Loading...
Mobile Home PermitsMOBILE HOME REPORT The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, on July 24, 1985, be- ginning at 2:00 p.m. in the County Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse, Virginia, will take under consideration the granting of a Mobile Home Permit on the parcel of land described herein. It shall be the policy of the Board of Supervisors that approval of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on a parcel of land shall be subject to com- pliance with the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mo- bile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zon- ing requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any ex£sting residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being g~anted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. '85S086: In Dale Magisterial District, TANYA MERRILL requests a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property belonging to Mr. and Mrs. John Over- acre, parents of a friend of the.applicant. Property fronts the northwest line of Hill Road approximately 1,600 feet south of Canasta Drive. Tax Map 65-8 (2) Ampthill Gardens, Section 2, Lots 66 and 67 (Sheet 22). The Health Department reports this parcel is unsuitable for installation of an individual septic tank and drainfield system. The mobile home will be hooked up to County water and sewer. Four (4) adjacent property owners (Sharpe, Baumker, Kings Forest, Ltd. and Carter) have not signed this request, which is for five (5) years. Staff finds there are three (3) mobile homes located within one-half mile of this property. Homes in the general area of this request are in the $45,000 price range. At this point in time, this request appears to be in character with the immediate neighborhood; however, Staff would note that adjacent property to the west is owned by the developer of Kings Forest Subdivision, a large residential subdivision. In October 1984, there were 327 recorded lots in the subdivision. At that time, the Planning Commission granted tentative subdivi- sion approval for 134 lots adjacent to this site. This request is located in an area designated for residential use. Adjacent property is zoned Residential (R-7). Development in this area-gives the neighborhood a stable residential character. In January 1985, the Board heard a similar request on this property by the applicant. The Board denied the request because the use is not compatible with residential development in the area. The applicant has again filed a request to park a mobile home on this lot. Because of the present and anticipated development in this area, Staff believes that the Board should again deny this request. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST. However, should the Board wish to approve this request, Staff recommends that it be subject to Standard Con- ditions 1 through 7, as listed herein. CASE HISTORY Board of Supervisors Meeting (5/22/85): On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred this request for sixty (60) days. AYES: Messrs. Daniel, Applegate, Mayes and Mrs. Girone. ABSTENTION: Mr. Dodd. fHR/BSMAR5/JULY24Z Applicant's Representative and Staff (5/31/85 and 7/2/85): Staff met with representatives from the VDH&T who are representing the applicant. They advised of the following: Ms. Merrill has been relocated by VDH&T because of improvements at Routes 150/360. The applicant wants to live in this area because her child attends school at Hening Elementary School and there are family members in the area to assist with the care of her child. The mobile home is already connected to County sewer and Virginia Power service. The applicant hopes to build a house in two (2) to three (3) years. Considering these facts, Staff is still of the opinion that a new mobile home will soon be incompatible with this neighborhood. Staff continues to recommend that this request be denied. 85Sl15: In Dale Magisterial District, MR. AND MRS. MICHAEL D. WALLS request a Mobile Home Permit on property fronting the north line of Omo Road approxi- mately 2,300 feet west of Iron Bridge Road, and located in the vicinity of 5701 Omo Road. Tax Map 66-1 (2) Ampthill Gardens, Parcel 53 (Sheet 22). The Health Department reports this parcel is suitable for installation of an individual well and a septic tank and drainfield system. Adjacent property owners state no objection to this request, which is for five (5) years. Staff finds there are two (2) mobile homes located within one-half mile of this property. Homes in the general area of this request are in the $55,000 price range. This request appears to be out of character with the neighborhood. This request is located in an area designated for residential use. Adjacent property is zoned Residential (R-7). Development in this area has started and gives the neighborhood a stable residential character. The applicants plan to build a single family dwelling on this lot in the near future. Because