04SR0250-Mar9.pdfHISTORY OF HACKMAN CASE
EXISTING SITE
5/01 - Cited for violation.
7/01 - Conditional Use granted for one (1)
year to allow time for relocation.
7/02 - Conditional Use expires - renewal
pending.
10/02 - Conditional Use renewed for eighteen
(18) months (4/04).
3/04 - Renewal application submitted
4/04 - Conditional Use expires, renewal
pending.
6/04 - CPC recommends renewal for eighteen
(18) months. (Dec. 05).
7/04 - Board defers Conditional Use at
applicants' request.
10/04 - Board defers Conditional Use at
applicants' request.
1/05 - Board defers Conditional Use at
applicants' request.
ALTERNATE SITE
7/02 - Zoning approved.
1/03 - Plans submitted.
4/03 - Revised plans submitted.
5/03 - Revised plans submitted.
10/04 - Revised plans submitted.
12/04 - Revised plans submitted.
2/05 - Plans approved.
March 9, 2005
Case 04SR0250
Douglas and Deborah Hackman
Mr. Kelly Miller
Dale District
Chesterfield County
Post Office Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832-0040
Dear Mr. Miller:
Please review our response to the Staff's analysis and recommendations.
First and foremost the ideals set forth in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution exemplify
the spirit in which this case should be held. "We the People of the United States, in Order
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.
It has been our desire and diligent quest to comply with the wishes of the Planning Dept,
The Planning Commission and The Board of Supervisors relating to this case and the
companion project, Case #03SR0100, approved County Site Plan # 03PR0253.
As noted the renewal comes before you tonight with a recommendation for approval and
acceptance by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Staff recommends denial for the following reasons:
A. Nonconforming with the Central Area Plan. This is not a new point in this case,
and while staff and the Plan would suggest 32 residential units on our property I
can assure you that while there is no opposition to this extension of the
Conditional Use, the turn out of opposition to that type of development would be
significant.
B. Staff implies that I have failed to diligently pursue this relocation. In addition to
acquiring 25 acres of land, rezoning, site engineering, wetlands delineation, site
plan review, site plan approval, and building design, I have spent $136,664.00 to
date on interest, legal and consulting fees and I have paid over $15, 000. O0 in
taxes on this property. I personally consider this to be an extreme effort to comply
with the CUPD.
C. The implication could be that Liberty Farm does not conform to the existing and
anticipated area residential development. Truly until we sell out to residential
developers neither our farm or business activities will meet the goals of the
Central Area Plan.
Staff feels that this proposal represents commercial encroachment into a single
family residential area and could establish a precedent for similar development.
This cuts to the heart of who we are as Americans and what we consider our
heritage and the Freedoms we live for. Anyfifih grader visiting Williamsburg can
describe to you the harmony and vitality of community created by the very acts of
living, working, enterprising, sharing, and harvesting in community. Liberty Farm
is the last, large, undeveloped property along this portion of Newbys Bridge Rd
and it is our heart to see it stay that way. We have been able to live and work on
Liberty Farm since 1997. We have started four companies that now employ over
three hundred people with offices on Huguenot Rd, Midlothian Tp£, Amelia,
Goochland, and Richmond The core administrative staff including Deborah and I
work out of the Liberty Farm Barn office. In reviewing the County Zoning
Ordinance, Virginia Code 15.2-2200 and 15.2-2283 there was no reference that I
could find to basing decisions out of the fear of establishing a precedent. The
precedent I described as Williamsburg certainly rings true of the revolutionary
spirit and American dream.
While Staff is making a case for denial based on the afore mentioned items they
failed to inform you in the Case History that site plan approval was issued on
February 11, 2005. The delays were caused by health issues with our wetlands
engineer and having to get his firm onto the Chesterfield Environmental Department,
approved list.
I submit to you that the win, w;m solution is to approve this request for extension.
Going forward keeps the Licking Creek Development (03SROI 00) moving. The
VDOT and Chesterfield Environmental bonds have been executed by Suntrust Bank,
site plans are out for bids with plans to begin clearing in early summer. The building
floor plans have been updated and are ready for design completion. A letter was
provided to you by Freedom Home Health Senior Vice President and Corporate
Counsel, a copy of which is attached, outlining the status of Freedom Home Health
and the intentions for relocation. With your support and approval of this case
Chesterfield County is the big winner.
