WOODED.

THERE'S NOT ANY DIRECT NEIGHBORS IN THE REAR.

SO THE THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT IS PRETTY MINIMAL, IF ANY.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE.

THANK YOU. MR.. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

JENNIFER RADAKOVIC I GUESS FOR BRIAN AND AARON FRACKING.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME TOO, JUST FOR THE RECORD.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JENNIFER RADAKOVIC. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS, BRIAN AND ERIN FRATKIN JUNIOR, TO SPELL THE LAST NAME. OKAY. IT'S NOT AN EASY ONE.

MY CLIENTS PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY AT THE END OF 2025.

THEY'RE MOVING FROM THEIR CURRENT HOME IN HENRICO TO A HOME THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE LEVEL LIVING TO ACCOMMODATE MY CLIENT WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE PRETTY, PRETTY SERIOUS.

AND SO THEY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE INTENTION OF, HEY, WE HAVE OVER AN ACRE SIZED LOT.

IT'S A BIG BACKYARD. THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM FOR A POOL.

AND THEN WE HAD TO BREAK THE NEWS TO THEM THAT WE HAVE THE, THE ADDITIONAL REAR YARD SETBACK BECAUSE OF THE STREET FRONTAGE.

AND SO IN ANY OTHER CASE, THIS WOULD, I THINK THE SWIMMING POOL WOULD BE ALLOWED BY.

RIGHT. IF THERE WEREN'T A STREET BEHIND IT AND THERE'S NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS FAIRLY SMALL.

IT'S A WOODED LOT. WE'VE READ THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO HELP SCREEN THE PROPERTY AND WE'RE WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THOSE REQUESTS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU, MR. RADAKOVIC. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.

HEARING NONE, WE WILL THEN OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE?

[00:50:01]

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE FROM WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE? IT'S KNOWN ON WEBEX FOR THIS CASE.

OKAY. I DON'T HEAR ANYONE. SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL SEE IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.

AND IF NOT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN BASED ON THE ON THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THE 50 FOOT SETBACK SEEMS UNREASONABLE, BUT THE 28 FOOT SETBACK IS REASONABLE. THE POOL IS A NECESSARY ACCOMMODATION FOR A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY.

AND ALSO NOTICE THERE ARE SEVERAL EMAILS FROM NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.

SO IN THAT SENSE I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BROADWAY. SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. GREEN. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE AYE AYE.

ALL OPPOSED? SAY NO. HEARING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT CASE IS VARIANCE 2026.

[2c. VAR-2026-101039 Brookland Lee Shadbolt: variance from the rear yard setback to build a patio roof over an existing deck at 3909 Shae Place, Shae Place, Brookland. The applicant has 35 feet rear yard setback where the Zoning Ordinance requires 45 feet rear yard setback. The applicant requests a variance of 10 feet rear yard setback. Parcel 767-774-4730. Zoning: R-2, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-3307.D. ]

NUMBER 101039. LEE SHADBOLT. VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO BUILD A PATIO ROOF OVER AN EXISTING DECK AT 3909 SHEA PLACE IN THE SHEA PLACE SUBDIVISION IN THE BROOKLYN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

BUT EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN IN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO, I DO. MISS RASMUS. THANK YOU SIR.

SUBJECT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3909 SHEA PLACE, ONE QUARTER MILE FROM INTERSTATE 295 IN THE BROOKLYN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT WITH A 2962 SQUARE FOOT COLONIAL STYLE HOME BUILT IN 2005.

THE APPLICANT HAS A EXISTING 25 BY 15 FOOT REAR DECK OR DECK IN THE REAR OF THE HOME THAT EXTENDS INTO THE.

IT EXTENDS WITHIN 35FT OF THE REAR LOT LINE. BECAUSE UNCOVERED DECKS ARE ALLOWED TO EXTEND UP TO TEN FEET TO.

INTO THE REQUIRED 45 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. THE EXISTING DECK COMPLIES WITH THE CODE.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACING THE EXISTING DECK WITH BUILDING A PATIO ROOF OVERHEAD.

BECAUSE A COVERED PORCH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE SAME SETBACKS AS THE REST OF THE HOUSE. THIS WOULD ENCROACH TEN FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK. AS A RESULT, THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING A TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.

VARIANCE? NO, NO. PART OF THE THREE PART TEST APPEARS TO BE MET.

STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR A VARIANCE. THE THRESHOLD TEST IS NOT MET.

THREE YARD SETBACK IS REASONABLE AND HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.

IN ADDITION TO THE THRESHOLD TEST, THE CODE OF VIRGINIA REQUIRES ALL FIVE SUBTESTS TO BE MET.

AND BECAUSE THIS IS A GENERAL AND REOCCURRING SITUATION, SUB TEST THREE IS NOT MET.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE REAR YARD DOES HAVE A TALL PRIVACY FENCE AND IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ALONG A A FAIRLY BUSY ROAD MILL ROAD. SO THE REAR YARD DETRIMENT IS MINIMAL IF ANY.

SO THAT IS A POSITIVE FOR THIS, BUT THE CASE AS WE SEE MANY OF THESE REAR YARD COVERED DECKS DOES NOT MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A VARIANCE.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED.

OH YEAH. SIX I THINK EMAILS OR SIX PAGES. IN SUPPORT.

YEAH. SIX SIX EMAILS IN SUPPORT. SURE. SO THEY DON'T TECHNICALLY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT UNDER THE ORDINANCE. BUT IT DOES BACK UP TO A ROAD AND I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE PRIVACY FENCE, THERE IS SOME PROPERTY BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE ROAD, WHICH I GUESS IS PROBABLY PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

YES. SO IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE REAR YARD FOOTAGE, BUT IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY PART OF THEIR FOOTAGE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE? YEAH, YEAH.

WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT PART OF THE THE PROPERTY SO WOULD NOT GO INTO THE SETBACK CALCULATION.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IN THEORY LOOKING AT IT, THEY DO HAVE THAT LITTLE EXTRA RIGHT OF WAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTIES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD ARGUE I HAVE THE DEEPEST RESPECT FOR STAFF.

AND YOUR EVALUATION, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THERE IS AN UNUSUAL CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A PHYSICAL HARDSHIP.

BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THEY HAVE MORE REAR YARD FRONTAGE THIS LOT.

IT'S KIND OF ODDLY CONFIGURED THE WAY IT COMES IN.

BUT WHEN YOU COME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU DON'T EVEN REALLY SEE THEIR BACKYARD BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PRIVACY FENCE AND THE NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEM THAT HOUSE IS ASKEW.

SO THIS WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO EFFECT APPEARS TO ME IN TERMS OF VISUAL, WHICH IS A CONCERN THAT I HAVE ON THESE CASES.

[00:55:08]

YOU KNOW, I TEND TO BE MORE JUDICIOUS ON THESE CASES THAN MY COLLEAGUES, PROBABLY. BUT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THOSE POINTS.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE STAFF CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

BUT I WOULD, I WOULD PROBABLY ALSO COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL ASPECT TO THIS PROPERTY THAT COULD BE USED TO MEET THE FIRST TEST. YEAH. I CAN SEE WHY YOU, WHY YOU WOULD SAY THAT.

I MEAN, THE, THE PROPERTIES THAT WE LOOK AT IN THE EVALUATION ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, MOSTLY IN THIS CASE, THE ONES THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY BESIDE IT. SO I WOULD SAY AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, SIMILARITIES IN THE IN THE REAR YARDS, I THINK THAT THIS IS NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR WHAT IS ON THIS CUL DE SAC, EVEN IF THEY ARE ALL KIND OF A LITTLE WONKY, BUT THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ORDINANCE READS.

BUT THE OTHER THING THAT THIS IS NOT REALLY AN ENCLOSED PORCH.

THERE'S PUTTING A ROOF OVER AN EXISTING DECK.

AND TO ME, THAT HAS LESS VISUAL IMPACT THAN IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING AN ENCLOSED SCREEN PORCH.

SURE. AM I CORRECT ON THAT POINT? THEY'RE JUST SIMPLY PUTTING A PATIO ROOF IN.

THEY ARE. BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN STOP THEM FROM ENCLOSING IT.

SO THAT'S NOT THEIR PLAN RIGHT NOW, THOUGH THAT IS NOT THE PLAN RIGHT NOW.

BUT THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, PUT UP SOME SCREENS OR PUT UP SOME WALLS AT ANY TIME.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. RASMUS? WHETHER THEY PUT THOSE UP, THAT WILL REQUIRE BUILDING THE WALLS, AS WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE, MAYBE. YEAH. I THINK THEY'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION HERE.

I'M SURE THEY WOULD BE VIGILANT ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE BECAUSE THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

JUST BECAUSE IF THEY DECIDE TO SELL AND SOMEBODY ELSE DECIDES TO COME IN, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH BUILD AND IT COULD BE CAUGHT.

SO I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE BEING SNEAKY. I THINK THAT I THINK FOLKS ARE JUST THEY JUST DON'T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

AND THAT'S WHY WE HELP WE HELP CATCH, CATCH THEM.

SO I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. PROBABLY 90% OF THE CASES PROBABLY THERE.

YEAH, I THINK SO. I THINK PEOPLE ARE WELL INTENDED.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROSS? SHALL WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT? I'M SORRY. YEAH. CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS NOW? AND THAT'S MR. MR. MRS SHADBOLT. YES. GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS LEE SHADBOLT. SHADBOLT SHAD B AS IN BOY OLT.

AND MY WIFE, KRISTY AND I ARE THE HOMEOWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.

AND I DO HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT THAT WE SENT IN THAT HAD THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY WAY, MISS RASMUS, YOU COULD PULL THAT UP.

IT WAS ON THE TABLE BEFORE THE BOARD. SO THEY HAVE IT.

SO THERE WAS ALSO AN ADDITIONAL LETTER THAT WE SUBMITTED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED ME TO GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN OR JUST GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF IT. DO YOU HAVE THAT ONE IN FRONT OF YOU ALSO? YEAH. SO MAYBE WHAT I'LL DO IS JUST A COUPLE SUMMARY COMMENTS.

WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO IS TO KIND OF GET A LITTLE MORE USE OUT OF OUR BACK DECK.

WE ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT. WE ARE OUT THERE ALL THE TIME.

I ATE BREAKFAST THIS MORNING ON THE BACK DECK, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THE RAIL YET I WAS BACK FROM THE EDGE.

BUT I HAVE A KOI POND IN THE BACK, WHICH I ALSO LOVE, AND WE SPENT A GOOD AMOUNT OF MONEY AND EFFORT.

LITERALLY MY, YOU KNOW, BACKBONE TO PUT THE PLANTS IN.

BUT WE ADDED 43 PLANTS. AND I THINK WE'RE SPENDING SOME MONEY IN THE BACKYARD TO MAKE IT A REALLY NICE, ENJOYABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OTHER THING IS, IS WE'RE TRYING TO JUST GET WHAT KIND OF EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? THE HOUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS THE SAME HOUSE OPPOSITE HAND.

AND THEY WENT IN, PUT A POOL AND THE ROOF OVER THE DECK.

AND SO THAT EXTENDED USE IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND I THINK YOU DID BRING OUT THE POINT THAT AS AN ARCHITECT, I APPRECIATE WHEN DESIGN IS WELL DONE.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS PROPERTY, WHY OUR HOUSE ON THIS KIND OF ODDLY SHAPED PROPERTY WASN'T SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE THE BACKYARD A LITTLE SPACE. WE HAVE PLENTY OF FRONT YARD. AND I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE PULLED THE HOUSE FORWARD A LITTLE BIT.

SO THAT'S OUR HARDSHIP IS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.

I KNOW THAT'S TYPICALLY NOT WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A HARDSHIP, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEING HAMPERED BY.

AND THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN ODD CONDITION AND WE'RE ASKING YOUR PERMISSION.

[01:00:04]

CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SURE CAN. FOLLOWING UP FROM THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, THE DRAWING THAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW APPEARS PRETTY CLEARLY TO SHOW THE SCREENED PORCH.

NO, THERE IS NO SCREENED PORCH. THOSE ARE NOT THAT'S NOT SCREENED BETWEEN THOSE.

THAT'S NOT. I THINK THAT'S A SHADOW LINE. OKAY.

AND BY THE WAY, I AM THE ARCHITECT. I'M A PARTNER AT COMMONWEALTH ARCHITECTS SLASH CBL.

SO YEAH, LOOKING AT POSTS AND A ROOF AND A RAILING.

RIGHT. YEAH. RIGHT. THOSE ARE ROUND POSTS. SO TO DO A SCREENED PORCH WOULD HAVE TO BE KIND OF AN INDEPENDENT STRUCTURE INSET THAT WOULD SHOW UP A LOT MORE. YEAH. WE DO NOT I DON'T REALLY WANT A SCREENED PORCH.

IT LOOKS LIKE PART OF THE YOUR HOUSE TO AND FROM WHAT? FROM WHAT I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND ALSO FROM THE DRAWING HERE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE PORCH WOULD ACTUALLY ABUT PART OF THE HOUSE THAT ACTUALLY EXTENDS TO THE BACKYARD TOO.

YOU HAVE A WING ON THE HOUSE. YEAH. THERE IS.

THAT'S KIND OF OUR DINING AREA IN THE BACK, THE KITCHEN, NOT THE KITCHEN ITSELF, BUT THE DINING, DINING ROOM TABLE OR THE KITCHEN TABLE IS IN THAT BACK AREA.

AND THAT'S EXISTING AND IT MAKES THE SETBACKS DON'T EXTEND REALLY.

PROBABLY. WHAT MAYBE. YES. YEAH. TEN FEET. TEN FEET.

WELL WE'RE TEN FEET INTO THE SETBACK BUT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE YEAH, IT ONLY EXTENDS ABOUT SEVEN FEET.

I THINK IT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO SEE AS YOU CAN SEE THE.

YEAH. I THINK THAT'S ONLY SEVEN FEET OFF THAT.

THAT'S A GOOD PICTURE. THANK YOU. AND IF I, IF I WERE NOT MISTAKEN, YOU HAVE WHAT SEVEN HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IS THAT RIGHT. WE DO. THERE'S NO THERE'S NO HOA RIGHT.

NO THERE IS NOT BECAUSE WE LIKE TO HEAR IF THERE'S AN HOA, WE LIKE TO HAVE THEM WEIGH IN ON THESE CASES TOO.

BUT HOA AND I THINK DID YOU HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

YEAH. AND WE'VE TALKED TO EACH OF THEM. OUT OF THE SEVEN HOUSES, FOUR EITHER HAVE PATIOS OR PORCHES ALREADY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. LIKE YOU SAID, THEY'RE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE SHALLOWER FRONT YARDS.

RIGHT. DEEPER BACKYARDS. BUT AND WE'RE CLOSE FRIENDS WITH EVERYBODY.

SO WE'VE BEEN IN EVERYBODY'S PORCHES AND HOUSES AND SO FORTH.

AND IT'S A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND YEAH, WE'LL SAY YOU HAVE A NICE DOG TOO.

I WAS WHEN I WAS ACTUALLY CHECKING OUT THE PROBLEM WAS THAT YOU, I THINK I WAVED AT YOU, I WAS TRYING TO BE DISCREET, BUT I'M SURE YOU SAW ME DRIVE THROUGH. SO I SAW YOU OUT IN THE YARD WITH YOUR DOG.

SO OKAY, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE THAT WE'RE BEGINNING TO SEE MORE AND MORE OF SCREENED IN PORCHES ENCLOSURES.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST INTERESTING THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING INTO TOTAL RELATIVELY IN 11 MONTHS, 12 MONTHS OR WHATEVER THEY CALL IT, BUT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP IT OPEN LIKE THAT.

RIGHT? OKAY. YEAH. IF YOU HAD A HOUSE BEHIND YOU.

I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE. I WOULD HAVE OPTED DIFFERENTLY.

MY COLLEAGUES MAY NOT HAVE. BUT ANYWAY MY, IN MY MIND WE'VE MET TESTS THAT WE CAN CONSIDER VARIANTS ON THIS. BUT LET'S HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

DOES ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WE HAVE SIX EMAILS? IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE? THERE'S NO ONE ON WEAPONS.

IS THERE ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.

HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

THE SETBACK IS UNREASONABLE AND OUR DETERMINATION AND THERE WOULD BE NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON NEARBY PROPERTY.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION. SECOND. SECOND.

MR. BROADWAY SECONDS. MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND STAFF. THE NEXT VARIANCE IS NUMBER 2026.

[2d. VAR-2026-101086 Three Chopt Jhovanny Velazco: variance from the rear yard setback to build additions and a detached accessory structure at 4774 Hepler Ridge Way, Smith Grove at Bacova, Three Chopt. The applicant has 20 feet rear yard setback where the Zoning Ordinance requires 35 feet. The applicant requests a variance of 15 feet rear yard setback. Parcel 736-768-7764. Zoning: R-5AC, General Residence District (Conditional). Code Section: 24-3313.D. ]

NUMBER 101086. JOHNNY VELASCO. VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO BUILD ADDITIONS AND A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 4774 HEPLER RIDGE WAY, SMITH GROVE, AT IN THE THREE CHOPT MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

WOULD EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN IN. NO. PLEASE STAND. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD. THANK YOU, MR. KELLER. THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH GATEON AND CANE ROADS.

OF THE APPLICANT'S OWN. I'M SORRY. THIS IS A ZERO LOT LINE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE EACH HOME IS LOCATED ALONG ONE OF THE TWO SIDE LOT LINES.

THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS DESIGNED TO HELP INCREASE DENSITY ON ON AN ORIGINAL PARCEL, AND THAT DOES TEND TO RESULT IN SMALLER LOTS.

[01:05:13]

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE HOME HERE. THE APPLICANTS OWN A HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN 2020.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. THIS IS THEIR SITE PLAN.

THEY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH A SUNROOM AND A SCREENED PORCH ONTO THE REAR OF THE HOME, EACH OF WHICH WOULD ENCROACH 14FT INTO THE REQUIRED 35 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.

AND THIS IS A PICTURE OF IT HERE. AS A RESULT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND REVIEWING THE THRESHOLD ON TEST STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE ANY ARE MET. THE HOME WAS BUILT ONLY SIX YEARS AGO AND MEETS SETBACKS, SO STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE IT'S UNREASONABLY RESTRICTED.

THE EXPANDED AERIAL AND THE LOT ACTUALLY IS LARGER AND DEEPER THAN SOME OF THE ONES DOWN HERE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT TOOK EFFECT PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME.

AND THIS DOESN'T INVOLVE A DISABILITY. SO BECAUSE NONE OF THE THRESHOLD TESTS ARE MET, STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GIDLEY? I HAD A COUPLE. MR. GIDLEY. MR.. FOR CLARIFICATION, IS THE APPLICANT APPLYING FOR TWO SCREEN PORCHES OR.

IS THE DETACHED STRUCTURE SHOWN ON THE PLAT? IS THAT A PAVILION? I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED BY WHAT I SAW ON THE SCHEMATICS.

I GUESS THERE'S A SUNROOM HERE. WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED? THERE'S A SUN ROOM HERE AND A PORCH HERE. ARE THOSE EXISTING? NO, SIR. OKAY. AND THERE'S ALSO A DETACHED STRUCTURE, IT LOOKS LIKE.

DOES THAT REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? IT DOES NOT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL.

LET ME SPEAK TO THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP.

IT DOES NOT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT IT CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE LOCATION WHERE IT'S SHOWN.

FIRE CODE IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT TO BE TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

OKAY. SO HE CAN HAVE IT. CAN YOU BRING UP OUR SITE MAP, PLEASE? SURE. OUR SITE MAP SHOWS THAT THAT IN THAT LOCATION, IT COULD BE ALLOWED, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TEN FEET FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

AND THAT IS ADDRESSED IN YOUR PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND NOT AN ACCESSORY.

IS THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING OR NOT? NO, IT'S JUST A DETACHED LIKE A PERGOLA OR.

OH, OKAY. GOTCHA. YEAH. NO LIVING QUARTERS? NO.

JUST A ROOF OVER POST. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WITH MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY.

HEARING NONE, WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. SIR.

MR. VELASCO, SIR. IF YOU CAN RESTATE YOUR NAME, JUST FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, SIR.

YES. MY NAME IS GIOVANNI SANTIAGO, AND I JUST REQUEST THIS ADDITIONAL SUN ROOM AND SCREEN PORCH.

I GUESS. TRY TO GET MORE USABLE FOR MY TWO BOYS.

AND THEY SOMETIMES LIKE TO PLAY OUTSIDE, BUT THEY THE SPACE IS THERE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEED PERMISSION FOR YOU GUYS TO PROVE THIS.

AND I GUESS THAT'S IT FOR NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. VELASCO? IS THAT CORRECT? HOW I PRONOUNCED IT? YEAH. VELASCO, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE THIS WHAT? IT LOOKS LIKE THE PICTURE JUST SEEMS LIKE I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

THAT. ARE NOT THE SAME. THERE WAS THIS ONE HERE.

RIGHT HERE. OKAY. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED, MR. GREEN? YEAH. I MEAN, I COULD HEAR YOU ALL SEEM LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS CONCERN RIGHT HERE.

YEAH. YEAH. THE ONE AT THE TOP. I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. YEAH. WHAT IS WHAT IS THAT ON THE ON THE LOWER THE LOWER PICTURE.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOUSE EXTENDS OUT BEYOND THE PORCH.

IN THE UPPER PICTURE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S NO EXTENSION THERE.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT AS WELL. I THINK THIS WOULD BE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION HERE.

RIGHT. MR. VELASCO, MAYBE YOU CAN ADDRESS THIS THOUGH.

THAT PICTURE SHOWS A WINDOW ALL THE WAY TO THE LEFT.

YES. THAT'S WINDOW ALL THE WAY TO THE THE DRAWING ABOVE.

IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO LEAVE ROOM FOR THAT WINDOW.

SO IS THAT JUST A TRICK OF THE PERSPECTIVE? I THINK THEY'RE COMPARING HERE TO HERE.

YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF CONFUSED. BUT THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE IS GOING TO STAY WITH THE ROOF.

START FROM HERE TO ALL THE WAY. IT'S GOING TO BE A OPEN DOOR ALL THE WAY.

[01:10:03]

YEAH. SO THERE IS A WINDOW THERE. YES. AND YOU'RE NOT PLANNING TO COVER THAT WINDOW.

NO. HE'S POINTING TO THE LOWER PICTURE. BOTTOM DRAWING IS MORE ACCURATE.

SO THE BOTTOM DRAWING AND THEN WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS THE THE PORCH.

AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE A SCREEN, THE SCREEN PORCH AND A SUN AND A SUN SUN ROOM.