of the potential for continued development in this area, Staff believes that the Board should approve this request only if the applicants have firm plans to build a single family dwelling on this site within the next twenty-four (24) months. *This case was deferred at a previous session of the Board of Zoning Appeal~ to their August 7, 1985, meeting. MHR/BSMAR5/JULY24Z STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS, subject to Standard Conditions 1 through 7, as listed herein. Copies of these applications are on file at the Planning Department, Develop- ment Review Division, Administration Building, Room 201, Courthouse Complex, Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of each regular business day. APPLICANT AND/OR AGENT MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING ~ ~ . Schiavo ~ Zoning Administra~on Manager ~ 4 fHR/BSMAR5 / JULY24Z .,4 85S086 M.H. SH. 22 D HAZARD .¢ TUCKER ROAD IIIIlIIilI 8,5SII5 ' ~.) M.H. SH.22 · BOARD OF SUPERVISORS G. H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER RILL DI~TRtCT JESSE d. MAYES, VIC£ CHAIRMAN MATOACA DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT R. GARLAND DODD SERMUDA DISTRICT JOAN GIRONE M IOLOTRIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. BOX 40 CHESTERFIELD,VIRGINIA 23852 COUNTY ~DMI# I~TRATOR RICHARD L. HEDRICK July 12, 1985 Mr. Harry G. Daniel Dale District Supervisor 4833 Melody Road South Richmond, VA 23234 RE: Mobile Home Permit 85S086 - Tanya Merrill Dear Mr. Daniel: As you may recall, this request was denied by the Board in January, 1985. The applicant has reapplied and reappeared before the Board on May 22, 1985. Staff again recommended denial of the request. After a brief discussion, the Board deferred the request for sixty (60) days and directed Staff to meet with the applicant's representative (the VDH&T), review the background of the situation and submit a report to you. On May 31, I met with Nelson Cook, Dave Reynolds, Betty Dorn, and Melvin Stone all of whom work for VDH&T. They are representing Ms. Merrill because she was displaced by the improvements now being constructed at Chippingham Parkway and Route 360. They advised me of the following: VDH&T ran into a scheduling problem in relocating Ms. Merrill prior to advertising the construction of the road project. Had they delayed in moving Ms. Merrill, some State and Federal funding assistance could have been lost. me VDH&T asked for permission to store Ms. Merrill's mobile home on the subject property until they could obtain a mobile home permit. They were advised that the mobile home could be stored on the property but not occupied if they were willing to assume the risk of removing the mobile home if the permit was not approved. Be Ms. Merrill wants to locate in this part of the County because she has a child in the Special Education Program at Hening Elementary School and because she has family members in this area to assist her with her child. Mr. Harry G. Daniel Dale District Supervisor July 12, 1985 Page 2 e VDH&T feels the County should cooperate with them on this matter since the County requested road improvements at the intersection of Chippenham Parkway and Route 360. e VDH&T feels the County has implied that the mobile home permit would be granted because Ms. Merrill applied for a septic tank permit, a plumbing permit, an electrical permit and has connected to the County sewer. I can find no record that septic tank and/or plumbing permits were applied for or issued. Ms. Merrill has comnected to County sewer and has obtained an electrical permit. The county has advised Virginia Power to connect the mobile home to their services. The building inspector advises that the BOCA Code will not permit him to hold approval of this electrical connection until a mobile home permit is granted. e VDH&T feels that the Planning Department should have advised them that we would still recommend denial when they made their second application for a mobile home permit on this parcel. My discussions with Staff members indicate that we either did not advise them one way or another on this matter or that we told them our recommendation would be the same unless they offered new information that would cause us to reach a different conclusion. On July 2, I met with Mr. Stone, Ms. Dorn, and Mr. L.S. Hester. Mr. Hester is the State Relocation Coordinator for VDH&T. They reiterated their previous points and gave me a letter from Ms. Merrill advising that she would like to move into a permanent home within two to three years if possible. I would note that, prior to building a single family home on this parcel, Zion Hill Road would have to grant a variance or the Board of Supervisors would have to grant a Conditional Use Permit. I have discussed this matter again with Jim Zook and Jeff Muzzy. Staff still recommends that the mobile home permit be denied. Even though this request appears to be in character with the neighborhood today, the vacant land west