The alternative of course is denial of the extension which kills the development and
leads to appeals and litigation. We consider this a losing proposition for Chesterfield
County and us.
I am counting on the strong character and self determination of the Board of
Supervisors to act in the spirit of our Constitution to promote the general welfare and
secure the Blessings of Liberty. With our humblest sincerity we thank you for
working with us thru this case.
Douglas J. and Deborah A. Hackman
February 28, 2004
Mr. Kelly Miller
Dale District
Chesterfield County
Post Office Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832-0040
RE: Freedom Home HeMth
DearMr. Mille~.
I would like to take this opportunity to alleviate your concerns regarding the lease between Freedom Inc., and
Amedisys Home Health, Inc., of Virginia at Liberty Farm.
The current lease agreements were assumed as part of our company's recent acquisition of Freedom Home
Health. Prior to the acquisition, Amedisys was made aware of the plans for relocation, pending approval of
engineering and construction of a new office building. Our continued presence at Liberty Farm is contingent
upon the extension of the Conditional Use Zoning; and in the event such extension is not obtained, Doug
and Debbie Hackman have committed to providing a suitable alternate location.
I have been advised by the Hackmans that bids are presently being received for the approved site plan, and
the office layout is being finalized prior to soliciting bids. Once the costs are obtained and suitable terms can
be negotiated, the parties will have a definitive timeline for location transition, which we will gladly provide
the county.
Following the receipt of bids, if it is detemained that the costs are prohibitive or we are otherwise unable to
reach satisfactory terms for both parties, there is no option or desire for an extension or renewal of the
current lease between the Hackman's and Amedisys Home Health, Inc., of Virginia d/b/a Freedom Home
Health. In such circumstances, our company would relocate prior to the expiration of the pending 18-month
extension that is under consideration at your Board meeting on March 9.
Amedisys appreciates the County's willingness to work with us on the transition of the Freedom business and
we look forward to many years of success in Chesterfield. Please feel free to contact me regarding this matter
if you have any additional questions or concerns. With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
JEFFREY D. JETER
Senior Vice President of Compliance & Corporate Counsel
Amedisys, Inc.
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
04SR0250
Douglas J. and Deborah A. Hackman
Dale Magisterial District
West line of New'bys Bridge Road
REQUEST: Renewal of Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 03 SRO I00) to permit ofiice
use and exceptions to Ordinance requirements in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
In 2002, the applicants were granted renewal of a Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 03SR0100) to operate home health care offices within the
existing residential and accessory structures for an additional period o feighteen (18)
months. Renewal. of this Conditional Use Planned Development is requested fbr an
additional eighteen (18) months.
(NOTE: IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST, A $130.00
DEFERRAL FEE MUST BE PAID PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFEREI) CONDITIONS ON
PAGES 2 AND 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
The proposed zoning and land use do not con~brm with the Central Area Plma. which
suggests the property is appropriate ibr residential use of I..0 to 2.5 dwelling units per
acre.
t rovidi:~g' a FIRST (;}'":I(i)[(~;1':'~ conmmnit:v through excdlcncc m pt:tblic service
The applicants have secured and zoned other property on which to relocate this
business. Renewal of this Conditional Use Planned Development in 2002 for a period
of eighteen (18) months was approved in an effort to afford the applicants appropriate
time i.n which to receive the necessary plan and permitting approvals at this new
location and transfer this operation to the new site. The applicants have failed to
diligently pursue this relocation.
The proposed land use and zoning do not contbrm to existing and anticipated area
residential development.
This proposal represents commercial encroachment into a single t~nily residential
area. Approval o:£this request could establish a precedent for similar nomresidential
development along this portion of Newbys Bridge Road.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY
BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE
RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
CONDITIONS WITH ~'NEW' ARE CONDITIONS CHANGED SINCE THE COMMISSION'S
CONSIDEtLATION OF THIS CASE.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(CPC) I.
