Loading...
71-69csTAKE NOTICE That the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County will, on Wednesday, ll August 1971, beginning at 2:30 P.M., in the County Board Room at Ches- terfield Courthouse, Virginia, take under consideration the rezoning and the granting of specific us: permits of the following described parcels of land: 71-69CS In Bermuda Magisterial District Truck Enterprise Incorporated request the elimination of various conditions to General Business (C-2) zoning on a parcel of land of irregular shape fronting approximately 600' on Willis Road and approximately 2500' on the Richmond Petersburg Turnpike, being located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of the aforementioned roads. Refer to Tax Map Section 82-5 (1) parcel 3. Copies of the above amendments are on file in the office of the Planning Director, Room B0?, Office Building, Chesterfield Courthouse, Chester- field, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM of each regular business day. APPLICANT AND/OR AGENT MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING All persons favoring or opposing the granting of the above requests are invited to appear at the time and olace herein stated. M. W. Burnett, Executive Secretary Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County, Virginia -1- LAW OFFICES MINOR, THOMPSON, SAVAGE, SMITHERS & BeNEDEttl 5911 WEST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23230 JAMES M. MINOR, JR. HARRY L. THOMPSON JULIAN E. SAVAGE WILLIAM S. SMOTHERS, JR. JOSEPH B. BENEDETTI GERALD PRESS N. LESLIE SAUNDERS, JR. WILLIAM C.WOOD WILLIAM R.MARSHALL, JR. THOMAS B. DAVIDSON, JR. July 7, 1971 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 6~47 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23230 AREA CODE 703 TELEPHONE ~88-4007 Mr. Michael Ritz Planning Commission chesterfield County chesterfield CourthOuse, Virginia 23832 Re: Proposed Use 7.5 Acres East Line Interstate 95 North of Willis Road Dear Mr. Ritz: Please be advised that this firm represents 'Truck Enterprises, Inc., a Virginia corporation, ~engaged in the sale of new and used trucks, principally the sale of KenWorth tractors used for long distance hauling. The firm presently operates in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and will, in the near future, begin operations in the Richmond Metropoli- tan area. We have been negotiating with, and have contracted for, the purchase of a 7.5 acre tract of land, .which parcel is a part of an approximate 29 acre tract, which was the subject matter of a zon- ing case before the Board of Supervisors for Chesterfield County at its meeting on November 8, 1961. In 1961 application was made, Zoning Case No. 61-47, for the change in classification of the entire 29 acre parcel from agriculture and R-2 to C-2. The Board, on November 8, 1961, rezoned a portion of the property, specifically 400 feet of frontage along Willis Road to a depth of 2500 feet along the east line of Interstate 95 to C-2, conditioned on the restriction that the business development on the property would be limited to a motel, restaurant and service station, and essential buildings to such businesses. The parcel that we are interested in is a part of this property and forms the rear of the 29 acre parcel and begins at a point approximately 1250 feet from Willis Road. The legal title to the property is presently vested in L. R. Goyne and Rosa V. Goyne, his wife. The Goyne's have contracted to sell the entire parcel to Regency V, Ltd., a Virginia corporation. Our client has contracted With Regency V, Ltd., for the purchase of the 7.5 acre tract, which contract is subject to permission being~granted Mr. Michael Ritz July 7, 1971 Page 2 by the County of Chesterfield for the use of the !property as a truck sales and service dealership. Other contractual provisions of the contract call for the construction of a service iroad from Willis Road through the '29 acre parcel to the property which we are inter- ested in, and is further subject to .utilitieS being made available to the property. In view of the conditional aspects of the zoning classification presently on the property, it will be necessary for specific approval of the intended use by our client before the contract w~ll become effective. Request is therefore made ~for your office to initiate proceedings to have this matter brought before the Board of Super- visors of Chesterfield County at its August 11, 1971 public hearing, at which time we will request speCific approval for the use of the property as proposed. AlthOugh the conditional aspects of the present zoning classification are perhaps questionable from a legal standpoint, it is not the intention of Truck Enterprises, Inc.,to challenge the zOning classification and unless specific approval of the intended use of the property is granted our client will seek a location elsewhere. As I have discussed with you, on several occasions during the past week, we are willing to, if necessary, cgve__n~nt that the property tto be purchased will be used as outlined and for no other commercial ~uri~e~.---~'~0~l~-b~accomplished by the placing of a restrictive covenant on the property which would not involve any conditional zoning but would assure the Board of Supervisors for the County that the representations of Truck Enterprises are sincere. We would be willing to place such a covenant on the property with reasonable provisions therein that for so long a period of time as property further east along Willis Road continues to be used for residential purposes the covenant would be effective. Quite obviously, if we were asked to covenant in this fashion, we would insist that our interests be protected to the extent that if in the future other properties in the northeast quadrant of Interstate 95 and Willis Road were converted to uses, which would make the restrictive covenant unreasonable, the covenant would terminate. In other words, although we recognize that the residents in the area have a justi~able objection to the use of the 29 acre parcel for unlimited general commercial purposes, if further properties along Willis Road were converted from their residential character and the entire area were to become heavily commercial or industrial in use we would then feel that the restrictive covenant was unreasonable although we would continue to use the property as intended. As I have pointed out to you, it is not our purpose to challenge the existing zoning, and we do not care to become involved in a dispute with the residents of this area and would only proceed under the terms of our contract. Mr. Michael Ritz July 7, 1971 Page 3 WSS,Jr:p Your interest in this matter is ~appreciated and if anything further is necessary to initiate 'the application for removal of conditions on the zoning before ithe Board of Superviso~rs ~at its August 11, 1971 meeting, .please advise. Ver~truly yours ~-? ' lam S. SmOther Ccs: Truck Enterprises, Inc. Harrisonburg, Virginia Attention: Mr. Hartman Oliver D. Rudy Commonwealth Attorney Chesterfield County, Virginia 23832 Mr. Ed Seay Seay, Funai and Harvey, .Corp. Mr. Bob Porter Porter Realty Mr. Leo Meyer Po So Mike: Don't know Meyer's address so have not sent him his copy of this letter. W. S. S., Jr.