AND THAT'S SORT OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE NEXT TO THE SUN ROOM IS THE SCREEN PORCH.

IS IT SCREENED OR IS IT OPEN? YEAH, I COULDN'T TELL. OR IS IT, IS IT IS THAT OPEN THAT SCREEN? YEAH. HE SAID SCREENED. BUT IT LOOKS OPEN FOR YOUR SCREENS.

IT OPEN FOR TAKING THE TITLE OF THE DRAWING IS ADDITION SCREEN PORT.

SO IT'S NOT JUST. YEAH. NO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OR ON? WEBEX? WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE. IS THERE? THERE'S NO ONE ON WEBEX. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON WEBEX WISHES YOU CAN OPPOSITION THE CASE.

OKAY. HEARING NONE. UNLESS THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

WELL, ALL YOU ALL'S QUESTIONS BEEN ADDRESSED.

I THINK SO. THERE'S JUST TO JUST TO CLARIFY ALSO, MR. VELASQUEZ, I'LL ASK ONE MORE QUESTION. YOU BACK UP THE STREET, RIGHT.

THERE'S NO THERE'S NO HOUSES BEHIND THE STREET.

CORRECT? CORRECT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR LOT KIND OF A SIMILAR SITUATION AS THE LAST CASE WE HAD.

YOUR LOT LOOKS LIKE IT'S KIND OF ODDLY CONFIGURED THAN THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO YOU HAVE. YES. I GUESS IT'S A LOT OF SPACE ON THIS HOUSE ON THE BACK PATIO.

THAT'S THE ONLY HOUSE ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THIS SPACE TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD IT UP SOMETHING OR MAKE IT LOOK BETTER.

YOU KNOW, OR USABLE. THAT'S THE MAIN THING. SO YEAH.

IS THERE AN HOA IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? DO YOU KNOW OR.

YES YES, YES. THEY PREFER THAT. SO THEY HAVEN'T RAISED ANY OBJECTIONS.

YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. GREEN. SORRY.

YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO, NO. APPRECIATE THE DRAWING.

WELL, THE WAY IT LOOKS IS VERY BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU.

YEAH. I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT BACKS UP TO TO A STREET.

WITH THAT, I MOVE, WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

THE SETBACK IS UNREASONABLE. THERE WOULD BE NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON NEARBY PROPERTY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. GREEN. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND. SECOND BY MR. MASSIE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE CASE IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THAT LEAVES US WITH ONE VARIANCE AND TWO APPEALS.

ONE OF THE VARIANCE AND ONE OF THE TWO APPEALS ARE VERY CLOSELY RELATED.

THERE ARE MANY CASES, AS YOU KNOW, WHERE WE WILL CALL TWO CASES TOGETHER, WHERE THEIR COMPANION CASES BECAUSE THEY'RE INTERRELATED IN THIS CASE.

AFTER DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY, WE DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WISE MOVE HERE.

WE THINK THE APPEAL AND THE VARIANCE SHOULD EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PUBLIC HEARING, THEIR OWN PRESENTATIONS, THEIR VERY DIFFERENT DECISIONS ON THE BOARD THAT THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO MAKE.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED YOU TO HEAR THE APPEAL FIRST AND THEN THE VARIANCE.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT ORDER? YEAH. SO THAT IS THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU. THE AGENDA HAS THE VARIANCE.

FIRST, THE APPLICANT OR APPELLANT HAS ASKED YOU TO TAKE UP THE APPEAL FIRST.

IS THERE ANYONE ON THE BOARD THAT HAS ANY OBJECTION TO REVERSE ANY ORDER OF THOSE CASES? OKAY. WE'LL HONOR THAT REQUEST AND WE'LL START WITH THE APPEAL.

OKAY. PAUL, WOULD YOU MIND SWITCHING THE PRESENTATION WHILE I SPEAK? SO THE FIRST THE NEXT CASE WILL BE APPEAL 2026, NUMBER 101000.

[3a. APP-2026-101000 Brookland Andrew Condlin for Staples Mill Land Trust: appeal decisions of the director of planning regarding the property at 2100-2116 Staples Mill Road, Mayfield, Brookland. Parcels 774-738-9392, 774-738-9586, 774 738-9680, 774-738-9875, 774-738-9946, 774-738-9952, 774-738- 9964 and 774-738-9970. Zoning: R-5, General Residence District. Code Section: 24-2320. ]

ANDREW CONLON FOR STAPLES MILL LAND TRUST, APPEALING A DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 2120 116 STAPLES MILL ROAD IN MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION IN THE BROOKLYN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

WOULD EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN IN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS, PLEASE. THESE ARE THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE. IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD. THANK YOU.

SORRY. THIS ISN'T THE. U.S..

POST OFFICE. I'M NOT SURE. GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE BOARD RYAN

[01:15:01]

MURPHY WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHICH REPRESENTS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, MR. EMERSON, IN THESE CONSOLIDATED APPEALS, THE MATTERS TODAY INVOLVE OUR FIVE ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 2100 TO 2016 STAPLES MILL ROAD, AND ITS CURRENT LAYOUT, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION PLAT.

THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF NINE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT.

FRONT ON STAPLES MILL. THE OWNER, STAPLES MILL LAND TRUST, SUBMITTED A CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSING A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT CALLED THE MASSIE, WITH A 16 UNIT MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. 34 PARKING SPACES AND A WALKING TRAIL.

THE CURRENT LAYOUT MUST BE VACATED SO THAT THERE IS A SINGLE LOT BEFORE THE MASSIE CAN PROCEED.

IN OTHER WORDS, INSTEAD OF NINE LOTS FRONTING ON STAPLES MILL ROAD, AS SHOWN ON THE MAYFIELD PLAT, THE MASSIE REQUIRES A SINGLE LOT THAT FRONTS ON MASSIE ROAD.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE R-5 DISTRICT TO HAVE STREET SIDE YARDS OF 25FT.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE MASSIE IS ADJACENT AND HAS ITS STREET SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO STAPLES MILL ROAD, AND THAT ROAD HAS ABOUT 100FT WIDE AND IT'S CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD, AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK OF 15FT IS REQUIRED, AND IT'S THIS ADDITIONAL SETBACK THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THE APPEALS AT A HIGH LEVEL.

THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR DECISION TODAY.

AS IN ALL APPEALS, THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS ATTACHES TO THE DIRECTOR'S TERMINATIONS.

IF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

THE BOARD MUST AFFIRM THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATIONS.

SO, STARTING WITH THE FIRST QUESTION, APPELLANT HAS OFFERED TWO ARGUMENTS FOR WHY THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK DOES NOT APPLY, BUT NEITHER IS PERSUASIVE. FIRST, CITING SECTION 24-3105, APPELLANT ARGUES THAT THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF LOTS THAT WERE SHOWN ON A PLAT THAT WAS RECORDED IN 1940.

THIS ARGUMENT FAILS BECAUSE THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENT, AND THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT IS THE MASSIE, WHICH CANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION.

AS THE APPELLANT ACKNOWLEDGES IN ITS JUNE 15TH SUBMITTAL TO THIS BOARD, THE EXISTING LAYOUT MUST BE VACATED.

APPELLANT SUGGESTS THAT IT WOULD PURSUE A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO ACCOMPLISH THE REQUIRED VACATION AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION IS ONE METHOD FOR VACATING THE EXISTING LAYOUT. AND WHILE I AGREE THAT A MINOR SUBDIVISION IS NOT A SUBDIVISION UNDER THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THE EFFECT OF A VACATION IS CLEAR. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY DEFINES VACATE TO MEAN, NULLIFY OR CANCEL TO MAKE VOID OR INVALIDATE. HOWEVER, APPELLANT CHOOSES TO ACCOMPLISH THE VACATION, WHETHER BY MINOR SUBDIVISION OR SOME OTHER MEANS.

THE EFFECT IS THE INVALIDATION, NULLIFICATION AND VOIDING OF THAT PART OF THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION THAT CREATED THE EXISTING LOTS.

IN FACT, THE MASSIE CANNOT PROCEED WITHOUT NULLIFYING THE RELEVANT PART OF THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION SO THAT THE NINE LOTS THAT FRONT ON STAPLES MILL BECOME ONE THAT FRONTS ON MASSIE ROAD. PUT ANOTHER WAY, THERE'S NO RECORDED SUBDIVISION THAT DEPICTS A LAYOUT FOR THE MASSIE OR.

THAT'S EVEN ARGUABLY CONSISTENT WITH THE MASSIE.

THE MASSIE IS A DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT A SUBDIVISION.

NEXT, CITING SECTION 24-3105 E, APPELLANT ARGUES THAT THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE 1940 PLAT DEPICTED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. AGAIN, THOSE LOTS MUST BE NULLIFIED FOR THE MASSIE TO PROCEED, AND THE EFFECTIVE LOT WILL BE A MULTIFAMILY LOT BECAUSE THE MASSIE IS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THEREFORE, THE EXCEPTION IN 24-3105 E DOES NOT APPLY TO THE MASSIE.

NOW, APPELLANT DESCRIBES THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THIS SECTION AS UNTENABLE BECAUSE THE R-5 DISTRICT DOES NOT PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND THAT LEAVES THE APPELLANT IN SOMETHING OF A QUANDARY.

IN OTHER WORDS, THOUGH, APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO IF THE DIRECTOR IS CORRECT, THEN APPELLANT CANNOT PURSUE THE APPELLANT'S PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO IN THAT CASE, THE DIRECTOR MUST BE INCORRECT.

BUT THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH CONTINUING NONCONFORMING US ES IN THE R5 DISTRICT, INCLUDING SEVERAL IN THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION DIRECTLY BEHIND APPELLANTS LOTS. IT'S THOSE LOTS WITH CONTINUING NONCONFORMING USES THAT BENEFIT FROM SECTION 24,105 E.

THERE'S NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION.

MEANWHILE, APPELLANTS INTERPRETATIONS OF THESE SECTIONS REQUIRE THE BOARD TO INTERPRET MULTIFAMILY AS SINGLE FAMILY.

MOVING TO THE SECOND QUESTION, APPELLANT ASKED THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO WAIVE THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK. ON OCTOBER 23RD, 2025. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DENIED THAT REQUEST ON MARCH 3RD, 2026, WHEN APPELLANT APPEALED THE DETERMINATION THAT THE

[01:20:10]

ADDITIONAL SETBACK APPLIED, APPELLANT EXPRESSLY DID NOT APPEAL THE DENIAL OF THE WAIVER REQUEST TO THIS BOARD.

WITHIN THE 30 DAYS THAT ARE ALLOWED BY VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 2311.

THEREFORE, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON THE WAIVER IS FINAL AS VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 15.2.

2311 DICTATES. INSTEAD, APPELLANT SOUGHT TO PRESENT THE WAIVER REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, FIRST BY APPEAL AND THEN DIRECTLY. BUT THERE IS NO APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND AS SHOWN IN SECTION 24-3105 D3 WAIVER REQUESTS MUST BE PRESENTED IN AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR APPROVAL, WHICH A CONCEPT PLAN IS NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE APPELLANT MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN OR AN APPELLANT HAS NOT APPLIED FOR THAT APPROVAL.

MOREOVER, IN 2025, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS ENACTED LEGISLATION THAT SUPERSEDES THE AUTHORITY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONCE HAD UNDER THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO ACT ON SITE PLANS AND PLANS OF DEVELOPMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CANNOT CONSIDER OR ACT ON THE WAIVER REQUEST SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN. EVEN IF A CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL IS A SITE PLAN, A PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, OR SOME STAGE IN THE SITE PLAN OR PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

APPELLANT SUGGESTS THAT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD NOT CONSIDER THE REQUEST BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRESENTED IN AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN OR A PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, THEN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE RESPONDED EITHER.

THIS IGNORES THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE INTERPRETATIONS, AS SHOWN IN SECTION 24-2101.

BY CONTRAST, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ISSUE INTERPRETATIONS OR HEAR APPEALS FROM INTERPRETATIONS.

MOVING BACK TO 24-3105 D3, AS THE CLAUSE AS APPLICABLE IN THIS SECTION MAKES CLEAR, APPELLANT CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE ITS PREFERRED DECISION MAKER. THE CLAUSE, AS APPLICABLE, PLAINLY MEANS THAT THE DECISION MAKER ASSIGNED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ACT ON A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OR APPROVAL WILL CONSIDER THE WAIVER REQUEST IN CONNECTION WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OR APPROVAL.

APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN ACT ON, BUT APPELLANT HAS ASKED THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO INTERPRET MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK.

AN APPELLANT RECEIVED A DETERMINATION FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IN RESPONSE.

FINALLY, APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT BECAUSE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DID NOT ISSUE A DECISION WITHIN 90 DAYS, APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE DEEMED APPROVED.

STATE LAW DOES NOT MAKE THAT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY.

NO LESS THAN SEVEN SECTIONS OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CHAPTER OF THE VIRGINIA CODE EXPRESSLY STATE THAT A FAILURE TO ACT UNDER THOSE SECTIONS WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD IN THOSE SECTIONS RESULTS IN DEEMED APPROVAL.

VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 15.22286 A4, WHICH DIRECTS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION WITHIN 90 DAYS, IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS. AS THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT REGULARLY HOLDS, WHEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY USES SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN ONE INSTANCE BUT OMITS IT ELSEWHERE. THE OMISSION IS INTENTIONAL AND, QUOTE, AN UNAMBIGUOUS MANIFESTATION OF CONTRARY INTENTION.

IN SHORT, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY KNOWS HOW TO MAKE DEEMED APPROVAL A REMEDY WHEN IT FINDS THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE.

IN THIS CASE, IT DOES NOT. IT HAS NOT DETERMINED THAT THAT REMEDY IS APPROPRIATE, AND THIS READING IS BOLSTERED BY THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS OF VIRGINIA CODE, SECTION 15.22312, IN A CASE CALLED TRAN. IN THAT CASE, THE COURT DETERMINED THAT.

15.22312, WHICH GIVES THIS BOARD AND OTHER BSAS ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH 90 DAYS TO RENDER A DECISION IS PROCEDURAL AND DIRECTORY.

IN THE WORDS OF THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT. WE HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THE USE OF THE WORD SHALL.

IN A STATUTE REQUIRING ACTION BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS.

DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY UNLESS THE STATUTE MANIFESTS A CONTRARY INTENT.

AND THIS IS NOT TO SAY THERE IS NO REMEDY. IN THE EVENT THAT A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR A PLANNING DIRECTOR SIMPLY REFUSES TO RENDER A DECISION.

FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE MAY APPLY TO A CIRCUIT COURT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, BUT HERE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS RENDERED A DECISION, SO THE QUESTION IS MOOT. IN SUM, THE MASS IS CLEARLY SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK UNDER THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK CANNOT BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

[01:25:05]

THE BOARD SHOULD UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATIONS, AND THE BOARD SHOULD ADOPT A MOTION MAKING THE FINDINGS ON THIS SLIDE, WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCES, STATE STATUTES, CASE LAW.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR.

OUR STAFF HERE. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTIES BEHIND THIS PARCEL ARE ZONED R5 AND ARE RESIDENTIAL HOMES. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R5, BUT IT APPEARS THAT R5 DOES NOT PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY OWNERS APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES.

THIS PROPERTY IS VACANT WHILE THE OTHER LOTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

SO ARE THEY GRANDFATHERED OR THEY WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING USES THEIR LAWFUL.

DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE ORDINANCE CHANGED TO PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL AND R5 DISTRICTS? I DON'T RECALL, BUT IT'S. IT'S NOT 1992. I'M PRETTY SURE 1992.

BUT THESE HAVE BEEN VACANT FOR WELL, WELL BEFORE THAT.

VDOT ACQUIRED THIS STRIP AND WIDENED STAPLES MILL ROAD BACK IN THE 70S AND DEMOLISHED THE HOUSES AT THAT TIME. THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR, FOR THE APPELLANT, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS EVEN A FACTOR HERE.

DIDN'T THE COUNTY DIDN'T WE CHANGE OUR ORDINANCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. IT WAS LAST YEAR.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT ARE NO LONGER REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION.

IT WAS LAST YEAR IN RESPONSE TO THAT LEGISLATION.

I THOUGHT IT WAS EARLIER THAN THAT WAS JUST LAST YEAR. WE HAD TAKEN MOST OF THEM OUT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HANDS BEFORE LAST YEAR, AND THEN WHEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SAID THEY CAN'T REVIEW THEM ANYMORE, WE TOOK THE LAST REFERENCES.

THAT'S CORRECT. I THOUGHT WE ACTUALLY HAD STOPPED HAVING MEETINGS LIKE 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO.

THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. IT WAS JUST AN OCCASIONAL.

SO THAT PREDATED THE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION.

YES. THE COUNTY ACTION WAS THAT BECAUSE WE SAW IT WAS COMING DOWN JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY DOWN THE PIPELINE OR WE JUST FELT LIKE THAT WAS A FUNCTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T NEED TO BE BURDENED WITH, WITH ALL THEIR OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF REZONING CASES.

IT ACTUALLY STARTED DURING COVID. WE WERE TRYING TO CUT BACK ON FACE TO FACE MEETINGS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

AND THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE THE STATE LAW IS FOR MANY YEARS ALLOWED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL. AND DURING COVID, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DURING THE EMERGENCY JUST TO PREVENT, YOU KNOW, ONE MORE MEETING. AND THEN IT WORKED SO WELL AND EVERYONE LIKED IT BETTER.

AND THE BOARD DECIDED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE PERMANENT.

AND THE PREVIOUS BROOKLYN DISTRICT SUPERVISOR WAS DECEASED.

SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A FACTOR. SURE. IT WAS.

THAT'S ALL I HAD AT THIS TIME. ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD QUESTION.

THANK YOU SIR. START. AND WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. CONLON, WHO'S REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT. WHAT ARE YOU USING TO MOVE THAT FORWARD? THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST A MOUSE TRYING TO EXIT OUT FOR YOU.

THANK YOU. I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY YOUR WORST.

MOVE THE SLIDES FORWARD. YOU JUST HAVE TO DOUBLE CLICK AND THEN YOU ASK IT A LOT.

THAT'S ALL GOOD. YOU GET A PRESENTATION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ROLL DOWN.

ALL RIGHT, I GOT IT. THANK YOU THANK YOU I APPRECIATE IT.

ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS ANDY CONLON HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS ABOUT 1.2 ACRES. AND AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, IT'S VACANT PROPERTY.

AND AS RYAN RYAN HAS POINTED OUT A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND HE'S CORRECT AND CERTAINLY IN THE FACTS STATED BEFORE YOU, THAT'S NINE LOTS. LOTS FIVE THROUGH 14 OF THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION.

THE SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED IN 1940. YOU CAN SEE THE CIRCLE THAT WE'VE GOT ON THERE OF WHERE THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ALONG A TWO LANE STAPLES MILL ROAD.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ON THIS SLIDE, BUT THAT WAS SHOWING OUR ZONING, WHICH IS OUR FIVE, WHICH EVERYBODY ALREADY UNDERSTANDS. AND AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THE ONLY USE WE CAN MAKE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THERE'S SOME LIKE DORMITORY USES IN CHILDREN HOME USES, BUT REALLY IT'S JUST MULTIFAMILY AND TOWNHOMES.

I BELIEVE IT WAS 2022 THAT WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO DUPLEXES, BUT THAT GOT TAKEN OUT.

I MIGHT BE WRONG ON THAT AND THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT WAS IN THE I THINK IT WAS IN THAT TIME FRAME THAT WE HAD ANOTHER CHOICE TO DO DUPLEXES. AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS, AS YOU'LL HEAR OF WORKING WITH STAFF TO PUT DUPLEXES ON THE PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO MULTIFAMILY OR TOWNHOMES.

BUT BECAUSE WE CAN'T PUT TOWNHOMES OR MULTIFAMILY ON HERE WITHOUT A VARIANCE, WHICH I KNOW THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE APPLICATION, BUT THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE BUILT, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, AND WE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND GO THROUGH THAT AS NEEDED. ULTIMATELY,

[01:30:01]

AS MR. MURPHY HAS POINTED OUT, IT'S EXACTLY RIGHT THAT THE R5 ZONING AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ULTIMATELY WE'RE LOOKING FOR NOT JUST THE SETBACK.

AND WE'RE TALKING I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE THE APPEAL AND NOT THE VARIANCE, BUT I HAD THE SAME FACT PATTERN FOR BOTH OF THEM, THE SAME POWER POINT. AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 100 FOOT LOT WIDTH.

BUT IN THIS CASE WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT ON STAPLES MILL ROAD.

WE HAVE TO HAVE 25FT OF SETBACK. AND BECAUSE OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN REQUIREMENT, AN ADDITIONAL 15FT.

SO WE CAN MEET THE 25. IT'S THE ADDITIONAL 15FT.

AGAIN, AS MR. MURPHY HAS POINTED OUT, WHICH IS THERE.

YOU CAN SEE RIGHT OUT OF THE CODE THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED TOWNHOMES, MULTIFAMILY, AND A SMATTERING OF OTHER USES.

AND VDOT DID TAKE THIS PROPERTY BETWEEN 73 AND 76.

THEY ACQUIRED ALL NINE LOTS. THEY WIDENED THE ROAD, AND THEY TOOK ABOUT 41 TO 51FT OFF OF THESE PROPERTIES, DEPENDING ON WHICH PROPERTY IS, WHICH IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GRABBING THE PROPERTY. AND THEY ACTUALLY DID SEND IT BACK, SOLD IT BACK. AND I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH STAFF.

THE DEED FROM VDOT TO THE FIRST OWNER DID NOT SAY DID NOT SAY AS IS.

WHEREAS I'M GOING TO SAY IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT IT SAID, BUT IT DID NOT SAY IN THAT INSTANCE OF WHAT IT WAS.

AND SO WE'VE GOT THE PLAN AND I'VE GOT COPIES FOR THE VARIANTS.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE MULTIFAMILY.

HERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL THAT WE GOT. SO LET ME JUST GO FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEAL ITSELF AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A REQUEST RIGHT TO WITH RESPECT TO CODE SECTION 243105 AND DOES THAT APPLY TO THE PROPERTY? THE ANSWER IS NO. AND DO WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? WE BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK, THE DIRECTOR'S RESPONSE, I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED AT THE AT THE STATEMENT THAT'S MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE LAW.

THE DIRECTOR, YOU KNOW, CAN BASICALLY AVOID COMPLYING WITH THE STATE LAW BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCES.

WHAT'S BASICALLY SAID STATE LAW IS CLEAR THAT HE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPOND.

IN 90 DAYS, HE TOOK 131 DAYS. STATE LAW, SAYS SHELL.