of the site will soon be developed as part of King's Forest Subdivision. Staff feels that the request will soon be incompatible with the neighborhood and, if it is approved now, there may be sigmificant neighborhood opposition to its renewal. If a renewal were denied, Ms. Merrill would have to bare all the cost of relocation by herself. If this mobile home permit is denied, Staff feels that VDH&T will provide additional relocation assistance to help her move again. Attached for your information is a copy of all recent correspondence from VDH&T and the applicant. Mr. Harry G. Daniel Dale District Supervisor July 12, 1985 Page 3 If you would like to meet with me and/or VDH&T representatives prior to the board meeting, please call me at 748-1053. I will be out of town between July 13 and July 21 but I could meet with you between the 22nd and the day of the Board meeting. Very ~uly yours,~, William D. Poole Chief of Development Review CC: Jeffrey B. Muzzy, Assistant County Administrator for Community Development James P. Zook, Director of Planning (Acting) Enclosures BILL/JL6//jac L. E. 8RETT, JR. OtSTRICT ENGINEER COMMONWEALTH of V RGtNJA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMONO, 23219 June 17, 1985 O~R ~(. MAER¥ 0EPUTY CCM MI'['~ION E R J. M. WRAY, JR. CHIEF ENGINEER J. T. WAR REN OIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF OtSTRICT ENGINEER P.O. ~Ox 25g COLONIA/ HEIGHT~,, VIRGINIA 238.34 Route 150 Projec~ 0150-020-10!, RW-202 Federal Aid No F-036-2(103) Chesterfield County MEMORANDUM To - Mr. L. S. Hester(BMD) Re - RIGHT OF WAY - Documentation of Files - Property of M~hle M. Ellis - Tenant/Displacee - Tanya Merrill - Parcel 028 Because of the complexity of the displacement of the mobile home and the choice of the subject displacee to move the mobile home on a private site, numerous contacts had to be made with the County of Chester- field, to make sure the move conformed to the building codes within the county. We are therefore submitting a list of contacts for your files as follows: October 31, 1984 - Mr. Cook and Mr. Runnels contacted Mr." Paul Maur~ello of Chesterfield County Planning Department, to request that the county give Mrs. Merrill a variance to store the mobile home on the proposed new permanent site. Mr. Cook explained to Mr. Mauriello that this request was being made because of the need of the Department of Highways to meet the advertisement schedule for the acquired project. Another important factor in requesting this variance was the time frame~ ~0 in getting such items as the mobile home permit, conformity to the county's building codes, and the department's decent, safe, and sanitary ~[~ regulation, which would not allow us time to meet our advertisement sch~dule~ During this contact, Mr. Hauriello was asked if there were any forseeable problems concerning the use of the proposed new permanent site ~to please contact the highway department. November 2, 1984 - Contacted the County of Chesterfield to get a mobile home permit application for Mrs. Merrill. While in the assessor's office, Mr. Runnels of our office, asked Mr. Tommy O'Leary of the asses- sor's office, if he knew of any problems that would not allow the mobile home on the proposed permanent site. Mr. O'Leary said that he did not know of any reason to disavow the mobile home on the site, but a study and determination would be made by the Planning Department. The Planning Department would then recommend their determination to the Board of Supervisors. November 2, 1984 - Contacted the County of Chesterfield to set up a date to have Mr. and Mrs. Overacre's property tested to see if a septic system could be located on the site for the mobile home. November 9, 1984 - Mr. Tonie Dyer, the building inspector for Chester~?~ field County, ~m-~ o--ut to the proposed new permanent site for the perk--~3~$ test. Please note that the land did not perk for a septic system. Since the proposed new site did n'ot pass the.perk test, a plumber had to be located to install sewer and waterline.hookup for the mobile home,~ l~ Numerous plumbers were contacted-for the job, but only one was able to do the work within the time frame specified. Mr. C. R. Saunders gave Mrs. Merill a proposal to do the work, which required Mr. Saunders contacting the county for a perm±t. November 13, 1984 - Mrs. Overacre was contacted concerning the site preparation so the mobile home could be relocated. Numberous mobile home movers were contacted to get an estimate of the costs incurred in the move. The county was contacted to see if a permit was needed for the move. We were told that the mover of the mobile home would obtain the permit2 At this contact we also asked if there were any problems concerning this case. We were told that no problems were anticipated at this time. November 20, 1984 - Contacted the county concerning the question of whether or not the state would be charged the cost of the mobile home permit application. We were told