This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted tbr a period not
to exceed eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. This Conditional
Use Planned Development shall be granted to and tbr Douglas J. and
Deborah A. Hackman, or to an entity in which at least one of them owns a
controlling interest, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P)
(NEW)
This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted for a period not
to exceed eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. This Conditional
Use Planned I)evelopment shall be granted to and for Douglas J. and
Deborah A. Hackman, or to an entity in which at least one of them owns a
substantial interesh and shall not be transibrabte nor run with the land.
(CPC) 2.
This Conditional Use iPIanned Development shall be limited to a home health
care administrative office use. A maximum of seventeen (17) employees
shall maintain offices on the Property at any one time and a maximum of
twenty (20) employees shall be permitted on the Property at any one time.
Provided, however, a maximum of two (2) company fitnctions may occur on
the Property during any one (1) calendar year where more than twenty (20)
persons are on the Property at any one time. (P)
2
I)4SR0250~MAR9-1B()S
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(cPc)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(cpc)
(cPc)
(cPc)
(CPC)
I0.
11.
I2.
No clients shall be treated or con. suited on the Property. No retail or
wholesale sales shall be conducted on the iProperty. ('P)
Operation of this Conditional Use Planned Development shall be limited to
the buildings noted on the plan as BarnJOffice, House/Office and Office
entitled, "Freedom Inc., 5418 Newbys Bridge Road Chesterfield Co.,
Virginia" and dated June 4, 2001 (the "Plan"). There shall be no additions or
exterior alterations to these structures to accomm.odate this use except those
required by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VAUSBC).
Such uses shall occupy no more than 5,000 squm'e feet of gross floor area.
(BI)
For any function attended by filly (50) or more persons, a mininmm of one
(1) portable toilet for each one hundred (100) persons in attendance shall be
provided on the Property. (H)
All uses shall be conducted entirely' within enclosed buildings, except
accessory automobile parking and functions where more than twenty (20)
persons may be located on the Property at any one time, as described in
Proffered Condition 2. (P)
Business hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from. 7 a.m. to 8
p.m, (P)
Loading areas, loading docks and drives-in loading doors shall be prohibited.
(P)
There shall be no exterior lighting other than security lighting which shall
comply with Section 19-573 of the Zoning Ordinance and shall not exceed a
height of twelve (12) feet. The amount of security lighting shall be approved
by the Planning Department. (P)
With the exception of six (6) parking spaces which may be located in front of
the "Barn/Office' building as noted in the "Plan", all parking shall be located
behind buildings as generally depicted on the "Plan'2 (P)
There shall be no visible signage from Newbys Bridge Road that identifies
the use. (P)
Direct access ~¥om the Property to Newbys Bridge Road shall be limited to
one (1) existing entrance/exit. Any relocation of this access shall be
approved by the Transportation Department. (T)
3 O4SR0250-MARg-Bos
Location:
GENERAL INFORMATION
West line of Newbys Bridge Road, south of Sunnygrove Road. Tax IDs 758-681-2847 and
Part of 4279 (Sheet 17).
E'xisting Zoning:
Size:
A
7.2 acres
Existing Land Use:
Home health care offices
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North and Soulh - A and A with Conditional. Use; Single family residential, public/semi-
public (Friendship Baptist Church) or vacant
East - R-9, R- 15 and A; Single family residential or vacant
West ~ A, R-15 and R- 12; Single fhmily residential or vacant
UTILITIES
iPublic Water System:
There is an existing thirty (130) inch transmission water line that extends across New'by's
Bridge Road and continues within an easement across this site. The request site is connected
to the public water system ~br domestic water use only. This renewal request wilt have not
impact on use of the public water system.
Public Wastewater System:
The public wastewater system is not available to the request site.
Private Septic System:
The "Barn/Office" and :'Office" buildings shown on the ;'Plan" submitted with the
application do not have a separate approved septic tank/drainfield system. These structures
are connected to the system which was originally installed to serve the single thmily dwelling
4 04SR0250 MAR%BOS
and has now been converted to office use. The existing system was built for residential, not
office purposes.