IT ALSO SAYS THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPLY.

WE'RE HELD TO THAT STANDARD, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT THE GOVERNMENT GETS TO PLAY BY DIFFERENT RULES AND IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE.

THERE'S THE CODE SECTION THAT SAYS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL RESPOND WITHIN 90 DAYS.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T RESPOND UNTIL MARCH 3RD, WHICH IS OVER 131 DAYS.

BUT THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCE HERE BECAUSE THE STATE STATUTE DIDN'T SAY IT.

IT DID SAY SHELL AND THAT YOU HAVE TO RESPOND, BUT THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCE. THEREFORE WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, AND ULTIMATELY, I GET THAT IT'S HARD TO SAY, WELL, THEN WHATEVER YOU SAID IS GOOD, BUT I'VE GOT A PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S TRYING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. AND YOU'LL HEAR A LOT OF HISTORY HERE, AND WE'RE WAITING FOR A RESPONSE, AND WE'RE CONSTANTLY RUNNING INTO ROADBLOCKS AND TRYING TO GET THAT. THE CODE ITSELF ALSO ALLOWS FOR 243105 D THAT THE PROPERTY HAS CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS AND THOSE EXEMPTIONS ARE APPLIED WITH RESPECT TO THE 15FT, DOESN'T APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO 2022.

BOTTOM LINE IS, NO MATTER WHAT I DO TO THIS PROPERTY, IT'S STILL WITHIN THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION.

IT DOESN'T SAY IT HAS TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT.

THIS CODE SECTION DOES NOT SAY SINGLE FAMILY LOT. IT SAYS, ARE YOU WITHIN A SUBDIVISION? I'M PROPOSING TO YOU THAT THE ONLY STANDARD YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT FOR ME NOT TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS EXTRA 15FT, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE HENRICO CODE THAT SAYS, ARE YOU STILL IN A SUBDIVISION? THAT WAS PRIOR TO 2022. WHEN I BUILD THAT MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY AND CREATE ONE LOT, IT'S STILL A LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION.

WHEN VDOT TOOK THAT LOT AND WIDENED STAPLES MILL ROAD, IT'S STILL WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION.

WHEN WE GO AHEAD AND VACATE THOSE PROPERTY LINES, IT'S STILL A LOT WITHIN A SUBDIVISION THAT WAS CREATED OR THAT IS IN A SUBDIVISION THAT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1940. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S REQUIRED, IS THAT IT BE IN A SUBDIVISION, AND THAT IT HAD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHERE R5 MULTIFAMILY IS RESIDENTIAL, WE'RE PERMITTED AND ONLY PERMITTED TO DO THAT.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE COMPLY WITH THAT EXEMPTION THAT WE HAVE OTHERWISE SET FORTH IN THE HENRICO CODE.

AND REALLY, THERE'S NOTHING MORE MORE NEFARIOUS THAN THAT.

THERE'S NOTHING MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. AND THAT'S THE WAY I READ THE CODE ALL THE TIME.

AND WE SAT. MR. BLANKENSHIP AND I HAVE HAD MANY, MANY CONVERSATIONS, AND IT'S DIFFICULT.

THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX, BUT IT COMES DOWN TO REALLY SIMPLE.

IF YOU'RE IN A SUBDIVISION THAT WAS PRIOR TO 19 OR 2002, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THAT EXTRA 15FT.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE A BENEFIT FROM THE DIFFERENT STANDARD WITH RESPECT TO 3105 E, THEY APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS, AND WHEN WE APPLY THOSE DIFFERENT STANDARDS, WE CAN STILL WE CAN THEN MEET THE SETBACK ALONG STAPLES MILL ROAD, AND WE THINK WE COMPLY WITH THAT BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT ANY LOT CREATED BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 1960 GETS TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THOSE STANDARDS.

AND IF WE CAN, WE THEN CAN MEET THE SETBACK ON STAPLES MILL ROAD.

THOSE LOTS WERE CREATED IN 1940 AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE IN MAYFIELD.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE IS WITH RESPECT TO THOSE LOTS THEMSELVES AND MY VACATION THROUGH A.

AND I APPRECIATE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AGREEING THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH THE MINOR SUBDIVISION BECAUSE,

[01:35:04]

AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT THAT THAT'S NOT A SUBDIVISION. IT'S NOT A SUBDIVISION.

WHEN I VACATE, VACATE THOSE LOT LINES, THEY'RE STILL PART OF THE MAYFIELD AND THEY STILL JUST MERGE THOSE LOTS INSTEAD OF LOTS FIVE THROUGH 14, I CAN JUST CALL IT LOT FIVE. IT'S STILL A LOT.

AND IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT. THAT'S STILL PART OF THAT.

IT'S STILL PART OF THE OVERALL MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION.

SO THAT'S WHY WE BELIEVE WE CONTINUE TO BE IN MAYFIELD AND WE CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO GET THE BENEFIT OF OF THAT ALTERNATIVE CALCULATION.

FINALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND I GET THAT THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU READ THE EXACT LANGUAGE? IT SAYS AN APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR APPROVAL.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TOLD YOU THE STATE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THE 90 DAYS.

THEY COULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCE I WOULD PROPOSE TO YOU ALL OVER THE CODE ARE THE TERMS PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

IT'S NOT IN THIS CODE SECTION. IF HENRICO COUNTY BOARD INTENDED THIS TO APPLY ONLY TO PODS, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT IT IN HERE. IT TURNS OUT OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN HAPPENED TO GET A POD NUMBER.

STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW I CAN GET A POD NUMBER AND NOT BE DEEMED A POD.

BUT BEYOND THAT, THIS LANGUAGE SAYS APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR APPROVAL.

AND IT DOESN'T SAY YOU GET TO GO TO ONLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OR PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND THEN THAT'S EXCLUSIVE. AND YOU CAN'T GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT ACTUALLY SAYS, WE CAN GO TO EITHER ONE.

WE WENT TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. HE DID NOT CONSIDER ALL THE FACTORS.

WE HAD A CONVERSATION. WE THOUGHT WE COULD GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION INSTEAD, AND WE PREFERRED TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS THIS ALLOWS FOR IT TO DO. IT MAY BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW REGARDING PODS, AND IF IT'S CONTRARY TO STATE LAW, WHY IS THE HENRICO BOARD APPROVING? IF IT REALLY MEANT THAT IT WAS CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.

WHY ARE THEY APPROVING CODE SECTIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW? IF THIS WAS INTENDED TO SAY POD, THEN THEY SHOULD AMEND THE CODE INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT OUT THERE. I'M ADVISING MY CLIENT.

MY CLIENT'S READING THE CODE. MY CLIENT IS ACTUALLY DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE STATE PLANNING STAFF, AND IT LITERALLY SAYS, I CAN GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR I CAN GO TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. WHY HASN'T IT BEEN AMENDED? IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHY IS IT STILL IN THE CODE? AND THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION THAT WE HAVE. AND THAT'S THE REAL BEEF THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS DOESN'T SAY POD.

AND IT DOESN'T SAY THAT I CAN'T GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW. AND TO ME, THAT SEEMS TO BE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE INTENT IS IN ORDER TO FOLLOW STATE LAW. SO WITH RESPECT TO THAT, THERE'S A SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE WAIVER.

AND THE REASON WE WANTED TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS BECAUSE, AND AGAIN, PART OF MY SLIDE HAS GOT LEFT OFF WHERE I ENHANCED AND ZOOMED IN ON THERE.

BUT THERE'S AN OFFICE BUILDING LITERALLY 25FT OFF OF STAPLES MILL ROAD WAS NEVER ADDRESSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AND HIS WAIVER LETTER NEVER ADDRESSED. WE ASKED HIM TO ADDRESS IT AND HE NEVER DID.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE STANDARDS OF A WAIVER THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE COULD, IN A PUBLIC FORUM, AVAIL OURSELVES OF THE PUBLIC FORUM IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THAT'S WHY WE THINK THAT WE ARE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR THE WAIVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND I'D BE ABLE TO PRESENT IT LIKE I AM TODAY. SO WITH THAT, I BELIEVE THAT'S EVERYTHING I'VE COVERED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW STATE LAW.

HE'S REQUIRED TO FOLLOW STATE LAW WITHIN 90 DAYS, AND HE DIDN'T.

WE THINK WE ARE EXEMPT FROM THE 15 FOOT BECAUSE WE ARE A SUBDIVISION AND WILL REMAIN IN A SUBDIVISION.

THAT'S ALL IT REQUIRES A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITHIN.

THAT'S DONE BEFORE 2002. AND WE THINK WE ALSO HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE CALCULATION BASED ON SECTION E, BECAUSE WE ARE WE WERE WITHIN A SUBDIVISION. THAT'S A LOT THAT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO 1960.

WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. COLEMAN, YOU STATED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE 15 FOOT SETBACK.

EXPLAIN THAT IN LAY TERMS. YEAH. YEAH. SO THE HENRICO COUNTY CODE ITSELF SAYS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NEXT TO STAPLES MILL ROAD, IT HAS DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR DIFFERENT ROADS. YOU HAVE TO BE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EXTRA 15FT.

BUT WHAT I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THERE IS RIGHT OUT OF THE CODE SECTION, THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT DID NOT, AS OF 2002, HAVE A RECORDED SUBDIVISION.

SO I THINK IN THE REVERSE, AND MR. BLANKENSHIP CAN CORRECT ME ON THIS ONE, IS THAT IF YOU'RE IN A RECORDED SUBDIVISION BEFORE 2002, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE EXTRA 15FT, THE EXTRA STUFF.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M IN A RECORDED SUBDIVISION FROM 1940, AND THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS EXTRA 15FT.

IT'S IN THE CODE. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DRAFTED IT, AND THEY MUST HAVE MEANT SOMETHING.

AND THAT'S WHY WE WE HAVE IT. WE'RE NOT LIKE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT BEING NEFARIOUS. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TRICK ANYONE. IT'S RIGHT IN THERE THAT SAYS, IF I'M IN A SUBDIVISION AND THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S IN A SUBDIVISION, NOTHING CHANGES WITH VACATING THE PROPERTY LINES, MULTIFAMILY.

IT DOESN'T SAY SINGLE FAMILY. I'LL GIVE THEM THAT. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ON THE OTHER, THE SECTION E SPECIFICALLY SAYS SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

[01:40:07]

THIS DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING. IT JUST SAYS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHY WE THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD, NOT HAVE TO MEET THAT 15FT.

WE CAN MEET THE 25 THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CODE. IT'S THE EXTRA 15 THAT SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU'RE IN A SUBDIVISION.

PRIOR TO 2002, DID YOU GET ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE DIRECTOR WHY HE DID NOT MEET THE 90 DAY? NO, NO. AND I HAVE A NUMBER. I DIDN'T BRING THEM WITH ME.

I HAD A NUMBER OF EMAILS AND THEY'RE THEY'RE LIKE ALL OF US, THEY'RE BUSY.

AND THIS IS NOT A I'VE GOT AN WHICH FOR THE VARIANCE WILL.

I'M BE HANDING OUT AN EMAIL FROM MR. MICHAEL KENNEDY FROM 2022, WHERE THE QUESTION REGARDING A WAIVER WAS ALREADY PUT FORTH.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS A NEW ISSUE AND IT WAS COMPLICATED THAT THEY HADN'T ANTICIPATED.

I DIDN'T GET ANY EXPLANATION. AND IT'S JUST IT'S UNFAIR TO PLAY BY DIFFERENT RULES, TO HOLD US TO 30 DAYS AND SAY, IF I MISS THAT 30 DAYS, I'M DONE. BUT WHEN THEY MISS THE 90 DAYS, YOU KNOW, IT'S OKAY, WE'RE THE GOVERNMENT.

WE CAN DO IT DIFFERENTLY. IT'S NOT RIGHT. MORE QUESTIONS.

JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT POINT, MR. COLEMAN, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, IS THAT THE REASON THAT THE RESPONSE WAS NOT GIVEN WITHIN 90 DAYS WAS BECAUSE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WAS WAITING FOR COMMENTS FROM VDOT ON THE ROAD ISSUE.

AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE STATE CODE THAT I MAY BE MISTAKEN.

MAYBE I'M CONFUSING TWO DIFFERENT PROVISIONS THAT THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY BUILT IN IF THERE IF THERE'S A ROAD ISSUE INVOLVED IN VDOT IS INVOLVED.

AM I WRONG ON THAT? I'M HAPPY TO YOU CONCEDE TO THIS? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. AND I WILL JUST SAY WITH RESPECT THAT ONE, WE NEVER HEARD THAT.

IT SURE WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF SOMEBODY PICKED UP THE PHONE AND CALLED. IT'S NOT LIKE I DON'T HAVE A RELATIONSHIP OR THEY DIDN'T KNOW. NUMBER TWO, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ROAD ISSUE WITH. IF YOU CAN SEE THAT I'M TRYING TO.

SO YOU CAN'T SEE IT. BUT THESE ARE NINE LOTS.

WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCESS THIS PROPERTY OFF OF STAPLES MILL ROAD. VDOT WILL NOT PERMIT THAT.

BUT AS A PROPERTY OWNER, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS. THE QUESTION IS, ON MASSIE ROAD. I CAN TURN ON MASSIE ROAD AND GET THIS ACCESS.

THEY'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO GRANT ME ACCESS. YOU CAN'T PROHIBIT ME ACCESS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S NOT I DON'T KNOW WHAT VDOT HAS TO HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER I SHOULD GET THE WAIVER OR NOT.

I MEAN, THOSE TWO PROVISIONS SEEM TO BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE.

NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A WAIVER ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL THAT'S MAINTAINED BY BY VDOT, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, I BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN ON THAT POINT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE WHEREVER THE ACCESS IS TO THE PROPERTY AND TRAFFIC ISSUES. THEY DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE THE WAIVER, AND THEY WOULD APPROVE THIS AS PART OF THE OVERALL PLAN.

AND THEY DO HAVE EXCEPTIONS IN TALKING WITH OUR ENGINEER TO ALLOW FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT EXCEPTION.

AND THIS WOULD QUALIFY WHEN THERE'S NO OTHER AVAILABLE.

BUT THAT'S MORE OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS OR THE PROCESS AS YOU GO THROUGH THE OLD PLANS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE WRONG. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH A WAIVER. IT SURE WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE. I'VE NEVER GOTTEN AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU KNOW, VDOT HAS TO DO WITH THAT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THEY TAKE TIME TO RETURN, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE BEEN EXTENDED THAT TIME FOR THAT PURPOSE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. LET ME LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. WHY WHY DID YOU ALL NOT SUBMIT A SITE PLAN? YOU SUBMITTED A CONCEPT PLAN. YEAH. YEAH. INTERESTING.

I'M GOING TO I'M PULLING EVERYBODY INTO THE COUNTY IN THIS ONE FOR MR. GIDLEY.

WE SUBMIT HE HAD TO EMAIL ME. WE HAD SUBMITTED A ZONING CONFORMANCE LETTER TO ASK THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO INTERPRET THE CODE SECTIONS AS WE WERE ASKING TO AND MR. GIDLEY SENT ME. I JUST READ IT THIS MORNING.

SENT ME BACK AN EMAIL, SAID WE CAN'T. THE DIRECTOR, MR. EMERSON, SAID WE CAN'T ACCEPT YOUR ZONING CONFORMANCE LETTER.

YOU'RE BETTER OFF ASKING FOR A CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW, NOT APPROVAL, BUT A REVIEW BY THE STAFF.

SO WE REFUNDED MY 25 OR $35, WHATEVER IT WAS.

SO BASED ON THE DIRECTOR'S DIRECTION, WE WERE TRYING TO GET A ZONING CONFORMANCE LETTER, GETTING A DETERMINATION.

THEY SAID GO THROUGH THE CONCEPT PLAN PROCESS. SO WE DID, AND IT WAS A LITTLE FRUSTRATING TO PUT TOGETHER A FULL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN, APPROVAL PLANS. YOU'RE TALKING SOMEWHERE $200,000 PLUS 300 TO DO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, 30 TO $50,000 TO GET THAT DONE, THE WORK THAT'S NECESSARY. THE CLIENT HAD PAID BIG DIFFERENCE.

THIS IS NOT A BIG DEVELOPER. HE'S A FARMER. HE'S A GENTLEMAN THAT BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY AND, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY REGRETS IT NOW, BUT BOUGHT IT AND WAS TRYING.

WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO FIGURE OUT HOW.

THIS IS A DIFFICULT. DON'T GET ME WRONG, THIS IS.

WE CERTAINLY MEET THE STANDARD THAT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROPERTY, AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. THIS IS A REALLY HARD PROPERTY TO DEVELOP.

AND THE CODE CHANGED IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS.

THEY GOT RID OF DUPLEXES. THEY ADDED ANOTHER 15FT, YOU KNOW, AND I'M HAVING TO GO BACK AND REDO EVERYTHING WITH THE STAFF.

AND SO WAS THE CLIENT. AND SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO BE COST EFFECTIVE.

SO WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING 100 TO $150,000 MORE THAN HE ALREADY SPENT TO GET THAT TO BE DONE.

AND THE ANSWER MIGHT BE WE'RE RIGHT HERE ANYWAY.

[01:45:01]

WE WERE GOING TO GET A NO ANYWAY, SO IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE AND ALL THAT.

BUT SURELY THE PROPERTY THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY REALIZED THE CONSTRAINTS ON IT, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE FACT THAT IT WAS PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN OWNED BY VDOT, WAS TAKEN FOR A ROAD PROJECT AND HAD BEEN SITTING VACANT FOR SEVERAL DECADES.

I MEAN, THAT SHOULD HAVE SIGNALED, I THINK THERE WERE SOME SOME CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING.

WELL, THERE WAS BUT BUT DON'T FORGET THE QUESTION WE'RE REALLY PUSHING HERE BECAUSE HE BOUGHT IT.

WHAT YEAR WAS IT? 2013 2013. THE CODE CHANGED IN 2022 TO ADD THIS EXTRA 15FT AT THE TIME HE BOUGHT IT.

AND AS YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T RELATE TO THE QUESTION OF GOOD FAITH.

HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS DEVELOPED. WE COULD HAVE DONE DUPLEXES. I THINK THOSE CAME OUT IN 2022.

AND THIS ADDITION WAS ADDED. LET ME JUST CORRECT YOU THERE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE.

I'M HAPPY TO. YOUR PREVIOUS SLIDE HAD THE 2002 DATE ON IT.

OH MY BAD. IF YOU HAD HAD A PLAN ON THE TABLE WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED IN 2002, IT WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED TO THIS.

AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT BEING IN THERE.

SO THAT THAT WAS ADDED TO THE CODE IN 2002. I'M SORRY, WHAT THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK FOR A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.

OH, I GOT THAT WRONG. THEN I APOLOGIZE. 2022.

OKAY, SO BUT THE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAD THAT AS WELL.

SO, YOU KNOW, ALL RIGHT, THERE'S SOME THERE'S SOME LEGAL NUANCES IN TERMS OF INTERPRETING THE CODE, BUT IT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO ME TO BE A STRETCH TO CALL THIS A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

IT'S NOT IT'S GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I MEAN, OH, AN APARTMENT.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S NOT DEVELOPING NINE NINE SUBDIVISION LOTS THAT WERE ADDED BACK IN.

OKAY. BACK BEFORE 1940. YEAH, I THINK YOU'LL AGREE ON THAT.

WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE R5 IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION OF THE CODE, AND R5 ONLY ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND TOWNHOMES PREVIOUSLY.

NOW, MY DATES ARE ALL WRONG AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED FOR DUPLEXES, WHICH WE WERE GOING FOR.

AND THEN WE'RE TOLD AND I'VE GOT, IF I MAY. CAN I HAND THIS EMAIL OUT TO YOU ALL? TO CLARIFY THAT POINT, IF YOU WANT ME TO. YEAH.

I JUST GOT A WHOLE BUNCH MORE BACK IN 2022. WHEN YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, WE YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A RYAN, HERE'S A. YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM THE STANDPOINT.

AND DO YOU WANT TO COME ON UP TO ANSWER THAT AND MAKE SURE YOU. MR. BLANKENSHIP, I DON'T BELIEVE MR. KENNEDY, WHO'S THE LANDOWNER, HAD NOT BEEN SWORN IN, BUT HE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. BUT THIS WAS AN EMAIL FROM MR. KENNEDY THAT TALKS ABOUT.

AND REALLY THE THE THIRD HIGHLIGHT THAT SAYS THE STANDARD WAS SATISFIED REGARDING A REDUCED SETBACK.

SO EVEN THOUGH IN 2022 YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE HAVING PRIVATE INFORMAL CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF.

YOU KNOW, THE FIRST THING WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN THE VARIANCE HAS TO DO WITH THE 100 FOOT LOT WIDTH AND WHETHER WE'RE NON-CONFORMING OR NOT. BUT TALKING ABOUT 3105 D SAYS, WE AGREED THAT THE BASIC STANDARD FOR REDUCED SETBACK WAS SATISFIED.

THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN GOING ON BEFORE WE WENT THROUGH ANY FORMAL APPLICATIONS.

AT THAT TIME, WE WERE GOING FORWARD WITH A DUPLEX AND A DUPLEX STANDARD.

AND BASED ON THIS, BASED SOLELY ON THIS EMAIL AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT CAME FROM THIS, HE CONVERTED EVERYTHING TO A MULTI.

HE SAID, SCRAP THE DUPLEX, LET'S GO FOR A MULTIFAMILY AT THE SUGGESTION OF STAFF THAT WE WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS AND THAT'S WHAT WE BASED IT ON.

THAT'S WHY WE WENT FORWARD. SO WHEN YOU SAY IT'S A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE THAT IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. MULTIFAMILY IS RESIDENTIAL.

WE'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO BUILD HOMES ON THIS.

A SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED HOMES OR DUPLEXES. WE CAN ONLY BUILD TOWNHOUSES, WHICH WE CAN'T FIT IN, AND MULTIFAMILY, WHICH WE CAN'T FIT IN WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

I'VE GOT A COUPLE SLIDES THAT SHOW FOR TOWNHOMES.

I CAN HAVE A TWO FOOT WIDE, A TWO FOOT DEEP TOWNHOME.

BY THE TIME I MEET ALL MY SETBACKS AND ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS, I HAVE A TWO FOOT DEEP TOWNHOME.

I MEAN, YEAH, I TECHNICALLY BUILD IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T HAVE A TWO FOOT DEEP TOWNHOME.

I THINK MR. KENNEDY, WHO MR. BLANKENSHIP HAS NOT BEEN SWORN IN.

HE DID NOT STAND UP. I WAS PLANNING ON SPEAKING AT THE VERY END, SO I DID NOT STAND UP FOR THIS ONE.