that the cost had tO. be paid. At this contact, Mr. Runnels and Mr. Cook. asked if any problems were anticipated concerning this.case. We were told that the Board of Supervisors would make the final determination on this case, but no problems were anticipated at this time. December 5, 1984 - The mobile home was moved to the proposed new - permanent site. Mr. K. W. 0veracre contacted the County of Chesterfield, to get an electrical permit for the mobile home. December 10, 1984 - Mr. Runnels and Mr. Cook contacted the County of Chesterfield to pay the 'fee for the.application on the mobile home. At this contact, Mr. Runnels and Mr.'Cook asked if any problems were anticipated concerning this case. Once again we were told that there were no problems anticipated. December 21, 1984 - Mobile home was inspected by the building in- spector, Mr. Lewis Gorder, for electrical work, which was approved. January 16, 1985 - Contacted Mr. Schiaro prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing, to emphasize the highway department's position con- c~rning this case. Present at this meeting were Mr. Runnels and Mr. Cook of our office. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Schiaro if there were any problems concerning this case. Mr. Schiaro only stated that the Board of Supervisors would make the final determination. ~e once again asked if the planning department's study located any problems concerning this case. Mr. Schiaro said that the planning department was still making an evaluation concerning the case. January 31, 1985 - Mr. T. M. Stone of this office, contacted Mr. John McCracken of the county concerning this case. February 4, 1985 - A letter was written to Mr. Schiaro, Zoning Administration Manager, concerning the mobile home permit application and to emphasize the Commonwealth's position in this case. February 13, 1985 - Mr. N. B. Cook contacted Mr. Schiaro by telephone to make an inquiry as to the reason the Planning Department of Chesterfield recommended denial to the Board of Supervisors concerning the mobile home permit for Mrs. Tanya Merrill. March 1, 1985 - Mr. T. W. Stone contacted Mr. John McCracken of. Chesterfield County, concerning this case. March 1, 1985 - Mr. T. M. Stone contacted Mr. Stan Balderson of Chesterfield County Planning Division, concerning this case. March 1, 1985 - Mr. Cook contacted Mr. Schiaro in reference to this case. March 26, 1985 - Mr. Stone was contacted by telephone by Mrs. Owen of the Chesterfield Planning Department concerning Mrs. Merrill's new application for a mobile home Permit. March 29, 1985 - Mr. Cook contacted Mrs. Owen of the Chesterfield Planning Department, in reference to Mrs. Merrill's case. April 1, 1985 - Mr. Cook contacted Mrs. Owen concerning Mrs. Merrill's new application for the mobile home permit. At this meeting, Mr. Cook asked if there were any problems with getting the new application approved. We were told that the Planning Department was evaluating the situation and the Board of Supervisors would make the final determination. April 4, 1985 - Mr. Cook contacted Mrs. Owen by telephone to get an update concerning the case. We were told that the county was still studying the situation. April '5, 1985 - Mr. Runnels and Mr. Cook Submitted a check in the ' amount of $250 to the Chesterfield County Planning Department (Mrs. Owen), for Mrs. Merrill's second application for a mobile home permit. At this contact, Mr. Cook inquired whether there were any problems the Planning Department saw that would produce a negative report to the Board of Supervisors. reviewed. The response was that the situation was being April 8,' 1985 - Mr. Cook wrote a letter to Mr. James Schiaro re-emphasizeing and requesting that his office should consider the unique situation of this case, and submit an encouraging report to the Board of Supervisors before the hearing. April 15, 1985 - By request, this office received a letter from Chesterfield County, concerning the date and time of the next hearing on Mrs. Tanya Merrill's case. April 22, 1985 - The hearing on Mrs. Tanya Merrill's case was held in the board room of the courthouse complex. At this hearing were Mrs. Dorn, Mr. Heater, Mr. Runnels and Mr. Cook to represent the Commonwealth. We were Ai! shocked when we learned that the Planning Department had recommended that the Board of Supervisors. ~enied the request for the mobile home permit. However, the Board of Supervisors gave the case a sixty-day continuance because of the controversial issues raised by Mr. Cook. April 30, 1985 - Mrs. Dom, Mr. Stone, Mr. Runnels 'and Mr. Cook of this office, had a meeting with Mr. William~Poole, Chief of Development Review for Chesterfield County, concerning the Merrill case. June 12 - 1985 - Mr. Cook contacted Mr. Poole, Chief of Development Review, to get some indication concerning this case. He said that the Planning Department of Chesterfield would in all probability recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors for the second time. Please note that there have' been numerous contacts between Mr. Kenneth Overacre, Mrs. Tanya Merrill, Mr. and Mrs. D. J. Overacre, and Mr. Melvin Stone, with the Planning Departmen~ of Chesterfield County concerning this case,..which were not documented on our R/W-68A. We are bringing this fact tO your attention to show evidence that all parties concerned have been in constant contact with the'county. These contacts will reflect the nu~er of times we have informed the county concernin~ this case. As you can see from the .contacts, the Highway Department's~~~~ representatives working Chin this case were led to believe that there were no problems anticipated obtaining a mobile home permit.