With limitations,~ the system is adequate to serve the uses proposed.. For those functions
which allow more than fifty (50) persons on the property at any one (1) time, portable toilets
would be provided lbr each t00 persons in attendance. (Proll'ered Condition 5)
ENVIRON MENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
This request will have minimal impact on environmental engineering issues.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Fire Service:
The property is currently served by the Airport Fire/Medic Station, Company 15. Although
public water is available l~or domestic use, it is not available for fire suppression put-.poses.
As a result, the time lbr the Fire Department to obtain an adequate water supply may
adversely affect fire suppression operations. The applicants have installed a dry hydrant on
the property to provide a water supply tbr firefighting.
Transportation:
In July 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a Conditional Use Planned Development
(CUPD) (Case 01SN0168) for one (1) year to permit office use on the properly. As part of
that approval, the Board accepted several proffers that included development limitations,
access control and right of way dedication al. ong Newbys Bridge Road. The applicant is
requesting renewal of that previously approved CUPD for an additional eighteen (18)
months, and has again profli~red many of the same conditions.
The applicant has prolTfered a maximum density of 5,000 square feet (Proffered Condition 4).
Based on general office trip rates, development could generate approximately 130 average
daily trips. These vehicles wilt be distributed along Newbys Bridge Road, which had a 2003
traffic count of 2.624 vehicles per day. Sections of this road have twenty (20) foot wide
pavement with no shoulders, and substandard vertical and horizontal alignments. The
standard typical section Ibr this road should be twenty-four (24) lbot wide pavement, with
minimum eight (8) foot wide shoulders.
included in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary Road
hnj)rovement Plan are two (2) prqjects to reconstruct Newbys Bridge Road. The first pro. iect
involves improving the curve on N'ewbys Bridge Road at Dortonway Drive and construction.
is anticipated to begin in Spring 2006. The second project involves the reconstruction of
5 04SR0250~M:kRg~BoS
Newbys Bridge Road as a two (2) lane facility ti?om Walmsley Boulevard to Falling Creek.
The design of this pro. ject is anticipated to begin in 2007.
The Thoroughi~are Plan identifies Newbys Bridge Road as a major arterial with a
recommended right of way width of ninety (90) fbcL In accordance with Proffered Condition
13 of Case 01SN0168, the applicant has dedicated fbrty-five (45) l~et of right of way along a
revised centerline fbr Newbys Bridge Road.
Access to ma}or arterials, such as Newbys Bridge Road, should be controlled. The applicant
has proffered that direct access from the property to Newbys Bridge Road will be limited to
one (I) entrm,ce/exit (Proft~red Condition I2). Due to its horizontal and vertical alignment,
sight distance along N'ewbys Bridge Road is limited. As part of developing the property, the
applicant provided a new access onto Newbys Bridge Road at a locmion where adequate
sight distance is available.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Central Area Plan which suggests the property is
appropriate for residential use of 1.0 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
Area Development Trends:
Area properties to the west and east are characterized by residential and agricultural zonings
and are occupied by the Newbys Wood, Jacobs Court and Ashley Grove Subdivisions, single
fanfily development on acreage parcels or are vacant. The area properties to the north and
south are characterized by agricultural zoning with large acreage parcels occupied by single
· fmnily residences or are vacant. It is anticipated that residential development will continue in
this immediate area, consistent with the recommendations of the Central Area Plan.
Zoning and Site Plan History:
T'he applicants had been operating their home health care offices without the requisite
Conditional Use, but subsequently filed their application, upon. receiving notice of this
violation from the County (Case 01 SN0168). Staff recommended denial of the request as
the use did n. ot conform with the Central Area Plan; represented commercial encroachment
into a single family residential area; and could set a precedent for additional non-residential
development along this portion of Newbys Bridge Road. On June 19, 2001., the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the request for a period of one (1) year to allow the
applicants time to proceed with the relocation of their business to an. appropriately zoned
property. On July 25,2001, the Board of Supervisors approved this Conditional Use Planned
Development subject to the conditions as recommended by the Commission.
6 04SRo250-MARg-BOS
On July 24, 2002, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the
iI>Ianning Commissiom approved the applicants' request for rezoning of 24.4 acres
Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (I) with Conditional [)'se Planned Development,~ on
property located at the southeast quadrm~t of the intersection of Newbys Bridge Road and
Hagood I~ane (Case 02SN0171 ). The applicants propose to develop a corporate office park
within which to relocate their home health care business.