SORRY. SO I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH OR HOWEVER YOU PRESENTED IT.

EXACTLY. SO HELP ME GOD. EXACTLY. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

ZACH KENNEDY. I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT ABOUT I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OR I KNEW WHAT I WAS GETTING MYSELF INTO WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2013.

FIRST IT WAS A FORECLOSURE PROPERTY. AT THAT POINT. IT WASN'T OWNED BY VDOT.

IT WAS IT HAD GONE INTO FORECLOSURE. WE HAD BOUGHT IT DIRECTLY FROM A BANK.

I THINK MR. CONLIN HAS CLEARLY STATED OR SHOWN IN HERE THAT THERE ARE STATUTES AND CODE ORDINANCES THAT CAN EASILY BE INTERPRETED, THAT WE COULD HAVE BUILT SOMETHING. AND I ENDED UP GETTING CONFIRMATION FROM THE COUNTY THAT I COULD I'LL MENTION IN THE VARIANCE LATER THAT I WAS DIRECTED AND TOLD THAT BY. RIGHT. I COULD BUILD FOUR DUPLEXES IN 2022, IN 2022, BEFORE WE HAD TO GO TO THE VARIANCE PROCESS OR THE BZA PROCESS. SO WHEN I PURCHASED THIS, THERE WAS CLEAR INFORMATION THROUGH THE ORDINANCES THAT I WAS ABLE TO ACTUALLY BUILD

[01:50:09]

SOMETHING ON HERE. AND AT THAT POINT IT WAS DUPLEXES.

SO I WAS VERY CONFIDENT. I DID MY DUE DILIGENCE.

I USED TO DO SOME DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. AND I UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO DO DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE PURCHASING ANYTHING AND BASED OFF THE CODE AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS A CLEAR PATH TO BUILD ON THIS LAND THAT HAD BEEN CHANGED IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR PROCESS OF GETTING APPROVAL FOR THE FOUR DUPLEXES, WHICH WE DO HAVE IN WRITING THAT WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO.

WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THE COUNTY CHANGES THE ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME WHILE WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

AND THEN BECAUSE WE'RE DENIED A VARIANCE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T MEET THE USE AT THE MOMENT OF THE NEW ORDINANCE, WE SHIFT. AND THE ONLY REASON WE SHIFTED TO A NEW PLAN WAS BECAUSE MR. KENNEDY AND MR. BLANKENSHIP KINDLY SAT DOWN AFTER THAT MEETING, BECAUSE WE SHOWED THE ATTORNEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY THE EMAIL STATING WE COULD DO FOUR DUPLEXES, AND HE WAS UNHAPPY TO SEE THAT EMAIL.

HE WAS NOT. I GUESS HE WASN'T AWARE OF IT, I'M NOT REALLY SURE. BUT THEY CAME BACK GRACIOUSLY TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAME BACK GRACIOUSLY TO US AND SHOWED US A PATH TO BUILD, AND THAT PATH TO BUILD WAS TO FRONT ON MASSIE ROAD.

MR. BLANKENSHIP AND MR. KENNEDY SAID, WE CAN WAIVE THAT LOT WITH PROBLEM.

WE CAN WORK WITH YOU ON THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT MR. CONLIN HAD DISPLAYED ALREADY. SO WE BUILT THAT OUT.

WE ASKED FOR FOR MORE INFORMATION. WE TRIED TO WE TRIED TO HAMMER IT DOWN IN GOOD FAITH AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEY THEN TOLD US NO AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

THE GOALPOST HAS BEEN MOVED MULTIPLE TIMES, AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT WE HAD AT ONE POINT WITH THEM.

BUT WHEN WE SPEND THE MONEY AND TRY TO ACHIEVE THAT, TO COME BACK AND THEN BE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU'RE A TAX PAYING CITIZEN. WE'VE PAID OVER LIKE $30,000 IN TAXES ON SOMETHING YOU WERE NOW TELLING US WE CANNOT DEVELOP.

WHEN I BOUGHT IT, WE COULD DEVELOP. DURING THE PROCESS OF PLANNING THIS OUT, I COULD DEVELOP IT.

PLANS CHANGED, I DIED, I CHANGED THE PLAN AGAIN.

I'M DENIED. AND IT WASN'T BECAUSE I CREATED SOMETHING OUT OF THIN AIR.

IT WAS BECAUSE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFERED A SOLUTION TO US.

AND TO ME, THAT DOESN'T SEEM VERY FAIR. WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON IT.

WE WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE TO THE COMMUNITY, AND I WILL REPEAT MYSELF A LITTLE BIT IN THE VARIANCE PROCESS.

BUT THIS IS AN URBAN RESIDENTIAL PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE'RE MEETING THE NEEDS OF THAT AREA, ADDING DIVERSITY NOT ONLY WITH PEOPLE, BUT ALSO THE OPTIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE IN.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE JUST A TOWNHOME OR A PIECE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

WE'RE GIVING THEM AN OPTION TO LIVE IN SOMETHING THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AFFORDABLE, THAT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE TO THE LIKE, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND WALKING DISTANCE TO WILLOW LAWN SHOPPING CENTER GROCERY STORES.

AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PROCESS HAS CHANGED MULTIPLE TIMES.

AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT I DO HAVE SOME OTHER INFORMATION TO SHARE IN THE VARIANTS THAT THAT PROVES THAT THIS WAS THE DUPLEXES WERE AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE DENIED AS WE WERE DEVELOPING THAT PROCESS, THAT IT WAS A BUY. RIGHT. OPTION. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY COMMENTS, I APPRECIATE IT.

AND HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SHOWS THIS PROPERTY, THE DOTS ON OUR CORNER LOT, AS BEST I COULD DO IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL. IT'S PLANNED FOR, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY UP TO 3 TO 4 TO 6 TO 8 UNITS AND ACRES.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO TO DISCUSS TOWNHOUSES YEAH, WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE'S WE WERE TOLD WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO.

YEAH. THIS IS I DON'T KNOW. IT'S ZONED FOR TOWNHOUSES, RIGHT? IT'S ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY AND TOWNHOUSES, RIGHT? SO HERE'S, HERE'S EXAMPLES. WE HAD, WE HAD PUT TOGETHER A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.

WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE DID, AND WE'VE WORKED WITH A COUPLE ENGINEERS, AND THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT. SO THIS IS A LAWYER'S ATTEMPT AT MATH. SO HANG WITH US A LITTLE BIT. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT, BUT WE'VE GOT STAPLES MILL ROAD AND MASSIE ROAD RIGHT HERE.

IF WE HAVE THE BUILDINGS FACING STAPLES MILL ROAD, WE'VE GOT TO PUT A TEN FOOT BUFFER IN A 24 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, AN 18 FOOT PARKING. WE'RE 52FT INTO THE SITE ALREADY.

THEN WITH A 30 FOOT REAR SETBACK, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TOWNHOUSES THAT ARE 17 FOOT DEEP AND 18FT WIDE.

THAT'S LIKE 300 AND SOME SQUARE FEET. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE MARKET. JUST CAN'T CALL FOR THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES. AND HERE'S THE NEXT ONE.

IF THEY'RE FACING THE REAR, THIS IS WHERE WE GET THE BUILDING SPACE IS TWO FEET BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO COMPLY WITH THE 30 FOOT AND 15 FOOT.

[01:55:01]

AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE TEN FOOT BUFFER DRIVE AISLE AND PARKING, AND THEN WE'RE LEFT TWO FEET.

SO WE'D HAVE A 17 BY TWO. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY.

CAN WE DO IT? WELL, SURE. I GUESS TECHNICALLY WE CAN, BUT IT'S NOT VERY PRACTICAL.

YOU KNOW, DO A TOWNHOUSE. WE'D HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE OF THE 15FT FOR A TOWNHOUSE.

WE'D HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THE MULTIFAMILY, YOU KNOW, TOWNHOME CONSOLIDATION.

AND IT'S A TOWNHOME AND YOU HAVE TO YOU STILL HAVE TO CONSOLIDATE THE LOT. YOU'RE STILL STUCK IN THE SAME PLACE. WE HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE.

AND WE DON'T THINK WE'RE BASED ON OUR INTERPRETATION OF PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND A SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO 2022, THAT WE'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT 15 ADDITIONAL 15FT.

THAT'S REALLY THE THAT'S THE MAIN POINT OF WHAT WE'RE RELYING ON. AND THAT APPLIES TO BOTH THE TOWNHOUSE AND MULTIFAMILY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S THE COUNTY'S DIRECTION. IF YOU WANT TO SAY WE'D LIKE THE TOWNHOUSES BETTER THAN THE MULTIFAMILY, WE'D PROBABLY SAY, GREAT, WE'LL TAKE IT. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE COUNTY'S RIGHT TO SAY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY, HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD TOWNHOUSES, YOU NEED VARIANCE FOR BOTH OF THEM. OR A CODE INTERPRETATION APPLIES TO BOTH. BUT WE'D PREFER YOU TO HAVE ONE AND NOT THE OTHER. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO EITHER. I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO REDUCE THE DENSITY IN TERMS OF TOWNHOUSES AND.

ALSO REDUCE YOUR PARKING FOOTPRINT. BUT OBVIOUSLY, I'M NOT THE ONE MAKING THE DECISIONS.

WELL, YEAH. AND INTERESTINGLY, I BELIEVE PARKING IS ONE PER UNIT.

I'M GOING ON MEMORY. I MAY BE WRONG. ONE PER UNIT MULTIFAMILY.

IT'S ONE AND A HALF PER UNIT IN TOWNHOMES. SO I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF IT'S A LOT OF BALANCING, RIGHT? IT'S A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE ON ALL THIS STUFF, TO BE HONEST, MAYBE MORE, MORE RELEVANT TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

BUT YEAH, I'VE, I'VE ALL THE PROPERTY AND I MEAN, IF YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT BEHIND THEM. WELL, INTERESTING. YES, YES, YOU SAY THAT, BUT I'M NOT ASKING FOR IN THE VARIANCE AND IN THE CODE INTERPRETATION.

I'M NOT ASKING TO CHANGE THAT REAR BUILDING LINE.

THAT REAR BUILDING LINE MEETS CODE. IF I HAVE TO GET THE 15FT, I'M MOVING IT CLOSER TO THE RESIDENCE THAN I AM.

I MEET CODE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT ASKING TO BE ANY CLOSER THAN WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS.

THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE IS WHAT IT IS. I'M ASKING TO WAIVE THAT ADDITIONAL 15FT IF I HAVE TO, IF I HAVE TO MEET THAT 15FT, I'VE GOT TO TAKE THAT 48FT OF THAT UNIT WIDTH, GOT TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 30FT.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S THE REAR SETBACK FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE REAR SETBACK IF OUR FRONT. WELL HANG ON. LET ME I'VE GOT THE CHART HERE.

IT'S A SIDE YARD. IT'S A SIDE YARD IS WHAT IT IS RIGHT HERE.

BUT I'VE GOT THE SIDE YARD BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY FRONTING MASSIE.

RIGHT, RIGHT RIGHT. YEAH. SO I'VE GOT THE CODE UP HERE SOMEWHERE.

THERE IT IS RIGHT THERE. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS I WAS LOOKING FOR WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.

SO TOWNHOMES AND MULTIFAMILY HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.

BUT YES, IT IS A SIDE YARD. THERE'S WHAT THEY CALL AN INTERIOR SIDE YARD OR A SIDE STREET SIDE YARD.

AND FOR THAT INTERIOR SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT IS 25FT, WHICH WE MEET, YOU KNOW, SO THAT FOR MULTIFAMILY, SO THAT INTERIOR, THE BACKSIDE, WE'RE NOT ASKING TO CHANGE THAT. WE'RE NOT ANY CLOSER TO THOSE RESIDENTS UNDER ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS AND ANY OF THESE REQUESTS THAT CHANGE THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THAT BUILDING LINE AT ALL. NOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE 15FT AND HOW THAT'S APPLIED.

BUT IS THAT MORE APPROPRIATE FOR VARIANCE OR IS IT APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME? I HAVE FOUND MYSELF IN A VERY AWKWARD POSITION.

I'M NORMALLY PLANNING DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE AND ALSO THE SECRETARY OF THE BZA, BUT TODAY I'M BOTH A FACT WITNESS AND AN EXPERT WITNESS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MY NAME IS ON. SOME OF THESE OLD EMAILS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH ME ARE BEING RECALLED.

SO I REALLY FEEL THE NEED TO KIND OF STEP BACK AND LET MR. MURPHY SPEAK FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. YEAH.

CAN YOU CAN YOU, MR. MURPHY, ADDRESS THE 90 DAY ISSUE THAT MR. CONLIN BROUGHT UP? AND THEN ALSO THE 15 FOOT VARIANCE WAS NOT A VARIANCE YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU HOW YOU, I GUESS TERM IT, BUT IT'S A CODE PROVISION THAT GIVES THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FLEXIBILITY.

IT IS A CODE REQUIREMENT, BUT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS FLEXIBILITY TO WAIVE THAT ADDITIONAL 15FT.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING HERE, OR IS THAT SOMETHING MORE APPROPRIATELY DISCUSSED DURING THE VARIANCE? THE SUBSTANCE OF THE WAIVER REQUEST IS NOT BEFORE.

THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER WE THINK IT'S GOOD OR BAD, WE'RE JUST SIMPLY DETERMINING WHETHER THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION OR. I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ERRED IN NOT PRESENTING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

CORRECT. AND I WOULD SAY THAT HE DID NOT AIR THAT IT NEEDED TO BE PRESENTED IN A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT OR FOR APPROVAL.

THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED IS A CONCEPT PLAN.

AND I, I HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH MR. CONLON. THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT IN JANUARY PRESENTED.

YES. REQUESTED ZONING CONFORMANCE LETTER, BUT IT PRESENTED IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONCEPT PLAN AND IT ASKED FOR FEEDBACK ON A CONCEPT PLAN.

[02:00:02]

AND SO MR. GIDLEY I THINK APPROPRIATELY DIRECTED HIM TO THE CONCEPT PLAN PROCESS.

THE CONCEPT PLAN IS JUST A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A CONCEPT THAT'S IT'S IN THE NAME.

IT'S NOT A FORMAL SUBMISSION. YOU HEARD MR. CONLIN EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PUD AND A CONCEPT PLAN.

IT'S REALLY JUST FOR THAT PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK.

AND IN THOSE JANUARY LETTERS, APPELLANT DID NOT REQUEST A WAIVER AT THAT POINT.

THE LETTERS EXPLICITLY SAY THAT THEY WILL IF REQUIRED.

SO THEN I THINK TURNING TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ABILITY TO WAIVE THAT ADDITIONAL SETBACK, AND I HAVE I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR READING OF THE 3105 D ONE.

IT SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MUST HAVE. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY ARE IN A SUBDIVISION.

THEY MUST HAVE A SUBDIVISION. THE SUBDIVISION THAT THEY HAVE DOES NOT SHOW THE MASSIE.

IT SHOWS NINE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. SO THEN THE SUBDIVISION ON RECORD, IS THAT CORRECT? IT IS. AND IT WILL BE VACATED. THAT LAYOUT WILL BE VACATED.

SO THEY WILL NOT HAVE THEY DO NOT HAVE A SUBDIVISION OF RECORD THAT MATCHES THEIR LAYOUT AS OF 2002.

AND WE MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT 15FT.

BUT THAT'S REALLY MORE OF A VARIANCE ISSUE THAN A THAN A AT THIS POINT.

I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. NOW THE. I THINK YOU YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WHEN YOU SAID THAT THERE IS DISCRETION. RIGHT.

THEY'VE PRESENTED YOU AN EMAIL THAT SAYS THAT THE BASIC STANDARD.

SO, YOU KNOW, ON ITS FACE, IT COULD BE GRANTED, BUT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS DISCRETION TO WAIVE THAT.

AND I'D SAY THERE'S SOME VERY OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH IS CLOSE TO STAPLES MILL AND WHICH I THINK ALSO FRONTS PINE INSTEAD OF STAPLES MILL. I THINK STAPLES MILL IS THE REAR YARD OF THAT OFFICE BUILDING AND SOME MULTIFAMILY.

I MAY GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES THAT MAY BRING THAT INTO QUESTION, BUT MAYBE THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR VARIANCE CASE.

I THINK OUR DECISION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT STAFF MADE THE APPROPRIATE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOLLOWING THE PROCESS APPROPRIATELY.

AND WE HAVE TO HAVE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO OVERTURN THAT.

AND I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THAT HERE. I THINK THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED AND WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE FURTHER IN THE VARIANCE CASE.

BUT YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THE 90 DAY ISSUE. OH I'M SORRY.

I MEANT TO DO THAT AS WELL. I THINK THERE'S A AGAIN, A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THAT THE CODE RECOGNIZES THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO RESPOND WITHIN 90 DAYS. I AGREE, BUT THE CONSEQUENCE OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL NOT TAKING ACTION WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD COULD BE SIGNIFICANT. AND AS I POINTED OUT, IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THE APPELLANT OR OTHER PARTIES DO NOT HAVE A REMEDY.

IF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DOES NOT RESPOND WITHIN 90 DAYS, YOU CAN GO TO CIRCUIT COURT.

YOU ASK FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IF ISSUED, WOULD COMPEL THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO ISSUE THE DECISION, EVEN IF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMPELS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A DECISION.

THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DOES NOT EXERCISE DISCRETION.

IT'S NOT GOING TO DECIDE THE CASE. IT'S NOT GOING TO TELL THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HOW TO DECIDE.

IT'S JUST GOING TO TELL THE DIRECTOR. YOU NEED TO RESPOND NOW.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE.

HE DID GET A CHANCE TO RESPOND, AND I JUST. I'LL LIMIT IT TO THOSE.

AND I DO AGREE THAT BEFORE YOU. NOW IS NOT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE WAIVER.

AND WE'RE SPECIFICALLY NOT ASKING FOR YOU TO REVIEW THAT. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT.

BUT WE DO THINK THAT WITH RESPECT TO THAT 15FT.

AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING. I KNOW YOU SAID IT'S NOT A VARIANCE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT. BUT AND IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ASKING THE DIRECTOR TO GIVE US A WAIVER OF THAT 15FT.

IT'S SPECIFICALLY. WELL I'VE GOT THE WRONG. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS PERMITTED THAT MR. GREEN HAD ASKED THE QUESTION. THE CODE ALLOWS US, IF WE'RE IN A SUBDIVISION AND I KNOW THE TERM WAS USED, MUST HAVE A SUBDIVISION, IT SAYS ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HAS A SUBDIVISION THAT DID NOT HAVE A SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO 2022.

WE'RE SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE CODE BY NOT HAVING TO MEET THE 15FT.

IT'S NOT WHETHER THE DIRECTOR RIGHTFULLY GRANTED THE WAIVER OR NOT.

THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. IT IS THIS INTERPRETATION OF THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT SAYS, ARE WE DOING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A SUBDIVISION? AND OUR DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S ON NINE LOTS OR ONE LOT, IS STILL WITHIN THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION.

[02:05:04]

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE LOTS.

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WHEN WE DID DUPLEXES, WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE LOTS TOWNHOUSES. WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE LOTS. IT SAYS, ARE YOU IN A SUBDIVISION? AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION, EVEN WHEN WE VACATE THE LOTS AND EVEN WHEN WE BUILD ANY BUILDING ON THERE, NOTHING CHANGES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING FROM MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION.

IT'S A MAYFIELD APARTMENT COMPLEX. IT'S WITHIN THE.

BUT SUBDIVISION IS NOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.

MOST PEOPLE THINK OF IT THAT WAY. A SUBDIVISION UNDER THE UNDER THE COUNTY CODE IS A DIVISION OF LOTS OF TWO OR MORE LOTS.

IN THIS SITUATION, LOTS FIVE THROUGH 14 HAPPEN TO BE NINE LOTS.

AND WE'RE REDUCING IT TO ONE LOT. ACTUALLY, WE'RE REDUCING IT TO TWO LOTS.

THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL LOT THAT WE'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING OR NOT DOING THE LOT VACATION.

AND WHEN YOU VACATE LOT LINES, YOU'RE NOT VACATING THE SUBDIVISION.

IT DOESN'T SAY LOTS. IT DOESN'T SAY LOT LINES.

IT SAYS. ARE YOU STILL IN A SUBDIVISION? AND WE ARE STILL SUBJECT TO.

THERE'S PLENTY OF EXAMPLES WHERE YOU HAVE DUPLEXES AND CONDOMINIUMS WITHIN A SUBDIVISION IN HENRICO COUNTY.

WE'RE STILL WITHIN A SUBDIVISION, AND THAT'S THE KEY HERE.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE BASING IT ON. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE 90 DAYS, I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AS TO THIS, BUT HE'S BASICALLY ASKING A LANDOWNER TO SAY THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, HEY, BY THE WAY, I DIDN'T APPEAL.

I DID NOT APPEAL THE WAIVER TO THIS BOARD WITHIN 30 DAYS.

AND I TALKED TO HIM. I'M DONE, I'M DONE. I HAVE TO LIVE BY THOSE RULES.

BUT THE THE COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOES NOT.

AND BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, WELL, JUST GO TO COURT AND MAKE THE COURT GIVE YOU AN ANSWER.

THAT TO ME SEEMS A LITTLE AGGRESSIVE TO TELL A CITIZEN, A PROPERTY OWNER, TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLY UNLESS YOU TAKE US TO COURT.

AND I REPLY UNTIL YOU TAKE IT TO COURT. I THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY COLLEAGUES WISH TO COMMENT OR WEIGH IN ON THIS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? I GUESS WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, TOO. YES.

IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. YES. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? NOT TO THE VARIANCE CASE? THIS IS TO THE TO THE APPEAL CASE? YES. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. SURE. YES, MA'AM.

COME FORWARD, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. WE ARE STILL IN MOURNING. TECHNICALLY.

MY NAME IS SHELLY RUANO, AND I WOULD LIKE TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL.

MY HUSBAND AND I OWN ONE OF THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

AND FOR THE RECORD, WE SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL DETERMINATION OF THE HENRICO COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND THEREFORE, WE OPPOSE THE APPEAL. WHERE DO YOU LIVE? IN CONJUNCTION? THE WITH PROPERTY. NOW WE ARE AT 2115 PINE TREE DRIVE.

THAT IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE? HELLO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I'M KAREN HUDSON, I'M FROM MAYFIELD.

I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION. WE HAVE OVER A THOUSAND APARTMENTS BEING BUILT DOWN IN LIBBY MILL AND 262 OVER THERE IN TAPESTRY. IS THERE REALLY A NEED FOR THIS TO BE DEVELOPED? THAT'S WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF OUR AREA. IT SAYS REASONABLY COMPATIBLE.