-~-- We are submitting these contacts to document your files concerning this case. Should your office need any. additional information or have any suggestions that would be beneficial in this case, please advise. District Right of Way Engineer NBC/r' G. W. ALEXANDER STATE RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEER COMMONWEALTH o[ V RQIN A DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 July 5, 1985 OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY CON, MISSIONER J. M. WRAY. JR. CHIEF ENGINEER J. T. WARREN DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION H. W. WORRALL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JACK HODGE ~.~IS'['ANT CHIEF ENGINEER SALLY H. COOPER DIRECTOR OF RAiL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J. G. RIPLEY DIRECTOR OF PblkNNING AND PROGRAMMING Route 150 Project 0150-020-101, ~4-202 SUBJECT - RIC~T~ OF WAY - Relocation of Tanya Merrill Mr. William D. Poole Chief of Development Revi~ Planning Department P. O. Box40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Poole: This is to confirm our meeting of July 2, 1985 at which time Mr. Nelson Cook of our Richmond District office, Mrs. Betty Dom of my office and I met with you to discuss in detail the circunstances involved in the relocation of the captioned displacee who was displaced due to the construction of the captioned project. To briefly restate the sequence of events involved in this case, this occupant was required to move as a result of the proposed construction of the cloverleaf at Route 150 and 360 which is being constructed in three stages in an attempt to alleviate the traffic congestion at this interchange. The Department has been working with this occupant and the County of Chesterfield since October of 1984 in an attempt to obtain an occupancy permit for her mobile home. This has led to many contacts (approximately 25) with some eight different individuals within county goverrment, including appearing before the Board of Supervisors in an attempt to bring this matter to a conclusion. Permits such as electrical, plumbing, hook-up to county sewer, etc. have been obtained and paid for by the Cc~n~nwealth of Virginia plus all other expenses in relocating the mobile hcme and occupant in question to the present site on Hill Road. ?~nile I realize that possibly these permits and approvals thus far may not have been in the sequence as we all would have preferred, it certainly appears to the Department that the issuance of the permits previously mentioned was an indication that an occupancy permit would be forthcoming. Page 2 Mr. William D. Poole July 5, 1985 In looking at the area and its surroundings that the-mobile hcme is currently located in, one would assune that occupancy would be permitted since there are currently three mobile hcmes within a stone's throw of th~ subject site which is at a dead-end street situated on a buildable lot. One other concern, aside frcm the fact that this occupant was uprooted to make rocm for public improv~ent, is the child of the occupant. Being handicapped, she needs special care and attention which I feel supports the need for th~ occupants to be relatively close to their parents which are located on the adjacent lot. We fully understand the county's concern that the mobile home is located near the entrance to the proposed development of a subdivision· located behind the site in question; however, in our discussion, I think we concluded that the development of this site was"not in~ediate. Again, it is requested by the Department on behalf of this displaced citizen of Chesterfield County that you reccmmend to the Board of Supervisors that an occupancy peri, it be granted due to the circtumstances outlined herein for a minimun of three years as I understand the family has notified you by letter that their intentions 'are to construct a modular h~me on this site within that time frame. If you care to discuss this matter in more detail, we will be happy to meet with you at your convenience. A favorable response to the above would be most appreciated. Sincerely, L. S. Hester Relocation Program Coordinator LSH:jc Cc: Mr. J. S. Hedge Mr. G. W. Alexander Mr. John J. Beall, Jr. Mr. L. E. Brett, Jr. Mr. J. O. Haslett, Jr.