On October 23, 2002, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the
Planning Commission, approved the renewal of Case 0I SN0168 ibr an additional eighteen
(18) months to provide time to receive the necessao~ plan and permitting approvals at the
new location and transfer this operation to that site at Newbys Bridge and Hagood I,ane.
(Case 03 SRO t 00)
On January 28, 2003, site plans were submitted to the County fbr development of the home
health care offices at the new location. Two (2) subsequent resubmittals of this plan were
made based upon County review comments. Revisions to the plans were last requested by
staffon June 13, 2003. To date, the applicants have not resubmitted plans l;~)'r County review'
based upon these June, 2003, comments.
Uses:
The applicants have proflbred that the Conditional Use Planned iDevelopment would be
limited to a home health care administrative office use with no retail or wholesale sales. No
clients ~vould be treated or consulted on the property (Prolt~red. Conditions 2 m~d 3).
Proffered Condition 2 w-ould limit the number of employees who maintain offices on the
property at m-~y one (I) time to seventeen (17) and limit the number of employees on tl~e site
at any one (1) time to a maximum of twenty (20) except during social 'lSanctions which would
be limited to two (2) during any calendar year. This use would be granted for eighteen (18)
months from the date of approval and ~br the applicants or an entity in which at least one (1)
of the applicants owns a substantial interest (ProfiCered Condition 1). The applicants have
agreed to limit the hours of operation (Proffered Condition 7) and that no signage identit~ing
this use will be visible t~om Newbys Bridge Road. (Proft~red Condition 11)
Site Design:
With approval of this request, development should conlbrm to the applicants' proff~ered
conditions and Textual Statement (attached). The subject property is a 7.2 acre portion of
two (2) parcels totaling approximately 17.9 acres. A plan submitted with the application
depicts a "House/Office", "Barn/Office" and "Office", which have been converted to office
space for the home health cm'e operation. The applicant has proffered to limit the operation
of this business to these existing structures, not to exceed a total area of 5,000 gross square
feet (Prof~;ered Condition 4), with all uses, except parking and company functions attended
by more than twenty (20) persons, to be located within these buildings. (Pro'flared Condition
6)
7 04SR0250,.M~\.R9-,B('~S
An exception to the Zoning Ordinance requirements was previously granted relative to the
number of parking spaces provided and the paving of parking areas. Specifically, the Zoning
Ordinance requires one (1) space for every 200 gross square 'fbet of building area whereas the
applicants have provided one (1) parking space tbr eveN' 230 gross square feet of building
area. Further, in lieu of paving, the applicants? driveway' and parking areas are surihced with
a minimum of six (6) inches of No. 21 or N'o. 21A stone. The applicants are requesting these
same exceptions through this renewal process (Textual Statement 1 and 2). Parking areas are
to be located as generally depicted on the "Plan" with the majority of such spaces located
behind the existing buildings. (Prol:tbred Condition 10)
Architectural Treatment:
As previously noted, the applicant has indicated the operation will be limited to thc buildings
noted on the "Plan". Proffered Condition 4 prohibits additions and exterior alterations to the
buildings except which may' be necessary to comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code (VAU'SBC),
Buf]~krs; Screening; and Lighting:
Cun'ently, the Zoning Ordinance requires that solid waste storage areas (i,e., dumpsters.
garbage cans, trash compactors, etc.) be screened from view' of adjacent property and public
rights of way by a solid fence, wall, dense evergreen planting or architectural feature, be
separated fi:om any residentially zoned property or any property being used Ibr residential
purposes by the principal building, and that such area within 1.000 t~et of any residentially
zoned property or property used for residential purpose not be serviced between the hours of
9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Proffers have been submitted prohibiting loading areas, loading docks and drive-in loading
doors and to limit the amount of exterior lighting. (ProffEred Conditions 8 and 9)
CONCLUSt'ONS
The proposed zoning and land rise do not conform to the Central Area Plan -which suggests the
property is appropriate fbr residential use of 1.0 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. One (1) of the goals
of the Plan is to preserve and protect stable neighborhoods through the provision of appropriate
transition between existing and future residential development of higher intensity uses. Further? the
proposed land use and zoning do not conform to existing and anticipated area residential
development. Non-residential uses adjacent to established subdivision developments may set a
precedent for similar non-residential growth in conflict with the Plan and create compatibility
problems between residential and non-residential uses.