THERE'S THREE STORIES APARTMENTS IS UP TO THREE STORIES WAS WHAT I WAS TOLD.

IS THAT REALLY COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE. LEVEL SINGLE HOMES AND THE ENTRANCE I JUST FOUND OUT TODAY IS GOING TO BE ON MASSIE ROAD. THAT'S A PRETTY SMALL STRIP THERE THAT FOR THE EXIT AND ENTRANCE.

AND THEN THERE'S A LIGHT RIGHT THERE AT STAPLES MILL THAT'S GOING TO BACK UP INTO THE AREA.

AND AS THE NEED TO CHANGE, CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITY, I THINK NOT. WE'VE ALREADY GOT ENOUGH APARTMENTS DOWN THERE, LIBBY MILL, THEY'RE ALREADY BUILDING MORE FOUNDATIONS FROM WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY GOT.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT THAT TAPESTRY, WHICH IS A BIG LUXURY AREA.

AND DO WE NEED A CHANGE? NO, WE DON'T NEED A CHANGE.

THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO CHANGE. AND THEN AND FINAL LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS AREA IS A OZONE SINK. IT'S GOING TO HELP WITH LOWERING THE TEMPERATURES IN OUR COUNTY.

IT'S GOING TO HELP WITH STORMWATER RUNOFF AND LOWER OUR TEMPERATURES.

[02:10:02]

THERE ARE SIX LANES OF TRAFFIC ON BROAD TWO BLOCKS AWAY AND SIX LANES OF TRAFFIC RIGHT THERE ON STAPLES MILL AND OUR FACE.

PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? WHERE DO YOU LIVE? CLOVER? ONE BLOCK OVER. OKAY.

SO YOU'RE NOT ADJOINING THE PROPERTY? NO. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK? THANK YOU, MA'AM.

HELLO, MY NAME IS BOB WITTE WITTE. I NEED TO VERIFY BEFORE I SPEAK.

THIS IS ABOUT A VARIANCE, CORRECT? WELL, ACTUALLY, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT CASES, SIR.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VARIANCE CASE.

THIS IS CURRENTLY JUST DETERMINING WHETHER THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MADE THE PROPER DETERMINATION.

SO THIS IS A NARROWER FOCUS. I GUESS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT WE'RE NOT REALLY SO SO IT'S NOT ABOUT A VARIANCE.

THAT'LL BE NEXT. THAT'LL BE THE NEXT THAT'LL BE THE NEXT ON THE AGENDA. I'LL JUST GIVE MY LITTLE SPIEL AND YOU ALL MAKE THE DETERMINATION.

EXCUSE ME. MY UNDERSTANDING IS TO PASS A ZONING VARIANCE IN HENRICO.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MUST DETERMINE THAT A STRICT APPLICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCES CAUSES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION OR SEVERE HARDSHIP APPROACHING CONFISCATION. NOW. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT THIS IS THE CASE. IT SAYS THAT IT ALSO IS ONLY AUTHORIZED TO GREATER VARIANCE IF IT FINDS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET, ALL OF THEM UNIQUE PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS, WHICH WOULD BE PECULIAR COMPARED TO OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA.

MARGINAL, NO SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. WELL, I SAY HE DID CREATE HIS OWN HARDSHIP BECAUSE HE HAD SOMEWHAT VERBAL APPROVAL FOR FOUR DUPLEXES AND THEN DECIDED TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT FOR PROFIT.

WELL, FOR PROFIT IS NOT A REASON FOR VARIANCE.

SO. IN STRICT APPLICATION, THE THIRD THING PRACTICALLY PROHIBITS OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

WELL, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE THREE. AND YOU ONLY NEED TO MISS BY ONE TO GET DENIED A VARIANCE.

WELL, I THINK THEY MISSED ON ALL THREE. NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO I'VE BEEN A BROOKLYN DISTRICT RESIDENT SINCE 1969.

I'VE BEEN ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT CASES. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT THIS JUST DOESN'T FIT THE BILL.

IT'S NOT A PERSONAL OPINION. IT'S JUST THE THREE FACTS.

THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THREE. IF THEY DON'T MEET ONE, IT'S A DENIAL QUASI JUDICIAL DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH FEELINGS OR PERSONAL OPINIONS, SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I'LL KEEP THIS SHORT AND SWEET, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T.

IT DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T. A QUESTION FOR MR..

WHAT DO YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA? I USED TO SIT IN THIS SEAT, I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION ON THE VARIANCE.

THE ONE RIGHT IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF US IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURE AND DETERMINING THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PROPER FRONTAGE FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR.

DID YOU WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON, ON, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE PLANNING PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE PLANNING STAFF FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE OR NOT? I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION.

UNFORTUNATELY OR ACTUALLY, FORTUNATELY, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO AND I HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THAT WITH WHY THESE DECISIONS WERE MADE, BUT PERSONALLY, IT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.

HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FOUR DUPLEXES. HE OPTED NOT TO TAKE IT.

THAT WOULD HAVE SOLVED ALL HIS PROBLEMS AT THE VERY BEGINNING.

AND NOW THE WITH THOSE DECISIONS MAKING IT WORK, THIS IS UNNECESSARY.

[02:15:04]

SO HE PRODUCED HIS OWN HARDSHIP. THANK YOU SIR.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER CHAIR? YES. I DID WANT TO NOTE ONE THING WITH REGARDS TO.

YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE TIMELINE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BY MR. CONLIN. THIS WAS AN ONGOING CONVERSATION.

YOU KNOW, I CAME IN LATE TO THE PROCESS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN AN ONGOING CONVERSATION THROUGHOUT THE WINTER BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR AND STAFF AND MR. CONLIN. THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WHERE WE, WE HAVE TRY TO HAVE THAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP.

WE WORKED WITH MR. COUNCILMAN REGULARLY ON THAT.

SO CERTAINLY THE TIMELINE WAS FLUID THROUGH THAT, THAT PERIOD.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST GET THAT OUT THERE AS WELL.

IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE CONVERSATIONS MR. EMERSON AND AND MR. CONLON SPEAK REGULARLY. SO CERTAINLY THE TIMELINE WAS NOT AS AS DISCRETE AS THAT WITH REGARDS TO MAKING SURE THAT THE APPLICANTS, THE CONSIDERATION WAS ONGOING DURING THAT TIME FRAME.

JUST WITH REGARDS TO THE 90 DAYS. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR.

YOU'RE DONE WITH ME? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. YOU CAN SPEAK AGAIN IF YOU WANT DURING THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.

BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD? I THINK MR. CONLON RAISED SOME GOOD POINTS. I'M CLOSE.

THE PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. I THINK MR. CONLON RAISED SOME VALID POINTS, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CODE.

I THINK IT'S STRETCHING JUST TO CALL IT A STILL CALL IT A SUBDIVISION.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 90 DAY TIME FRAME.

BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS GOING ON AND I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION EXCHANGED.

THE PROPERTY HAS DIFFICULTIES. I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.

IT'S GOT DIFFICULTIES. I OBVIOUSLY IT'D BE TO THE COUNTY'S ADVANTAGE TO DEVELOP IT.

AND WE CAN DETERMINE THAT IN THE NEXT HEARING WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

BUT THIS, THIS HEARING IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MADE, MADE THE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CODE. AND HAVING SAID THAT, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY AND HIS PRESENTATION OF THE LETTER. I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE AFFIRM THE DETERMINATION AND MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.

NUMBER ONE, THE ADDITIONAL 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIRED BY HENRICO CODE SECTION 243105 D APPLIES TO THE MASSIE AND THEREFORE THE TOTAL STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK APPLICABLE TO THE MASSIE IS 40FT.

HENRICO CODE SECTION 243105 E DOES NOT APPLY TO THE MASSIE.

THREE A CONCEPT PLAN IS NOT A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR APPROVAL FOR STATE LAW HAS SUPERSEDED THE PORTION OF HENRICO CODE THAT ALLOWED THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A WAIVER REQUEST. AND FINALLY, NUMBER FIVE, THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF THE WAIVER REQUEST IS FINAL.

DO I HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? A SECOND, OKAY, A SECOND BY MR. MASSIE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION IS AFFIRMED.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE VARIANCE FROM THIS CASE, WHICH IS 2026 NUMBER 100843.

ANDREW CONLON FOR STAPLES MILL LAND TRUST. A VARIANCE FROM THE STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT 2100 TO 2116 STAPLES MILL ROAD IN MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION IN THE BROOKLYN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER PARTIES WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK TO NOT SPEAK PREVIOUSLY? SO EVERYBODY'S STILL UNDER MR. GIBSON? YEAH. I'M SORRY.

JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN.

YES, BUT YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH. YES.

DO YOU WANT ME TO GO FOR IT OR WAIT FOR MR. GREEN AND MR. BLANKENSHIP? I'M SORRY. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO FORWARD OR WAIT FOR MR. GREEN AND MR. BLANKENSHIP. LET'S WAIT JUST A MOMENT.

MAYBE FOLKS NEED A BREAK, TOO. LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

CAN YOU GO TO THE BATHROOM OR GET SOME WATER? WE'LL START AT 1130.

SO YOU NEEDED ME? MR. GREENE BEING GONE. DID HE WANT ME TO SPEAK OR WAIT? AND I SAID MAYBE.

[02:29:36]

I MEAN, HAVING CAFFEINE. WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE THE MEETING.

[02:29:41]

IT'S 1135, AND WE ARE NOW GOING TO ASK MR. BLANKENSHIP TO CALL OUR NEXT CASE.

YES, THAT IS VARIANCE 2026 NUMBER 100843. ANDREW TOMLIN FOR STAPLES MILL LAND TRUST.

[2e. VAR-2026-100843 Brookland Andrew Condlin for Staples Mill Land Trust: variance from the street side yard setback and lot width requirement to build a multifamily residential building at 2100-2116 Staples Mill Road, Mayfield, Brookland. The applicant has 99 feet lot width and 25 feet street side yard setback where the Zoning Ordinance requires 100 feet lot width and 40 feet street side yard setback. The applicant requests a variance of 1 foot lot width and 15 feet street side yard setback. Parcels 774-738-9392, 774-738-9586, 774-738-9680, 774-738-9875, 774-738-9946, 774-738-9952, 774-738-9958, 774-738-9964 and 774- 738-9970. Zoning: R-5, General Residence District. Code Section: 24-3105.D and 24-3315.D. ]

VARIANCE FROM THE STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT 2100 TO 2116 STAPLES MILL ROAD IN MAYFIELD

[02:30:03]

IN THE BROOKLYN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SINCE YOU HEARD THE APPEAL FIRST, SOME OF THIS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT REPETITIVE.

AS YOU HEARD SAY, THAT THIS WAS FORMERLY A PART OF THE MAYFIELD SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED BACK IN 1940.

AT THE TIME, THE PROPERTY HERE CONTAINED TEN LOTS, NOT OF WHICH HAD HOUSES.

BACK THEN, STAPLES MILL ROAD WAS ONLY TWO LANES.

BETWEEN 1973 AND 1976. VDOT PURCHASED EACH OF THESE LOTS AND DEMOLISHED THE HOMES THAT WERE ON THEM.

STAPLES MILL ROAD WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WIDENED, AND ONCE THIS WORK WAS COMPLETED, ROUGHLY HALF OF EACH LOT WAS LEFT, AND VDOT THEN SOLD OR AUCTIONED OFF THESE LOTS THE APPELLANT OR THE APPLICANT STAPLES MILL LAND TRUST ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 2013.

NO WARRANTY WAS PROVIDED FOR THAT PROPERTY. AS IS NOTED IN THE LAST HEARING, A CONCEPT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

IT SHOWS A 16 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.

THEY DO NEED TO COMBINE THE LOTS INTO ONE LOT.

AND THEY WERE ALSO TOLD IT WOULD NOT MEET THE LOT WITH REQUIREMENT OR THE SETBACKS OFF OF STAPLES MILL ROAD.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ONE FOOT LOT WITH VARIANCE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OFF OF STAPLES MILL ROAD.

AS YOU KNOW, AT LEAST ONE THRESHOLD TEST NEEDS TO BE MET.

STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE ANY ARE MET. THE IS IS THE PROPERTY UNREASONABLY RESTRICTED.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAD HOUSES ON EACH OF THESE LOTS EXCEPT FOR ONE.

SO YOU HAD A LOT IN A HOUSE AND VDOT REQUIRED THOSE.

VDOT PAID THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE HOUSE AND THE LOT.

THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS MADE WHOLE. VDOT, THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER, GOT WHAT THEY WANTED.

TWO MORE LANES OF STAPLES MILL ROAD ON THEM SO THEY WERE HAPPY.

AND THEN YOU JUST HAD THIS REMNANT OF LAND THAT WAS LEFT OVER THAT WAS AUCTIONED OFF.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAD TWO SETS OF PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE COMPENSATED HERE, AND NOT EVERY RESIDUAL PIECE OF LAND FROM A ROAD WIDENING PROJECT IS NECESSARILY BUILDABLE. I DON'T THINK THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS TREATED UNFAIRLY AGAIN.

THERE WERE ORIGINALLY HOUSES ON THE ORIGINAL PLATTED LOTS.

LET'S SEE HERE.

ON THE APPLICANT SUGGESTS THERE WAS A HARDSHIP AND IT WAS CAUSED BY VDOT.

BUT AGAIN, THE LEFTOVER LAND HAS BEEN SOLD MORE THAN ONCE AND THEY WANTED STAPLES.

MILL ROAD USE WAS MADE AND THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AS IS AND ULTIMATELY WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

AND FINALLY, THIS DOESN'T INVOLVE A PERSON WHO'S, YOU KNOW, DISABLED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO FROM SAM'S PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE THRESHOLD TESTS ARE MET AS REQUIRED BY CODE, EVEN IF A THRESHOLD TEST IS MET, ONE OF THE SUBTESTS DEALS WITH DETRIMENTAL IMPACT.

DO I HAVE. YES. I MEAN, IT MAY MEET CODE, BUT THE REALITY IS YOU HAVE THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HOUSES HERE.

NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PARKING LOT BASICALLY BACKING UP TO THEIR PROPERTY AND A LARGE APARTMENT BUILDING THERE.

SO THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL IN STAFF'S OPINION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THERE.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE THE TEST ARE MET.

IN CONCLUSION, I'LL JUST KIND OF SUMMARIZE ON MY OWN AGAIN.

THE USE WAS THE HOUSES THAT WERE ON THESE LOTS AND THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE PAID FOR THOSE.

VDOT WAS ABLE TO PUT TWO MORE LANES ON STAPLES MILL ROAD.

SO TWO SETS OF OWNERS MADE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.

A VARIANT OR A WAIVER WAS ASKED OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE 30 OR FOR THE ADDITIONAL 15FT.

AND THAT WAS DENIED. I THINK THERE ARE SAFETY REASONS FOR THAT.

STAPLES MILL ROAD CARRIES, I BELIEVE IT'S 21,000 TRIPS PER DAY AND THE SPEED LIMIT IS 45 MILES AN HOUR.

SO PEOPLE WHIZZING DOWN THERE PRETTY FAST. AND THAT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

THERE'S A REASON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTED THAT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.

AND I THINK FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS, THE DIRECTOR, WHEN HE REVIEWED IT, CONCLUDED, CONCLUDED THAT IT NEEDED TO BE RETAINED.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE POTENTIALLY 25FT OFF WHERE THE CARS ARE ZOOMING DOWN THE ROAD QUITE FAST.

[02:35:06]

SO THERE IS A PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH REASON FOR THAT.

SECONDLY, AS NOTED, AND YOU HEARD FROM ONE OF THE LADIES WHO LIVES IMMEDIATELY BEHIND IT, THEY VIEW IT AS DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR PROPERTY.

IT'S RESIDUAL LAND. THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE A USE FOR THAT.

AND WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF IT THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY THERE, WHY SHOULD THE PROPERTY OWNERS BEHIND IT WHO HAVE THEIR HOMES, OR SHOULD THEY BEAR THE COST OF THAT IMPACT, SO TO SPEAK, BY HAVING A PARKING LOT RIGHT BEHIND THEM? SO FOR THOSE THREE REASONS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE THE ORIGINAL OWNERS WERE COMPENSATED.

THERE'S A PUBLIC SAFETY REASON FOR THAT ENHANCED SETBACK, AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REVIEWED THAT AND DECIDED THERE ARE REASONS TO KEEP THAT.

AND WE VIEW IT AS BEING DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE BEHIND IT.

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING DENIAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THANK YOU. MR.. BROADWAY HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

YES, SIR. HAVING A FIRM, THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR AND OUR PREVIOUS ACTION.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT ON OUR ABILITY TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE IF.

AND. MR.. I THINK THESE ARE SEPARATE. YOU CAN COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. SO YOU'RE ON THE MINUTES AND THEY CAN HEAR YOU AGAIN. I THINK THEY'RE SEPARATE CASES, SIR. AND I THINK THEY HAVE SEPARATE DECISIONAL STANDARDS.

VARIANCE HAS ITS OWN SPECIFIC STATUTORY STANDARD FOR MAKING A DECISION, AS MR. GIDLEY EXPLAINED. THERE'S THE THRESHOLD, AND THEN THERE'S THE SUBTESTS, AND THEY HAVE TO MEET ONE OF THE THRESHOLD TESTS.

THEY MEET ALL OF THE SUBTESTS. SO I DON'T THINK THAT YOU ARE PRECLUDED FROM ACTING ON THE VARIANCE IN ANY WAY, IF THAT'S THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. COULD YOU ALL, IN VERY LAY TERMS, ASSUMING THAT I'M SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE, EXPLAIN WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? I MEAN WE UNDERSTAND SUBTESTS, THE VARIANCE, THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, BUT IN LAY TERMS, IF I'M SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED NOW, BECAUSE WE HEARD THE APPEAL BEFORE WE HEARD THE THE VARIANCE, COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN VERY SIMPLE LAY TERMS? WHAT IF WE DENIED ONE? BUT IF WE IF WE AFFIRMED ONE.

BUT IF WE APPROVE THIS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T WANT THIS AT ALL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NOT LOYALTY. OKAY, SO YOU'VE DENIED THE THE APPEAL.

THERE'S TWO VARIANCES THAT ARE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.

ONE IS THE LOT WIDTH. THE OTHER IS THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK, THE ADDITIONAL 15FT.

BOTH WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED, I THINK, FOR THE PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO I THINK YOU HAVE A QUESTION OF THE LOT WIDTH, WHICH IS I THINK ABOUT A FOOT SIX INCHES.

AND THEN THE VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK, WHICH IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 15FT THERE.

SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO APPLY THE THRESHOLD TESTS AND THE SUBTESTS TO EACH OF THOSE STANDARDS.

DOES THAT HELP. DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY. AND. AND I WON'T SPEAK FOR MR. CONLON. HE MAY HAVE. HE MAY DISAGREE WITH ME, BUT I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST AS SOMEONE IS LISTENING FOR A LATE PERSON, IF WE AFFIRM THE DIRECTOR'S REQUEST AND SOMEONE COULD POTENTIALLY THINK, WELL, THE PROJECT IS OFF THE TABLE NOW, BUT I THINK YOU STILL HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE HERE.

WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. GIDLEY. IN YOUR OPINION, OF WHAT OTHER VIABLE USE IS THERE FOR THIS PROPERTY? OKAY. AT THIS STAGE, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT OR PROVIDE A VIABLE USE.

I'M NOT I'M NOT IN THAT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT DOES THAT.

ON THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE AT THE END AND PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF A LAYPERSON'S TERM IS.

NOT ALL LAND THAT'S RESIDUAL FROM A ROAD WIDENING PROJECT NECESSARILY HAS A READY USE AVAILABLE.

THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNERS HAD FULL LOTS. THEY HAD HOUSES ON THOSE LOTS.

[02:40:05]

THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR THAT. THEY WERE MADE WHOLE.

AND THE IDEA OF A VARIANCE IS TO MAKE SURE A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT LEFT IN A SITUATION WHERE, WITHIN CERTAIN REASONS OR CERTAIN BOUNDS, THAT YOU CAN MAKE REASONABLE USE OF YOUR PROPERTY.

BUT THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNERS WERE COMPENSATED.

VDOT WHO BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED OUT OF IT.

TWO LANES OF STAPLES MILL ROAD. SO YOU HAVE TWO SETS OF OWNERS WHO IN EFFECT ACHIEVED WHAT THEY WANTED.

AND THEN YOU JUST HAD A RESIDUAL PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS ACQUIRED FOR $3,500, AND NOW PEOPLE ARE LEFT TRYING TO FIND SOME SORT OF A USE FOR IT, AND MAYBE THERE'S NOT A USE. AND SOMEONE AT ONE OF THESE AUCTIONS THE OTHER DAY CALLED ME, WANTED A BILLBOARD ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEY BOUGHT A HALF OF A DRAINAGE DITCH.

SOMETIMES THERE'S PROPERTY THAT JUST IS LEFT WITH LIMITED USE.

AND THAT'S MAYBE ONE REASON IT SOLD FOR SUCH LITTLE LAND.

SO IF NOTHING IS APPROVED FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT JUST SITS THERE ALONG STAPLES MILL ROAD IN PERPETUITY.

UNLESS AND AGAIN, AND MAYBE ON MR. BLANKENSHIP'S A LITTLE MORE UP TO DATE AS FAR AS THE DISCUSSIONS ARE CONCERNED ON WHETHER ANY OF THESE LOTS CAN BE COMBINED AND MADE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. OF COURSE, THE ZONING, I GUESS WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE AT THAT POINT, BUT THERE MAY BE SOME AVENUES GOING FORWARD, BUT MY POINT WAS IT'S HARD TO SAY THE PROPERTY TAKEN AS A WHOLE, TO USE THE OLD STATE SUPREME COURT TEST, IS UNREASONABLY RESTRICTED.

WHEN THE ORIGINAL LOTS HAD HOUSES ON THEM, AND THOSE HOUSES WERE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, AND THE LAND BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY VDOT.

AND THEN AGAIN, VDOT OBTAINED WHAT THEY WANTED OUT OF THE LAND WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT.

TWO MORE LANES OF STAPLES MILL ROAD THAT ARE OUT THERE AS WE SPEAK.

SO IN EFFECT, TWICE YOU'VE HAD PROPERTY OWNERS GET WHAT THEY WANTED OUT OF THIS LAND.

AND THIS IS THE THIRD SET OF OWNERS TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE RESIDUAL.

BUT THE PROPERTY TAKEN AS A WHOLE, I THINK HAD REASONABLE BENEFICIAL USE THAT ORIGINALLY HAD THE HOUSES AND NOW IT HAS TWO LANES OF STAPLES MILL ROAD ON IT.

AND THEN GETTING TO THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT, WHICH I THINK THE LADY SPOKE ABOUT TO TRY TO PUSH SOMETHING IN THERE NOW THAT DOESN'T MEET CODE STANDARDS. WHY SHOULD THEY BE THE ONES BEARING THE IMPACT OF THAT? DO YOU HAVE A BETTER PICTURE OF THIS, A REAL PICTURE? AARON. NO. ERIC. YEAH. ARIEL. ARIEL. YEAH.

YEAH. YEAH. WHY SHOULD THESE FOLKS BE THE ONES TO BEAR THE PRICE OF TRYING TO SQUEEZE IN A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT HERE RIGHT OFF STAPLES MILL ROAD WITH THE EXISTING R-5 ZONING, THERE ARE PROBABLY NO USES THAT COULD BE MADE WITHOUT AT LEAST A VARIANCE FROM THE LOT WIDTH. BUT THEY COULD APPLY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A CATEGORY THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE SAME LOT WIDTH.

SO WE'RE NOT REALLY IN A POSITION TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE POSSIBLE USES THAT COULD BE MADE AT THIS POINT.

THAT'S AGAIN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT WHEN YOU SAY WHY SHOULD THEY, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO BEAR THAT. WELL, THAT'S ANYBODY CAN ASK THAT QUESTION.

ANYTIME SOMETHING GOES UP, WHEN WE SEE ALL THESE APARTMENTS GOING UP EVERYWHERE AND DO SUBDIVISIONS COMING IN AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I LIVE I LIVE IN SHORT PUMP. AND WHEN THEY BUILT WEST BROAD VILLAGE.

SO WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WEST BROAD VILLAGE WHEN I WAS OUT THERE? THAT'S JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE. SOME THINGS JUST HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, AND THEY MEET CODE.

I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, JUST A SPACE LIMIT, BUT WE JUST NEED TO VISUAL.

SO BASED ON THE VISUAL, WHERE WOULD THESE UNITS BE VERSUS THE HOUSE? I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO SEE.

YOU GOT THAT THING KIND OF TURNED SIDEWAYS AND IT'S STILL HARD TO SEE THE AERIAL AND THE SITE MAP ARE THE SAME SCALE THOUGH, AND THEY SHOULD BE THE SAME ORIENTATION. SO IF HE CLICKS FROM ONE, IT WAS JUST SEE WHERE THAT IS AND THEN CLICK BACK TO THE AERIAL AGAIN.

AND JUST IMAGINE THAT RED BLOB NOT MOVING. AND A YOUNG LADY THAT SPOKE.

HER HOUSE IS RIGHT. RIGHT THERE. IT'S ONE OF THESE.

YEAH. THE FIRST SPEAKER IS JUST SO, SO SO THE PROPOSALS MASSIE PROPERTY IS IN FRONT OF THIS HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT IS THAT IS THAT THAT'S NOT A HOUSE.

THAT'S A POOL OR SOMETHING BACK THERE OR SOMETHING.

[02:45:01]

YEAH, YEAH. SO, SO THAT WHOLE MESSY THING WOULD BE JUST IN FRONT OF THAT.

YES. AND WHERE WOULD THEY AND WHERE WOULD THEY.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO END UP WHERE? OFF OF HERE.

YEAH. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE. OH, ON THE STREET.

JUST AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. YEAH. HERE'S STAPLES MILL.

IT WOULD COME AND RIGHT OFF OF MASSIE HERE ASSUMING VDOT ALLOWED THAT.

AND THEN YOU'D HAVE THIS BUILDING RIGHT BEHIND THESE HOUSES AND THEN PARKING LOTS GOING UP TO HERE.

AND NOW YOU HAVE CHANGED ORIENTATIONS. SO GO BACK AGAIN TO THE.

GO BACK TO THE AERIAL. YOU'LL SEE THE STREET IS RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

WHERE'S THE STREET? RIGHT AT THE RIGHT HERE. RIGHT.

SO SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO CUT. YEAH. CUT ANOTHER STREET IN.

YES. RIGHT BETWEEN STAPLES MILL ROAD AND THAT FENCE RIGHT THERE.

YEAH. SO I MEAN, SO VDOT WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT OR.

YES. AND THAT'S NOT GUARANTEED TO. VDOT HAS EXPRESSED A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT IT FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.

SO WHY WOULD THEY COME I GUESS WHY WOULD WHY WOULD YOU WAIT UNTIL YOU GOT UNDER THE VDOT? LET'S SAY WE APPROVED THIS THING. THEN VDOT COULD STILL SAY NO.

SO WHY WOULDN'T YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOTTEN A STRONG SENSE FROM VDOT TO CUT THAT ROAD IN.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT JUST SEEMS TIGHT. I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU CAN LOOK AT THIS.

THIS DOESN'T I'VE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY AND 100 100FT, YOU KNOW.

SOUNDS. SOUNDS LIKE MORE THAN IT IS. YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT IT.

IT'S IT'S IT LOOKS PRETTY, PRETTY, PRETTY TIGHT.

YEAH. AND THE RED SQUARE ON OUR SITE MAP, OR THE RED RECTANGLE REFLECTS ONLY THE BUILDING.

IT DOESN'T REFLECT THE PROPOSED PARKING. THAT PROPOSED PARKING LOT IS SHOWN IN GRAY.

SO HOW FAR IS HOW FAR WOULD THE PARKING LOT BE OFF OF THE REAR? THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES MR.. I BELIEVE IT'S TEN FEET IS REQUIRED.

TEN FEET? YES, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS.

YES. AND THESE ARE THESE ARE UP TO FOUR STORIES.

HOW TALL? THREE. THREE. THREE STORIES. SO SO THEY'RE LOOKING DIRECTLY INTO THE BACKYARD.

YES, SIR. AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, COMING AND GOING DURING DIFFERENT HOURS, CLOSING THEIR DOORS, HAVING THEIR HEADLIGHTS ON AND OFF RIGHT BEHIND THESE PEOPLE'S HOUSES.

FOLKS WHO ARE ON. RIGHT HERE. PINE TREE. THEY WHEN THEY COME OUT THEIR BACKYARD, THEY'RE LOOKING DIRECTLY AT SOMEBODY POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT THEM.

YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO SEE. YEAH.

THAT'S THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT, WHICH WHEN YOU TRY TO GIVE SOMEBODY VALUE, YOU DON'T WANT TO HARM SOMEBODY ELSE.

AND THAT'S WHY THAT SUBTEST IS IN THERE. SO YOU SAID THIS PROPERTY IS BOUGHT FOR $3,500.

YES, SIR. $3,500. OKAY. SO THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR 33,000. 3500. 3500.

YEAH. YES. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID IT EARLIER. MR. GIBBS, LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? I. MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IF IT WAS BOUGHT FOR $3,500, WHAT ARE THE REAL ESTATE TAXES ON IT? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION TOO. YEAH, EACH LOT IS LISTED SEPARATELY, SO TAKE A MINUTE TO PUT ALL THAT TOGETHER.

1500. 3000. HOW MUCH? 27,000. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ASSESSED AT, I GUESS YEAH.

HE HAS BOUGHT A FORECLOSURE. OR AN ESTATE. YEAH.

MR. GOODLEY ONE OF THE ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WAS MADE IN THE BY MR. CONLON AND HE'LL BE SPEAKING TO. BUT WAS THAT THERE'S A PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THIS THAT HAS A MUCH SMALLER SETBACK FROM THE ROAD, AND IT DOES APPEAR THAT WAY WHEN I LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT IT'S A COMMERCIAL.

IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL. IT'S COMMERCIAL. LOTS CONFIGURED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

I THINK HE ALSO MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET, BUT I COULDN'T REALLY TELL THOSE. RIGHT, RIGHT. I DO KNOW THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED NEXT TO THE GOING OUT AND POST OFFICE.

THE, THE, THE, THE LAND WAS CLEARED BACK IN THE MID LIKE 2005 ERA MAYBE.

AND THEN WE HAD THE REAL ESTATE MARKET COLLAPSED AND NOTHING HAPPENED.

AND THEN THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS PUT THERE ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

[02:50:02]

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE COMPLEX NOW, BUT IT'S RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF KNUCKLES ROAD AND SADLER ROAD.

AND I'VE, I'VE OBSERVED AND HAD PEOPLE COMMENT.

HOW COULD THOSE BE BUILT SO CLOSE TO THE ROAD? THEY WERE PROBABLY THEY LOOK LIKE MAYBE THEY'RE TEN FEET OFF THE ROAD. AND THERE'S ANOTHER COMPLEX UP NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF WOODMAN ROAD AND. HUNGRY ROAD THAT WAS CAN'T REMEMBER IF THOSE WERE CONDOS OR APARTMENTS.

AND I REMEMBER HEARING FOLKS TALKING ABOUT THAT TOO.

GOSH, LOOKS LIKE THEY BUILT IT RIGHT DOWN TO THE TOWN OF THE ROAD. NOW, GRANTED, WOODMAN'S A TWO LANE ROAD, I THINK. KNUCKLES IS ALSO A TWO LANE ROAD. STAPLES MILL IS THREE LANES.

MAYBE THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. BUT HOW ARE THEY ABLE? DO YOU KNOW HOW THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ARE ABLE IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST TO BUILD THAT CLOSE TO THE ROAD IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS? THEY HAVE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR. YEAH, DO SOME RESEARCH INTO THAT AND BRING THOSE ANSWERS BACK TO YOU.

WE'RE NOT REALLY PREPARED FOR SOME. SOME OF THEM ARE ON STAPLES MILL ROAD.

A LOT OF THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME AND PREDATED THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTION OF THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

SO THAT'S ONE REASON SOME OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE WHERE THEY'RE AT.

IF I'M PICTURING THE RIGHT PROPERTY OFF OF KNUCKLES ROAD.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS FROM MEMORY FROM RYAN AND A ZONING LETTER.

YOU HAD ONE PARCEL WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS TO IT, BUT THE OLD POD WENT BACK QUITE A WAYS AND MAY HAVE PREDATED ON SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS THERE. AND OUR ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CHANGES SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES JUST IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. BUT AND I'M NOT REAL FAMILIAR WITH THE ZONING UP AT THE WOODMAN ROAD SITE, BUT THIS PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R5. COULD IT BE REZONED TO, SAY, R4? AND THEY COULD DEVELOP THE LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. I'M NOT SURE GIVEN THE LOCATION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, BUT WOULD THAT BE AN OPTION? COULD THE PROPERTY BE REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL FOR, YOU KNOW, A SMALL, YOU KNOW, LIKE A DOCTOR'S OFFICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WAS MR. BLANKENSHIP SAID IF YOU RESIGNED IT, THEN YOU WOULD OPEN UP OTHER POTENTIAL USES.

BUT AS YOU NOTED, THE SITE IS PRETTY CONSTRICTED.

IT'S JUST PORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL LOT. SO I DON'T WANT TO GO AHEAD AND STATE THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO THIS AT THIS POINT WITHOUT SEEING ACTUAL PLANS FOR THAT.

AND, AND SOMETHING I SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT TOO SAID THAT BASICALLY THE, THE THE APPLICANT I GUESS IS APPELLANT IN THE LAST CASE, APPLICANT IN THIS CASE WAS ACTUALLY ADVISED BY STAFF IN 2019 THAT THIS CASE WOULD NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE VARIANCE.

YOU KNOW, I READ THAT CORRECTLY AND THERE WAS CORRESPONDENCE FROM FROM THE COUNTY OR DISCUSSIONS, THE COUNTY AND THE APPLICANT AS FAR BACK AS 2019, SAYING THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR VARIANCE.

COCHRAN WAS IN EFFECT THEN, AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF COCHRANE IS THE COURT WOULD HAVE SAID THAT THE USE WAS ORIGINALLY THE HOMES. THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS COMPENSATED, PROVIDED MONEY FOR THEIR HOMES BY VDOT, AND THEN VDOT MADE USE WITH TWO MORE LANES OF PAVEMENT AND THAT THIS WAS WHAT'S LEFT OVER.

THERE WAS A CASE YEARS AGO WHEN SHORT PUMP WHERE THE LAND WAS, WHERE THE GOODWILL STILL STORE IS THERE, AND THERE WAS A LITTLE BITTY PIECE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 64, I THINK IT WAS, OR 295 THAT WAS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL PROPERTY.

AND THE BOARD TURNED DOWN THAT VARIANCE REQUEST BECAUSE THE USE WAS THERE.

IN SHORT PUMP, YOU HAD TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR PARTS OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON THE MOTHER PARCEL.

AND WHAT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE.

NOW, WAS THIS A SMALL REMNANT OF THAT ORIGINAL PARCEL? YOU DON'T GET A LOOK AT THAT AS SOMEHOW A NEW LOT ENTITLED TO ITS OWN USE.

WHEN THE ORIGINAL PARCEL HAD THAT USE. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD HAVE A QUESTION? MR.. THANK YOU, MR. GOODLEY. LET'S MOVE ON AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

I BELIEVE I HAVE A POWERPOINT AND I APOLOGIZE.

NO, NO THAT'S FINE. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. IF I DID IT. I'M SORRY. WE'D BE PULLING UP CHESTERFIELD OR SOMETHING. YEAH.

THANK YOU. IS THIS YOURS? YES. I

[02:55:09]

APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME AGAIN IS ANDY CONLON HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT THIS TIME.

IF I MAY, I FEEL LIKE I'M GOING TO BE DOING A LITTLE REBUTTAL BEFORE I GO INTO THE PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO GO PAST ALL THE FACTS THAT WE HAD OTHERWISE, AND I DO I DO WANT TO TAKE AN ATTEMPT, AND I APPRECIATE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TAKING AN ATTEMPT AS WELL.

I THINK HE WAS CORRECT REGARDING THE REGARDING TRYING TO DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

I JUST CAME BEFORE YOU AND SAID, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND I THINK I INTERPRET THE CODE THIS WAY.

AND THE BZA UNANIMOUSLY SAID, NOPE, WE'RE GOING TO AGREE WITH THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AND YOU DO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. NOW I'M GOING TO A DIFFERENT CODE SECTION THAT ALLOWS FOR VARIANCES THAT WE FIND CREATE AN UNREASONABLE, UNDUE HARDSHIP ONTO THE PROPERTY.

AND I'M ASKING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAIVER.

I ONLY BROUGHT UP THE WAIVER IN MY OTHER INFORMATION, THE 25FT AND THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS, BECAUSE THE STAFF BROUGHT IT UP AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REFERENCED IT AS WELL, BECAUSE BASED ON THE STAFF HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VARIANCE, ZERO TO DO WITH THE VARIANCE, NOTHING TO DO WITH VARIANCE. NOW WE'RE SAYING THE WHAT IS HAPPENING IS WHY WE WANT TO COME FORWARD SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO.

AND WE QUALIFY FOR TOTALLY DIFFERENT PART OF THE CODE QUALIFY FOR A VARIANCE UNDER TWO COMPONENTS.

WE HAVE TO MEET THE 100 FOOT WIDTH AND WE HAVE 99.5FT.

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE MISSING SEVEN INCHES AND THIS IS SEVEN INCHES.

I FOUND A RULER. THAT'S EXACTLY SEVEN. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MISSING. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR THE OTHER VARIANCE BEING WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL STREET SIDE YARD. SO I'M GOING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN I USUALLY DO.

AND I'M GOING TO REFERENCE AND I'M, I'LL TRY TO DO IT TO RESPOND TO THE CONVERSATION THAT JUST HAPPENED.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO STAFF, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE PAID FOR THE PROPERTY.

ABSOLUTELY ZERO. IF I CAME BEFORE YOU AND SAID, OH, IT'S GOING TO COST TOO MUCH MONEY TO COMPLY.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID I CANNOT USE FINANCIAL FOR A HARDSHIP.

WELL, YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT AGAINST ME OTHERWISE. SECONDLY, THE FACT THAT VDOT PAID FOR THE PROPERTY, THAT THERE WAS HOMES ON IT, AND THAT LANDOWNER OR LANDOWNERS RECEIVED MONEY AND THAT VDOT GOT WHAT IT WANTED.

I'M GOING TO PROVIDE TO YOU, IF I MAY. THIS IS THE DEED.

FROM THE TO THE FIRST LANDOWNER FOR $50,000, NOT ONLY DID VDOT GET TWO LANES, THEY GOT $50,000, AND THAT LANDOWNER SOLD IT TO ANOTHER LANDOWNER WHO SOLD IT TO ANOTHER LANDOWNER, WHO SOLD IT TO ANOTHER LANDOWNER, WHO THEN WENT THROUGH AND HAD THE PROPERTY FORECLOSED.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. DID HE BUY IT FOR $3,500? ABSOLUTELY HE DID. DOES IT MEAN ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCE? IT MEANS ABSOLUTELY ZERO. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT IT DOES MEAN TO EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS IS BEING ASSESSED BY THE COUNTY BASED ON A VALUE OF 27,500 TO 30,500. DIFFERENT LOTS ARE GETTING DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS.

AND THE BEST I CAN FIGURE OUT IS I WENT THROUGH PROBABLY ABOUT 20 OF THE LOTS THAT HAVE HOMES ON THEM AND DID A ACREAGE PRO-RATA ON WHAT THEIR LAND IS ASSESSED FOR VERSUS WHAT OURS IS ASSESSED FOR. AND IT COMES OUT TO ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.

OUR LOTS HAPPEN TO BE SMALLER, AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE VDOT TOOK 40 TO 50FT FROM US.

BUT ON A PRO RATA BASIS, THEY'VE BEEN HE'S BEEN ASSESSED AND BEEN PAYING TAXES BASED ON A VALUE EXACTLY LIKE THE HOMES BEFORE HIM.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFIED ON THAT.

AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DEEDS IF YOU WANT TO. BUT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PAYING CONSIDERATION.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S IMMATERIAL TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND YES, WE COULD REZONE THE PROPERTY, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE VARIANCES THAT CAME BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THEY PROBABLY, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, THEY PROBABLY COULD REZONE TO A DIFFERENT AREA AND BE ABLE TO ENCLOSE AND GET A DIFFERENT SETBACK BECAUSE EVERY, EVERY DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT HAS DIFFERENT SETBACKS.

AGAIN, NOT A CRITERIA THAT'S BEFORE THIS BOARD TO SAY, WELL, THEY COULD REZONE IT AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THAT'S NOT THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.

AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE DID GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MEMBER AND THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER AND SAID, WE'D LIKE TO REZONE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE. GUESS WHAT? THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL, WHICH CALLS FOR TOWNHOMES AND MULTIFAMILY.

GUESS WHAT WE CAN USE ON THIS PROPERTY UNDER R5? ONLY THING WE CANNOT USE SINGLE FAMILY. WE CANNOT DO DUPLEXES, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE PROVIDED FOR.

AND I GAVE YOU THE EMAIL FROM MR. KENNEDY AND THE MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS THAT WENT.

AND THAT WAS IN 2022. THAT SAID, WE THINK YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND MEET THE MULTIFAMILY.

YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT MULTIFAMILY. SO WE DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE, OH, WE WANT TO GET MORE MONEY.

AGAIN, NOT AN ISSUE, BUT WE DID IT BECAUSE AT THE SUGGESTION OF STAFF AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT, I WANT TO JUST ADDRESS REAL QUICK THE IMPACT.

MULTIFAMILY HAS A 25 FOOT SETBACK AGAINST A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BEHIND US TOWNHOMES ZERO.

LET ME REPEAT THAT AS A MULTIFAMILY, AND I CAN PULL UP THE CHART IF YOU WANT TO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THE INTERIOR SIDE, OUR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM TOWNHOMES IS N A.

I'M TAKING THAT AS ZERO. THE TOWNHOMES. THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK IS THE COMMON WALL.

WELL, WHEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CODE AND I DON'T NEED TO GET INTO BECAUSE I'LL LOSE THIS CONVERSATION EVERY TIME WHEN I GET INTO A CODE CONVERSATION WITH MR.

[03:00:07]

BLANKENSHIP. GO THERE IF YOU WANT. OR YOU CAN SAY, SORRY, THAT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING.

WELL, I GUESS WE COULD GO TO A CODE INTERPRETATION, BUT YOU COULD NOT BUILD A TOWNHOUSE AT THE COMMON LOT LINE BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND YOU COULD NOT BE WITHIN 20FT. 20FT. ALL RIGHT, SO HERE, THIS IS THE ONLY REASON.

AND I'M GOING TO IF I WERE THERE, IF I. WELL, NO, I CAN'T BECAUSE I'M TOO FAR AWAY.

BUT IF I WERE A BETTING MAN, I WOULD ALWAYS BET ON BEN BLANKENSHIP.

I'M INTERPRETING THE CODE, NOT ANDY CONLAN, BUT OKAY, WHEN I READ THIS AND YOU SEE THERE IT SAYS INTERIOR SIDE YARD, WHICH IS FAR UP, IT SAYS N A WITH A FOOTPRINT.

THERE'S NO FOOTNOTE. THERE'S NO FOOTNOTE IN THE N A. MR. BLANKENSHIP TWO TOWNHOUSES. THERE IS NO INTERIOR SIDE.

WHEN WHEN WHEN I, I, I APOLOGIZE AND I'M I KNOW, I KNOW YOU GUYS, THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO, THIS IS WHAT WE DO PRETTY MUCH EVERY WEEK, THE TWO OF US GET INTO THESE CONVERSATIONS AND I'M LOOKING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD, MINIMUM FEET UNDER MULTIFAMILY, IT SAYS 25FT.

I'VE GOT. I GUESS THAT PROBABLY MEANS IN BETWEEN INTERIOR BUILDINGS VERSUS WHAT I WAS CONSIDERING NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL BETWEEN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS FOR MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE FROM ANY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY TO THE COMMON LAW.

ALL I'M SAYING. WELL, HERE WE ARE. YOU WONDER WHY I'M CONFUSED IN THIS CASE. YOU'RE SEEING IT LIVE ACTION INTERIOR, SIDE YARD AND A DOESN'T HAVE A FOOTNOTE FOR A TOWNHOUSE THAT SAYS NAI WAS TAKING THAT TO MEAN I CAN BUILD RIGHT UP SUBJECT TO THE TEN FOOT RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE HEIGHT ON A TOWNHOUSE IS 45FT AND R5, THE HEIGHT ON A MULTIFAMILY IS 45FT.

WE CAN BE CONCERNED ABOUT LOOKING OVER AND ACROSS THE LOOKING OVER AND ACROSS TO THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS.

BUT THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN WITH TOWNHOMES. I CAN ONLY USE IT FOR THESE TWO THINGS. AND ON BOTH OF THEM, I NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE 100FT.