Further, the applicants have secured other property' on which to relocate this business. Renewal of
this Conditional Use Planned Development in 2002 tk)r a peri. od of eighteen (18) months should have
aflbrded the applicants appropriate time in which to receive the necessary plan and permitting
approvals at this new location and trm~sfer this operation to the new' site, The applicants have failed
8 04SR0250-MAR9-.BOS
to diligently pursue these approvals with the last submittal to the County taking place over one (1)
year ago in May of 2003.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (6/15/04):
The applicant accepted the Commission'~s recommendation~ but did not accept stall's
recommendation. There was no opposition present.
iMr. Litton noted that the wetlands and water quality issues had been resolved on the
relocation site and that site plans tbr this new site should received approval within three (3)
months, permitting relocmion of this business.
On motion or'Mr. Litton, seconded by Mr. Wilson, the Commission recommended approval
of this request and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 and 3.
AYES: Unanimous.
Board of Supervisors Meeting (7/28/04):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to October 27, 2004.
Staff (7/29/04):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than August 16, 2004, for consideration at the Board's October public
hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $130.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Board's October public hearing,
Applicant (8/16/04):
Proffered Condition I was revised addressing to whom th.e Conditional Use Planned
Development would be ~ssued.
9 04SR0250-MARg-BOS
App Ii cant ( t 0/t/04 ):
Revised site plans were submitted to the County Ibr development of the home health care
oi~ces at thc new site located at Newbys Bridge Road and Hagood Lane (Reference the
~'Zoning and Site Plan ttistory' section of this report.
Applicant ( 10/25/04):
Revisions were requested by thc County to the site plan submitted October 1., 2004, for the
home health care offices at the new site located at Newbys Bridge Road and Hagood Lane.
(ReIkrencc the *'Zoning and Site Plan ttistory' section of this report)
Staff (10/26/04):
The $130.00 deferral Iiee was paid.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (10/27/04):
At the request of thc appiicant, the Board deferred this case to January 26, 2005. Mr. Miller
urged the applicant to obtain site plan approval on the new site and indicated he did not
desire to detbr this case again.
Staff (10/28/04):
The applicant was advised in writing that m~y significant new or revised i. ntbrmation should
be submitted no later than November 8, 2004, for consideration at the Board's November
public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $130.00 defbrral the must be paid prior
to the Board's January public hearing.
Staff (1/21/05):
The $1.30.00 de~.~rral l~e was paid. No ~.ew infbrmation has been submitted.
Board of Supervisors~ Meeting ( i/26/05);
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to March 9, 2005.
10 04SR0250 MAR%BOS
Staff (I/27/05):
The applicant was advised in ~vriting that any significant, new or revised inibrmation shotlld
be submitted no later than January 31,2005, tbr consideration at the Board's March public
hearing.
Also, the applicant was advised that a $ I. 30.00 deferral t~e must be paid prior to the March
public hearing~
Staff (2/25/05):
To date, no new intbrmation has been submitted, nor has the $130.00 del~rrat :fee been paid.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, March 9, 2005, beginning at. 7:00 p.m., will take under
consideration this request,
· 1 '1 04SR0250-MAR9-B()S
DOUGLAS J. & DEBORAH A. HACKMAN
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
MARCH 12, 2004
This textual statement shall apply to the Property known as Chesterfield County Tax ID/GP1N
758-681~2847 and part of 758-681-4279 (the "Property").
i. Surface Treatment of Parking and Driveway Areas. All driveways and parking areas
shall have a minimum surface of six inches of No. 21 or No. 2lA stone.
2. Parking. Parking shall be provided based on a ratio of one (I) space for every 230 square
feet of gross square footage.
?
! /
, /
0
0
~Z
o45~0z~-'50- t