WELL, I DON'T NEED THAT FOR TOWNHOUSES. I UNDERSTAND DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT THAT, BUT I DIDN'T NEED IT FOR THE MULTIFAMILY. BUT EITHER WAY, I CANNOT MEET THE 15 FOOT. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE HEADLIGHTS AND THE PRACTICAL EFFECT, WE ARE MEETING THE CODE ON THE REAR SIDE.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A 1970S ERA OFFICE BUILDING WHERE THEY PARKED UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING IN ORDER TO FIT EVERYTHING, AND WE FIT EVERYTHING. BUT FOR LOT WIDTH AND THE 15 FOOT ADDITIONAL 15 FOOT ADDITIONAL MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, ADDITIONAL SETBACK. BUT THERE'S PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING.

THE ACCESS ROAD IS UNDERNEATH IT. WE COULD DO THE SAME THING.

I CANNOT. WE'VE TALKED TO ENGINEERS AND WE'VE LOOKED FOR IT.

WE CANNOT BUILD OTHERWISE WITHOUT A VARIANCE UNDER EITHER CIRCUMSTANCE.

THAT TO ME, AND I KNOW MR. GIDLEY HAS MADE THE STATEMENT THAT SAYS EVERYBODY'S GOTTEN THE BENEFIT.

THIS CLIENT'S BEEN PAYING TAXES. THIS CLIENT WANTS TO USE THE PROPERTY.

AND IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT'S RESIDUAL. VDOT SOLD IT FOR $50,000 AND RECOUP THEIR MONEY.

WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR SOMETHING. AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU CAN'T USE IT FOR ANYTHING. THAT'S WHAT QUALIFIES FOR A VARIANCE OR IT'S A TAKING ONE OR THE OTHER.

THOSE ARE OUR TWO CHOICES. IT'S NOT FAIR TO TELL A LANDOWNER THEY CAN'T USE IT FOR ANYTHING.

AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT VDOT. WE HAVE TALKED TO VDOT AND THERE'S LITERALLY NO OTHER ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.

WE CANNOT ACCESS OFF STAPLES MILL ROAD. WE HAVE TO ACCESS IT OFF OF MASSIE.

AND YES, IT'S CLOSE BY, BUT THEY THEY HAVE SAID THAT THEY HAVE TO GRANT THAT.

AND OUR ENGINEERS HAVE TALKED TO THEM SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT. SO WITH THAT, I WILL GO THROUGH QUICKLY INTO THE VARIANCE AND WHY I THINK WE DO QUALIFY FOR.

SO THE PROPOSED PLAN, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, I WILL GO AGAIN TO THE, THE PLAN THAT THE FACT THAT MR. KENNEDY HAD OTHERWISE PROVIDED AND HE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED AND I HANDED THIS TO YOU IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, IF WE CAN PULL IT UP AGAIN, I'LL READ IT TO YOU.

WITH RESPECT TO THE, WITH RESPECT TO THE LOT WIDTH, FIRST, THE GOOD NEWS.

BEN BLANKENSHIP INDICATED THERE'S NO NEED TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT WIDTH AS THE ORIENTATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT FORCES THE FRONT YARD TO MASSIE ROAD. THEREFORE, THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE LEGAL NONCONFORMING LOT WIDTH.

THAT WAS IN 2022 AND WE SAID, GREAT, LET US START PUTTING PLANS TOGETHER FOR A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HERE. AND WE RELIED ON THAT. AND, AND THERE'S THE INFORMATION THAT'S, THAT'S LITERALLY I COPIED AND PASTED IT FROM THERE. FROM THAT STANDPOINT, I'D ALSO PROPOSE TO YOU THAT THERE IS A CODE SECTION IN THE HENRICO CODE THAT SAYS, IF THERE'S A GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION OF LAND THAT RESULTS IN THE LOT BECOMING NON-CONFORMING GOVERNMENT.

VDOT ACQUISITION OF LAND, THEY DID IT. IT BECAME NON-CONFORMING.

WE CANNOT CONFORM TO THE LOT WITH. THEN YOU GET TO GET THE BENEFIT OF 10%.

WE'RE AT SEVEN INCHES OUT OF 100FT. THAT'S LESS THAN 10%.

YOU BECOME LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING. I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT EMAIL WAS SENT.

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE CODE. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO READ THAT AND WHY WE'RE NOT QUALIFYING FOR A VARIANCE.

I MEAN, WE'RE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING AT THIS POINT, I THINK FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

SO I THINK WE MEET THAT BASIC STANDARD WITH RESPECT TO THE WITH RESPECT TO THE LOT WIDTH.

WITH RESPECT TO THE TO THE SETBACK ITSELF WE CANNOT BUILD EITHER TOWNHOMES OR, NOR CAN WE BUILD A MULTIFAMILY WITHOUT THAT CODE,

[03:05:07]

WITHOUT THAT VARIANCE FROM THAT SPECIFIC CODE SECTION ITSELF.

STAFF SAYS THAT WE HAVE NOT MET THREE OF THE SEVEN, INCLUDING THE TWO THRESHOLD, WHICH CALLS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS.

SOMETIMES I DON'T THINK THE SUPREME COURT NECESSARILY KNOWS, AND I KNOW YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU SEE IT, BUT WE CAN LITERALLY CANNOT USE THIS PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING ELSE. OUR ONLY CHOICES ARE MULTIFAMILY AND TOWNHOME.

AND WE'VE WE'VE UNTIL WE'VE HIRED ENGINEERS I'VE TALKED WITH STAFF.

ZACH KENNEDY HAS TALKED WITH STAFF MULTIPLE TIMES.

AND WE CAN ONLY WE CANNOT WE CANNOT BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY.

AND THERE'S NO OTHER SPECIFIC USE. WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED WITH RESPECT.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK MR. BLANKENSHIP. IT'S 2022.

I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED THAT ADDED THE 15 FOOT. IT WAS 2002, 2002.

THAT WAS STILL, EVEN THOUGH WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY THAT MR. KENNEDY'S ENTITY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. EVEN KNOWING ABOUT IT, THE STATE LAW IS CLEAR THAT EVEN IF WE KNOW ABOUT IT, IF WE DIDN'T CAUSE IT, VDOT CAUSED IT, WE STILL CAN ASK FOR A VARIANCE.

AND THAT DOESN'T KEEP US FROM HAVING GOOD FAITH FOR ASKING FOR A VARIANCE. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE. WE DO THINK THAT THE THE VDOT TAKE A 40 TO 50FT IS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY. BUT FOR THAT TAKE WE WOULD HAVE THE SEVEN INCHES.

BUT FOR THAT TAKE, WE WOULD HAVE 15FT FOR THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

AND IT DOESN'T BRING IT BACK ANY CLOSER TO THE TO THE NEIGHBORS.

AND WITHOUT A VARIANCE, WE CANNOT BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY.

WE ALSO THINK THAT IT, WITH RESPECT TO THE STAFF RESPONSE, THAT TALKING ABOUT GRANTING VARIANCES WOULD CROWD THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AN NEARBY ON A WIDER LOT. THERE'S MORE ROOM. YES, BUT THAT'S WHAT A VARIANCE DOES.

THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE REASON FOR A VARIANCE IS. AND TALKING ABOUT I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED ABOUT VDOT PAYING FULL VALUE.

THAT'S NOTHING TO DO. THAT'S NO PLACE FOR THIS IN A VARIANCE CONVERSATION.

ALSO, THE OTHER THRESHOLD STANDARD THAT WE CAN MEET IS WOULD THE VARIANCE ALLEVIATE A HARDSHIP DUE TO A PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE? VDOT TOOK THE PROPERTY IN THE 70S, SOLD IT IN THE 80S.

THE ORDINANCE CAME CAME ABOUT IN THE 90S. I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT IT'S PRETTY EASY TO SAY WE MEET THE SIX INCHES AND THAT IT'S AN UNREASONABLE.

AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE A GREAT IMPACT. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE 15FT, WE CERTAINLY QUALIFY FROM THE STANDPOINT, AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE IN 1990 OR 2002, THE SITUATION HAD ALREADY OCCURRED AND HAD ALREADY TAKEN IT.

AGAIN, WE CAN'T PUT SINGLE FAMILY. WE WISH WE COULD.

WE CAN'T PUT DUPLEXES HERE. AT ONE TIME WE WERE LOOKING AND WE CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO TRY TO PUT DUPLEXES, AND WE WERE DENIED THAT REQUEST.

I FORGET THE YEAR, BUT IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO. ANOTHER ATTORNEY HANDLED THAT. WE CAN'T DO IT.

WE CAN ONLY PUT MULTIFAMILY AND TOWNHOMES. AND THEY BOTH FIT WITHIN THAT 45FT.

AND WHATEVER THAT SETBACK IS IN THE BACK. AND YOU CAN SEE WHY WE STRUGGLE WITH WHAT THE CODE SAYS AND HOW TO PUT THAT IN.

BUT FOR THE VDOT TAKE AND THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

AGAIN, I SAY 2022. I GOT MY YEARS ALL WRONG IN THIS RESPECT.

SO PRIOR TO THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A VARIANCE.

AND WE DID. WE COULD HAVE MET IT OTHERWISE. THE FINAL THING THAT I WOULD SAY THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE STAFF RESPONSE, AGAIN, THE FACT THAT VDOT OWNED THE PROPERTY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VARIANCE.

THE FACT THAT THEY CREATED THE HARDSHIP ACTUALLY GOES TO THE POINT OF WE DID NOT CAUSE IT.

AND THERE WAS A REFERENCE ABOUT THE VDOT BEING AS IS, WHEREAS I GAVE THAT TO YOU.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT. THERE WAS A DEED IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE WHEN THE BANK TOOK IT.

EVERY FORECLOSURE DEED I HAVE EVER DONE ON BEHALF OF A BANK, WHEN THEY SELL IT, THEY USE THIS LANGUAGE.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE TITLE ITSELF SAYING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M GIVING YOU.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I RECEIVED, BUT I'M GIVING IT TO YOU AND YOU'RE AT THE RISK FROM A TITLE STANDPOINT. THERE COULD BE EASEMENTS ON IT. SOMEBODY ELSE COULD HAVE A CLAIM ON IT. IF THAT'S WHAT A NO WARRANTY DEED IS, A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND A GENERAL WARRANTY ARE ALL DIFFERENT.

LEGAL, NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING. SO TO BRING THAT UP IN A ZONING CONTEXT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVALUATION WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THIS GRANTS A VARIANCE OR NOT.

SO WE BELIEVE WE DO MEET ALL THE NECESSARY STANDARDS NECESSARY TO MEET THE THRESHOLD ON BOTH CASES.

FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THEN THE FINAL ISSUE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES THAT WE AGREE ON.

WHY BEAT A HORSE ON THAT ONE. BUT WOULD BE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT.

THIS PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED IF IT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND IT CAN BE SET UP KEPT THERE WITHOUT ANY DEVELOPMENT.

THAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE NO DETRIMENT TO THE TO THE TO THE NEIGHBORS.

THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL.

THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING ASSESSED AS A. WE'LL JUST CALL IT AN AVERAGE OF $30,000 PER LOT.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE PAID FOR, IT MEANS THAT THE COUNTY SAYING WE SHOULD DEVELOP HER FOR SOMETHING AND WE'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING, ANYTHING WE WANTED TO DO.

DUPLEXES ANSWER WAS NO BY THE BZA AND STAFF. WE COULD DO TOWNHOMES AND I GUESS, I GUESS WE COULD COME FORWARD AND PRESENT A TOWNHOME PLAN TO YOU AND SAY, WE'D LIKE A VARIANCE. BUT WE WERE TOLD BY STAFF IN 2022, YOU'LL BE ALL RIGHT WITH THE MULTIFAMILY, INCLUDING IN THE MR. KENNEDY'S EMAIL SAYING WE AGREED THAT THE BASIC STANDARD FOR REDUCED SETBACK WAS SATISFIED.

THAT IS THAT 15FT, WE WERE GIVEN ALL THE GREEN LIGHTS TO GO, KNOWING THAT WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

[03:10:03]

SO WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD BY STAFF, YOU DON'T MEET THE STANDARD. SO DO WE IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR? YES WE WILL. ANY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS THE NEIGHBOR, BUT THAT BACK LINE IS NO CLOSER.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO COME CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR.

THAT BACK LINE. IF WE HAD THE 15FT IN FRONT WE WEREN'T ASKING FOR, IT WOULD BE EXACTLY WHERE IT IS TODAY.

THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE, AND IT'S AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS A TOWNHOME OR ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE.

IT'S GOT THE SAME DISTANCE. SO WE THINK WE DO MEET THAT AND THAT IT'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

WE'RE PUTTING A FENCE UP AS PART OF THE PLAN.

WE PUT THAT IN THERE IN ORDER TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR THAT DISTANCE AND THE BUFFERS.

WE'RE HAVING TO PUT A FENCE UP AND THAT'LL SHIELD THE HEADLIGHTS FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

SO WE'VE TRIED TO ACHIEVE EVERYTHING FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. SO IN SUMMARY, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AS I'VE WORKED MYSELF INTO A FRENZY ON THAT, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT WE DO FEEL LIKE WE'VE MET ALL STANDARDS AT THIS POINT, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I WRAPPED UP. YEAH. I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST ASKING FOR. YEAH.

AM I ALLOWED TO GO AHEAD? SORRY IF I. I'M ZACH KENNEDY AGAIN.

IF I'D KNOWN IT WOULD BE THIS LONG, I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT YOU ALL LUNCH. SORRY FOR ALL THE CHAOS, BUT I TOO, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS BEFORE KIND OF READING SOME OF THE HISTORY OF WHERE WE ARE.

FORGIVE ME FOR ANY REDUNDANCY. YOU KNOW, NOT PRIVY TO HOW THESE MEETINGS GO.

AND I KNOW A LOT OF STUFF HAS GONE BACK AND FORTH.

FIRST, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE RESIDUAL PROPERTY.

THIS RESIDUAL PROPERTY JUST A FEW YEARS AGO ACTUALLY HAD A USE, AND IT WAS A USE THAT WAS TOLD TO US IN THAT EMAIL.

IT WAS A USE THAT WAS TOLD TO US IN CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH WITH THE COUNTY.

SO IT CAN BE SOMEONE CAN DEFINE IT IN ALL DUE RESPECT, AS RESIDUAL.

IT WASN'T RESIDUAL. IT WAS A USABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S ONE THING. THE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO MENTION REAL QUICK IS I CAN'T READ MOST OF THE NOTES THAT I MADE DURING ALL THE COMMENTS.

WAS THE COMMENT ON IT BEING TIGHT OR BEING PACKED IN.

AND I THINK MR. CONLON MADE SOME GREAT POINTS.

BUT THE COUNTY HAS DEFINED THIS MULTIFAMILY FOR 100FT MINIMUM.

I MEAN, WE'RE VERY CLOSE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS AMAZING DEMONSTRATION OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

SO THE COUNTY'S ALREADY TOLD US THAT 100FT IS IS VIABLE.

IT'S REASONABLE FOR A MULTIFAMILY PIECE OF PROPERTY TO GO WITHIN THAT HUNDRED FEET.

WE'RE JUST MEETING THOSE NEEDS. AND LASTLY, I'LL JUST MENTION BEFORE READING THIS IS THAT WE HAD A SEPARATE PLAN YEARS AGO IN 2022. I KNOW ONE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED THAT WE DIDN'T GO WITH THAT PLAN SO WE COULD GET MORE DENSITY.

THAT WAS NOT OUR PLAN. OUR PLAN WAS TO DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BASED OFF OF THE THE COUNTY EIGHT UNITS MOVE, COMBINING LOTS, WHICH WE ARGUED EARLIER WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE. BUT THEY SAID TAKE LOTS, COMBINE THEM AND DO DUPLEXES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO UNTIL THEY TOLD US WE COULDN'T DO IT ANY LONGER.

SO WITH THAT SAID YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

I KNOW THERE'S LOTS GOING ON HERE. I HOPE WE CAN KIND OF SYNTHESIZE THROUGH THIS.

WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT DETAILS, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A FRUSTRATING PROCESS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF HARD WORK, A LOT OF CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND A SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY HAS BEEN OUTLAID JUST IN, FOR EXAMPLE, TAX EXPENSES.

IT'S BEEN ROUGHLY ABOUT $30,000 IN TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID.

SO THROUGHOUT THIS MULTI YEAR QUEST TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, WE'VE EXCHANGED DOZENS MAYBE WITH MR. CONLON, PROBABLY 100 EMAILS WITH THE COUNTY AND ALL OF ITS DEPARTMENTS.

AND WE HAVE MET WITH ALMOST EACH DEPARTMENT. WE HAD ALL DEPARTMENTS LIKE 15 WHATEVER, 15 DEPARTMENTS.

WE HAD VDOT, WE HAD POLICE, WE HAD EVERYBODY IN A MEETING AT ONE POINT TO TRY TO CONSOLIDATE AND MEET ALL THE NEEDS.

AND WE HAD GOTTEN VERY CLOSE OTHER THAN THESE TWO FINER POINTS.

AND ON TWO OCCASIONS WE'VE HAD A MEETING OF THE MINDS.

WERE AN ACCEPTABLE PROJECT HAD BEEN AGREED TO IN WRITING.

I THINK YOU'VE SEEN BOTH OF THOSE EMAILS. ONE WAS IN 2019 AND ONE WAS IN 2022.

AND ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT IDEAS WAS ACTUALLY OFFERED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHICH I AM VERY GRATEFUL. AND MR. BLANKENSHIP WAS PART OF THAT.

AND WE DISCUSSED SO THOROUGHLY THAT WE ENGAGED AN ENGINEER TO MEET THE EXACT PROPOSAL WE WERE PRESENTED WITH.

UNFORTUNATELY, EVEN WITH WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THESE TWO PLANS VIABILITY, WE WERE DENIED AFTER MONTHS OF WORK EXPENSES AND WE CAME BACK TO THE.

WHEN WE CAME BACK TO THE COUNTY FOR APPROVAL.

[03:15:01]

AT EVERY TURN, A NEW ROADBLOCK NEVER MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN USHERED IN AT THE LAST MINUTE.

THAT WAS PREVENTED. THAT PREVENTED A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF THIS EXHAUSTING.

AND AS WE PROBABLY ALL SEE HERE TODAY, AGGRAVATING EXPERIENCE.

OUR FIRST PLAN CONSISTING OF FOUR DUPLEXES. SO EIGHT UNITS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AS BY RIGHT, LITERALLY BY RIGHT BY EMPLOYEES OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ONLY TO BE REJECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. GET THIS WITH ONE MEMBER WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WAS SITTING INTO THAT MEETING. MR. SEAL HAD HAD MENTIONED TO EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS A BY RIGHT USE.

THIS IS THE DUPLEXES. AND I QUOTE THIS GENTLEMAN SAID, I DO NOT CARE.

I DON'T CARE IF IT'S BY RIGHT. I WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT TO BE BUILT.

I'M NOT GOING TO MENTION WHO THAT IS OUT OF RESPECT.

BUT THAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID TO ME IN THAT MEETING.

I DON'T CARE IF IT'S BY RIGHT. I'LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN BASICALLY NOT TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

BY THE TIME THE DIALOG HAD ERODED TO A POINT THAT WE'RE WE'RE NOT MAKING PROGRESS, WE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE TO THE BZA, ONLY TO BE REJECTED BECAUSE THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAD CHANGED.

THAT'S THAT 2002 TRANSITION THAT WE OUR 2022 TRANSITION WE TALKED ABOUT UPON SHARING EMAILS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY THAT SHOWED WE RECEIVED IN WRITING THAT THE DUPLEXES WERE ALLOWED. WE HAD A FOLLOW UP MEETING WHERE IT WAS PRESENTED TO US FROM MR. KENNEDY AND MR. BLANKENSHIP, THAT WE SHOULD PURSUE A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.

AND THAT THIS WAS BY RIGHT USE IN THE NEW ORDINANCE.

THEY FURTHER SHARED THAT WE SHOULD FRONT THE BUILDING ON MASSIE ROAD. AND AGAIN, I WAS VERY GRATEFUL FOR THIS BECAUSE THEY KIND OF HELPED US BRAINSTORM WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO WHERE A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE NEEDED BECAUSE IT HAS LEGAL NONCONFORMING LOT WIDTH STATUS.

SECONDLY, THERE WAS AN UNCERTAINTY ABOUT OUR SUBDIVISION PLAT NOT BEING EXEMPT FROM THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.

ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT. I THINK WE KIND OF WENT THROUGH THAT, BUT NOTHING STATED WE SHOULDN'T BE EXEMPT.

IT WAS JUST SIMPLY AMBIGUITY BASED ON STATUTE INTERPRETATION.

BUT HOWEVER AFTER THAT, THEY END UP SAYING IN THE SAME EMAIL THAT THEY CLEARLY STATE THAT THE REDUCED SETBACK WAS SATISFIED BASED ON THE FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BLOCK, THE NORTHERN BUILDING JUST ABOVE ON THE JUST ABOVE THAT LITTLE ROUNDEDNESS ON THE RIGHT HERE IS FIVE FEET. THAT'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. I KNOW WE'VE WE'VE MENTIONED IT BEING 20.5.

IT'S FIVE FEET. IF YOU LOOK ON THE GIS, IT SAYS FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT ENTRY AND THE FRONT OF THAT BUILDING IS FACING STAPLES MILL ROAD.

THAT'S THE MAIN FRONT ENTRANCE. IT'S NOT OFF THE SIDE. IT'S NOT OFF THE BACK. IT'S THE FRONT ENTRANCE. THERE'S FIVE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN THERE'S A SIDEWALK AGAIN. AFTER MONTHS OF WORK AND ENGAGING PROFESSIONALS, WE WERE FLAT OUT REJECTED WITH NEW, NEVER BEFORE DISCUSSED REASONS FOR THE REJECTION.

SOME OF WHAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT TODAY. SO FOR SIX YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING TO AIM CORRECTLY AT WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN EVER MOVING GOAL POST.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON THE STATUTES WRITTEN CREATED OBJECTIVITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTY.

HOWEVER, ALL WE HAVE RECEIVED IS AMBIGUITY AND CONTRADICTIONS.

I'M NOT A RICH GUY I'VE. HOWEVER, I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT PURCHASE KIND OF FELL IN MY LAP.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE PURCHASE PRICE AGAIN. I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE SITUATION, BUT I GOT VERY LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. AND SO I COME TO THE COUNTY IN GOOD FAITH TO IDENTIFY A PLAN THAT WOULD FIT INTO THE COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT VISION AND HAVE WASTED, AT THIS POINT, $30,000 IN TAXES, $25,000 PLUS AN ATTORNEY'S FEES NOT TO INCLUDE ENGINEER FEES, SURVEY FEES, ARCHITECT FEES. AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE.

AND SO THAT DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE THE HUNDREDS OF HOURS THAT I'VE SPENT.

THAT'S NOT BILLABLE TIME. IN ORDER TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE AND MEET WITH EVERYBODY TO MAKE THIS POTENTIALLY A VIABLE PROJECT.

SO IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T SEEM FAIR THAT WE WOULD BE GETTING THIS GUIDANCE FROM THE COUNTY AND THEN GET REJECTED LATER.

HOW CAN MY REPRESENTATIVE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. MY REPRESENTATIVES READ THE CODE IN ONE WAY THAT APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVE, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A WILDLY DIFFERENT APPROACH FROM THE COUNTY.

IT. THERE SEEMS TO BE A LACK OF OBJECTIVITY. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DEVELOPMENT IS GOOD FOR THE GROWTH OF THE THE COUNTY AND SIMPLY PUT, A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON. THIS LOT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTY AND GOOD FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS BUILDING AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT WOULD BRING IN MORE DIVERSITY NOT ONLY OF THE PEOPLE BUT ALSO OF HOUSING OFFERINGS.

WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE APARTMENTS THAT ARE BEING BUILT ALL OVER THE PLACE.

WHAT ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T AFFORD A HOME, WANTS TO LIVE IN A WALKABLE, GOOD COMMUNITY, BUT DOESN'T WANT, DOESN'T WANT TO OR CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE AROUND 100 OR 1000 OTHER PEOPLE IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING.

[03:20:07]

IF THIS WAS ME, I'D RATHER LIVE WITH 16 PEOPLE THAN I WOULD WITH 150 OR 200 PEOPLE.

SO IT GIVES ANOTHER OPTION THAT ISN'T OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

IN THE AREA, AS WE'VE MENTIONED MANY TIMES, IT'S DESIGNATED AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL IN THE COUNTY VISION.

AND THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THIS LOT LENDS ITSELF UNIQUELY TO THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

I HAVE BUILT SOME HOUSES IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND BEFORE.

I'VE BUILT A HOME THAT'S 14FT WIDE ON A 20 FOOT LOT WITH THREE FOOT SETBACKS, AND THE HOUSE INSIDE IS COMFORTABLE.

PEOPLE LOVE IT. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT'S EASY TO LIVE IN, SO THE SIZE DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.

IT'S THE THOUGHTFULNESS IN HOW YOU DESIGN IT SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY EXIST THERE AND ENJOY THEIR THEIR LIVING EXPERIENCE.

BUT AS FRUSTRATED AS I'VE BEEN, I WILL SAY I'M OPTIMISTIC BECAUSE APPROVING THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT NEED TO CALL OUT EITHER SIDE FOR BEING WRONG OR RIGHT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A WINNER OR A LOSER PER SE.

THE FRAMEWORK OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS ALLOWS US TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITHIN OUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHILE STILL APPROVING A VARIANCE SIMPLY BY APPLYING THE BOARD'S DECISION MAKING CRITERIA, SOME OF WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

FIRST, THE VARIANCE SHALL BE GRANTED IF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY, OR THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLEVIATE A HARDSHIP DUE TO A PHYSICAL CONDITION RELATING TO THE PROPERTY.

ET CETERA. ET CETERA. WHILE BOTH OF THESE CRITERIA DO NOT NEED TO BE MET, WE MEET BOTH OF THEM.

IT IS UNREASONABLE THAT ROUGHLY SIX INCHES WOULD PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE COUNTY ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE WITH SOLVABLE IN PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS AND EMAILS. WE MEET THE STANDARD.

OKAY. EXCUSE ME. YEAH. SO FURTHERMORE, THE SAME STANDARD CAN BE APPLIED TO THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

WE MEET THE 25FT THAT'S REQUIRED. THE COUNTY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED PREVIOUSLY THAT THIS IS ENOUGH, BUT YET WE ARE STILL CONSTRAINED. MOREOVER, THERE IS A SINCERE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.

WHEN WE ARE BEING TAXED AT RATES CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPABLE LAND.

BUT WE PERSONALLY ARE NOT ABLE TO DEVELOP OURS.

NEXT, THE PROPERTY INTEREST WAS ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH AND THERE WAS NO HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE APPLICANT.

WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY TO CREATE A GOOD PUBLIC TO CREATE A PUBLIC GOOD.

OKAY. I KNOW WE'LL MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT, BUT WE'RE ALSO HERE TO PROMOTE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE A VIABLE AND GOOD PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE MONEY IF WE CREATE SOMETHING THAT NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN. SO WE'RE MOTIVATED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

SO, AND TO BUILD AN INTERESTING AND BEAUTIFUL HOUSING TO FIT INTO THE FABRIC OF THE COUNTY.

THREE THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE OF SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

BY DEVELOPING THIS LAND, THIS BUILDING BECOMES A VALUABLE LIGHT AND SOUND BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND US.

THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND NOISE ON THAT ROAD ON STAPLES MILL ROAD, AND THERE'S A LOT OF LIGHTING.

THIS BUILDING WOULD BLOCK IT FOR AT LEAST A HANDFUL OF THE PEOPLE, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PARK AREA AND EVERYTHING DOWN BELOW, I THINK NEAR WHERE THE THE NICE LADY OVER HERE LIVES NEAR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

SO WE ALSO AREN'T ASKING TO BUILD SOMETHING BIGGER THAN WHAT WE COULD DO WITH TOWNHOMES.

NOT ONLY THAT, IT'S NOT OUR FAULT THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD THIS.

IT WAS THE COUNTY'S ORDINANCES THAT HAVE REQUIRED US TO DO IT.

THEN FOR. AND I'LL BE WRAPPED UP SOON. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, SO I APOLOGIZE.

THE CONDITION OR SITUATION. THE PROPERTY IS NOT OF SO GENERAL OR REOCCURRING NATURE AS TO MAKE REASONABLY PRACTICABLE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION TO BE ADOPTED AS AN AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, ETC.. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT I'M ASSUMING THAT'S SAYING IS IT'S NOT GOING TO SET A PRECEDENT.

THIS IS A UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU THAT TEN MORE, 20 MORE OR EVEN PROBABLY ANOTHER PERSON COULD COME IN HERE AND ARGUE BECAUSE IT'S THAT UNIQUE. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE DOES NOT RESULT IN A USE THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE PERMITTED.

WE GOT REJECTED BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE CHANGED WHEN WE WERE GOING TO DO THE DUPLEXES TO A NEW USE.

WE THEN SHIFTED TO MEET THE USE. SO WE MEET THAT AS WELL.

AND FINALLY, THE RELIEF OR REMEDY SOUGHT IS NOT AVAILABLE.

THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE COUNTY HAS MADE IT CLEAR THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO PROVIDE ONE OF THOSE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. BUT IN CONCLUSION, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR DEEP CONSIDERATION.

I'M NOT HERE TO CREATE CONTENTION WITH THE COUNTY.

THE BOARD STAFF. I'M SIMPLY HERE TO SHINE A LIGHT ON AN UNFORTUNATE DISAGREEMENT IN HOW WE INTERPRET THE CODE AND THE BEAUTIFUL FACT THAT REGARDLESS OF OUR PERSPECTIVES, THERE IS A CLEAR PATH TO APPROVAL IF WE SIMPLY PUT Y'ALL'S CRITERIA IN PLACE AND AND CONSIDER THAT FOR OUR APPLICATION. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I'M SORRY TO GO SO LONG.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR TIME. AND IF I, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AS WELL. BOARD HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

[03:25:02]

OKAY. HEARING NONE. THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST OR WEBEX? ANYBODY ON WEBEX? MR. BLANKENSHIP? NO, THERE IS NOT.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO VARIANCE REQUEST? HELLO AGAIN. MY NAME IS SHELLY RUANO. ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

FOR THE RECORD, WE APPRECIATE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.

THIS TIME HAS PROVIDED VALUABLE INFORMATION, NUANCE AND CONTEXT.

IT SEEMS THAT ZONING REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES AND VARIANCES FOR THAT MATTER, ARE THE LEGAL TOOLS WE HAVE TO BOTH PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND ALSO TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS.

THAT SAID, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING PROPOSED IN THE CONCEPT PLAN WILL NOT BE AN ESTHETIC IMPROVEMENT TO THE BUILT LANDSCAPE ALONG STAPLES MILL ROAD. IT IS CURRENTLY UNCLEAR IF THE CONCEPT PLAN IS BINDING AS A RESULT OF THE RULING ON THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST, THE CONCERN BEING THAT EVEN IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS GRANTED THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN IS ABLE TO BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE ONCE THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

IN LIGHT OF THESE CONCERNS AND THE COMPLEX NATURE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WE SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HENRICO COUNTY STAFF TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM.

COULD YOU CLARIFY AGAIN WHERE YOUR WHERE YOUR HOME IS LOCATED? YES. IT'S 2115 PINE TREE DRIVE, WHICH PER THE CONCEPT PLAN WOULD BE THE TOP RIGHT HAND SIDE ISH OF THE THE PLAN ON THE SCREEN THERE. SO WERE THIS CONCEPT PLAN TO STAND.

WE WOULD BE MINIMALLY IMPACTED. IT APPEARS THERE WOULD BE A WALKING PATH.

UNCLEAR IF WE WOULD HAVE PERSONAL ACCESS TO THAT WALKING PATH.

HOWEVER OUR PERSONAL CONCERNS ARE THAT THIS IS INDEED ONLY A CONCEPT PLAN, AND IT'S UNCLEAR THAT THE DECISION ON THE VARIANCE BINDS THIS CONCEPT PLAN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO THE, TO THE RULING ON THE VARIANCE RESTATING WE WOULD BE FURTHER CONCERNED THAT THE BUILDING MIGHT MIGRATE TOWARDS OUR PROPERTY IN FUTURE PLANS THAT COME BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT OR ANY COMMISSIONS. AND YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER AND OTHER NEIGHBORS TOO, I SUSPECT ON THIS LIMITED I'M NOT SURE I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THEM AS CONVERSATIONS, BUT THESE ARE, THESE ARE THE THOUGHTS OF MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND.

THANK YOU MA'AM. YES. ANY QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD? ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. DOES ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD? GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY. YEAH. CAN YOU KIND OF MAKE A BRIEF? I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE AND RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION REGARDING PARTICULARLY THE CONCEPT PLAN.

YOU KNOW, REMEMBER THE THE STANDARD IS SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN THAT BACK PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.

AND YES, OUR OUR INTENT AND WE'RE FINE WITH A CONDITION THAT SAID THAT IT HAS TO BE GENERALLY SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THIS CONCEPT PLAN.

IF YOU'RE WILLING TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND THE PROPERTY DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE IT PINCHES DOWN AND WE CAN'T MEET ALL THE, THE SETBACKS ON THE BACKSIDE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MEET IF THE PROPERTY GOES.

SO FINALLY, JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE. DO WE MEET THE STANDARD THAT THE STAFF HAS RAISED, BUT FOR THE.

I CONTINUE TO GO BACK TO THE EMAIL AND THE CODE SECTION THAT SAYS, IF THERE'S GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, YOU GET THE. YOU GET THE BENEFIT OF 10% AND THEY BECOME LEGAL NONCONFORMING.

WE HAD AN EMAIL, WE RESPONDED TO IT. WE'RE ENCOURAGED BY STAFF.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN COMPARE ANY OF THESE REQUESTS TO THE REQUESTS THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY.

AND THE ONE, ONE PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST REGARDING THE COVERING OF THE DECK, THE LOT WAS STRANGELY CONFIGURED.

IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY. IT WAS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION, STRANGELY CONFIGURED AND WHERE THE HOUSE WAS PLACED HERE.

THIS PROPERTY, THESE LOTS WERE PROPERLY SUBDIVIDED AND PROPERLY DESIGNED.

AND THEN VDOT CAME AND TOOK IT. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT CAUSES THE ISSUE HERE.

VDOT IS THE ONE THAT CAUSED THE ISSUE AND CAUSED THESE LOTS FROM A PHYSICAL NATURE.

THAT'S WHERE THE PROPERTY ITSELF FROM A PHYSICAL CONDITION CHANGES WHERE WE CANNOT ANY LONGER MEET IT.

AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO YOU THAT THROUGH OUR VARIOUS ENGINEERS, WE HAVE LOOKED AT BOTH TOWNHOMES AND MULTIFAMILY,

[03:30:04]

AND WITH THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF STAFF TO LOOK AT MULTIFAMILY THAT WE CANNOT BUILD EITHER WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

EXCUSE ME. WE'RE PROPOSING THIS. WE THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE SUGGESTION.

AND IT DOES MEET THE STANDARDS NECESSARY TO GRANT A VARIANCE.

THAT AGAIN, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CONLON? THANK YOU.

DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A DIFFICULT CASE, THIS ONE AND BOTH THESE CASES MR. WOODY, WHO WAS SPOKE EARLIER TODAY, TOLD ME HOW MUCH I'D AGED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

THAT WAS ABOUT THE TIME I WENT ON THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. SO MAYBE THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT STAFF CAN WORK WITH, WITH I THINK THIS DEVELOPER HAS GOOD INTENTIONS.

I, YOU KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO SEE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.

I UNDERSTAND THE POINT RAISED BY STAFF THAT IT WAS A RESIDUAL PROPERTY FROM VDOT AND THAT'S TRUE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PROPERTIES, I WILL SAY IN THIS CASE, VDOT DID SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T ALWAYS DONE. THEY ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE LOTS AND MADE THE LANDOWNERS WHOLE. WE HAVE OTHER INSTANCES IN THE COUNTY AND OTHER PLACES IN THE COMMONWEALTH WHERE VDOT IS GOING IN AND TAKING.

I THINK SOMEONE. STAPLES MILL ROAD. THEY'VE GONE IN AND TAKEN A PIECE OF THE PROPERTY AND LEFT THE HOUSE THERE, STANDING THERE, YOU KNOW, 10 OR 15FT FROM THE ROAD.

SO IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, THE FAIRER WAY TO GO IS TO BUY OUT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND TAKE THE PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW WHAT VDOT PLAN TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PREVIOUS LANDOWNER'S PLAN TO DO. I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS THAT'S IMMATERIAL. BUT I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO MAKE A SPLIT MOTION HERE ON THIS CASE. CAN WE DO THAT IN ONE MOTION? MR.. MR.. YES, SIR. I'M GOING TO APPROVE THAT.

WE I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE PART OF THIS VARIANCE AND THAT IS THE LOT WITH VARIANCE.

I THINK THAT'S SUCH A SMALL PIECE OF THAT SIX FEET.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE.

AND I DO THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ALLOW THIS PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT WIDTH.

HOWEVER, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES AND I PUT A LOT OF RESPECT AND A LOT OF FAITH IN OUR STAFF IN MAKING THE DECISIONS ON SETBACKS. AND THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS IT'S ON THE TABLE NOW DOES NOT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY OR THE, OR THE ROAD OR THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS TO TO GRANT THAT VARIANCE AT HIS LEVEL.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT BZA SHOULD STEP INTO THAT ARENA EITHER.

SO I'M GOING TO DENY THE SETBACK SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE, THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENT IN MY MOTION AND DENY THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

I WILL SAY I THINK THE HARDSHIP WAS SELF-CREATED IN THIS CASE, AND THE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS IN THE LARGER COMMUNITY. SO HAVING MADE THAT MOTION, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR IS THERE A SECOND DISCUSSION? SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE. WELL, IT MEANS HE'S GOTTEN A VARIANCE THAT THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR 6 OR 8 YEARS.

THEY FELT LIKE STAFF TOLD THEM THEY DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE A VARIANCE TO GET THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT. THEY DO HAVE THAT NOW, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK WITH STAFF, I THINK, AND FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY TO, TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, TO MEET THAT, TO MEET, TO MEET THAT ADDITIONAL SETBACK.

I'M JUST I'M NOT, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE OVERRIDING A PUBLIC SAFETY DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY, BY OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND WE JUST PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER.

NO. OKAY. I HAVEN'T ASKED TO SPEAK SO THEY CAN.

IF THE BZA ASKED ME TO SPEAK, I CERTAINLY CAN SPEAK.

SO I THOUGHT THE GENTLEMAN ASKED ME TO SPEAK.

YEAH. OKAY. OH. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T REALIZE. I MEAN, CAN YOU.

I SEE, YES, YOU WILL. YEAH. I SAY YES. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU? THAT MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD THIS CONCEPT WITHOUT A VARIANCE FROM THE ADDITIONAL 15FT.

AND I PULLED UP A EXAMPLES OF THE OF THE TOWNHOME.

I MEAN WE GOT TWO FEET OF BUILDING SPACE. THERE'S NO PRACTICAL ABILITY TO BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT THAT 15 FOOT VARIANCE.

AND YOU TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC SAFETY. WE AREN'T ASKING FOR A WAIVER.

WE'RE NOT JUST WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO OVERTURN THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR REASONS THAT WE MEET THE VARIANCE, WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO OTHER REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S DIFFERENT. AND I KNOW IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR IT BEFORE, BUT IT'S NOT A WAIVER. MR.. COUNCILMAN. BECAUSE I THINK THERE COULD BE A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING TO GRANT YOU ONE VARIANCE IF MY MOTION PASSES. AND THAT WILL ALLEVIATE THE WIDTH PROBLEM.

AND THEN I'M CONFIDENT YOU ALL CAN GO BACK WITH OUR STAFF AND COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL.

I APPRECIATE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. THEN YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME BACK HERE A YEAR FROM NOW,

[03:35:02]

AND MAYBE WE'LL HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF IT. WELL, IT'S ULTIMATELY IT'S A VIABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S NO LONGER THE COCHRANE RULE. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A LESS THAN 30 FOOT DEEP APARTMENT THAT WE CAN BUILD ON THERE, IF OTHERWISE. AND THAT'S JUST NOT A VIABLE IN THE MARKETPLACE TO HAVE SUCH A SMALL UNIT.

SO THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHERE WE ARE. THAT'S MY MOTION.

DOES ANYONE WANT TO SECOND THAT? WILL THEY HAVE WILL THEY HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR TO COME BACK? I BELIEVE SO. IS THAT RIGHT? IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR BEFORE APPLYING, SUBMITTING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME APPLICATION. IF THEY HAD A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT APPLICATION, I'M NOT SURE ANOTHER YEAR MAKES A DIFFERENCE. IN THIS CASE IT SAYS GOING ON FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE. WELL, EXCEPT HE'S PAYING ANOTHER YEAR.

I UNDERSTAND. CAN WE CAN WE GRANT THEM THE ABILITY TO COME BACK SOONER.

DON'T KNOW. WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS THIS MOTION COULD EITHER PASS OR FAIL, AND THEN ANOTHER MOTION WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE MADE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT BECAUSE HIS MOTION IS OUT THERE. DID YOU WAS IT A SECOND? THIS IS THE SECOND MOTION. FIRST MOTION. FIRST MOTION.

THIS IS THE FIRST MOTION. FIRST MOTION WAS YOU AGREED TO PASS.

THE FIRST MOTION WAS TO APPROVE. IT'S ALL ONE MOTION.

ONE MOTION. IT'S ACTUALLY ONE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE LOT WIDTH VARIANCE BUT TO DENY THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

OKAY, I HEAR A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND, MR. JOHNSON? MR. JOHNSON SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION, MR. LAWRENCE. SECOND. MR. JOHNSON, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.

I SAY NO, NO, NO. ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION FAILS.

DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? I DON'T KNOW. CAN I SEE? SURE. THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO BE APPROVING A VARIANCE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

THERE IS NO REASONABLE USE FOR THE PROPERTY. THE LOT WITH VARIANCE IS SO SMALL NO ONE WILL NOTICE A DIFFERENCE.

THE SETBACK IS UNREASONABLE AS APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY.

SO LET ME CLARIFY YOUR MOTION, MR. MATT. YOUR MOTION IS TO DENY BOTH VARIANCE REQUESTS.

IS THAT RIGHT? MY MOTION IS TO APPROVE. TO APPROVE? YES. TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. YES. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO MR. MASSIE'S MOTION? SECOND. SECOND BY MR. BROADWAY.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NO. NO. WHAT'S YOUR VOTE, MR. NELSON? NO. NO. NO. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES THREE EYES AND TWO NO'S.

VARIANCE IS APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE IT.

THAT BRINGS US TO APPEAL 2026 NUMBER 100767 DUNCAN H.

[3b. APP-2026-100767 Fairfield Duncan H. MacPherson: appeal a notice of violation regarding the property at 10748 and 10798 Greenwood Road, Fairfield. Parcels 777-768-9356 and 778-768-2615. Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District. Code Section: 24-2320. ]

MCPHERSON APPEALS A NOTICE OF VIOLATION REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 10748 AND 10798 GREENWOOD ROAD IN THE FAIRFIELD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

WHEN EVERYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN. WOULD YOU STAND AND BE SWORN IN? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO, THANK YOU. ARE YOU READY FOR MR. GANNON, OR DO WE NEED ANOTHER? BEAR WITH ME. ONE SECOND. HERE. HOW DO I GET TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS? JUST DOWN THAT WAY. THIS ONE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I THINK THIS ONE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER FOR YOU TODAY.

MY NAME IS ABRAHAM GAGIN, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE DIRECTOR IN THIS APPEAL. THIS CASE INVOLVES A SET OF PARCELS LOCATED ON GREENWOOD ROAD.

THE PROPERTY IS THREE THREE PARCELS HERE THAT ARE ALL TOGETHER.

I APOLOGIZE, WE GET TO THE AERIAL TWO PARCELS WHERE THE NOVS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, AND THEN THE PARCEL IN THE MIDDLE IS ALSO OWNED BY THE APPELLANT.

TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND IN THIS CASE THE, THE FACTS IN THIS CASE YOU MAY REMEMBER, ARE ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO A CASE THAT WAS HEARD BY THIS BOARD THREE YEARS AGO IN JULY 2020 2023.

SAME APPELLANT, SAME PARCEL. BACK IN 2023, APPELLANT WAS USING THIS NORTHERNMOST PARCEL HERE ON THIS MAP.

TO STORE TRUCKS, TRAILERS, BOATS, AND OTHER ITEMS IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

DURING THAT BZA APPEAL, APPELLANT DID NOT CONTEST ANY OF THE VIOLATIONS OTHER THAN RAISING A NON-CONFORMING USE DEFENSE.

[03:40:03]

THE BOARD HEARD THAT DEFENSE AND RULED AGAINST THE APPELLANT.