95SN0123~ ~
October 2~, 194 B
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
~SSNol23
Du~Val Developmentlwilliam Duval
Bermuda Magisterial District
Off the southern terminus of Cedar Lane
and the south line of Osborne Road
R CJEST: Rezoning from Agricultural ~A}, Residential ~R-lS} and Residential Townhouse
~R-TH} to Residential ~R- I ~} of ~ l . 9 acres, and from Residential Townhouse ~R-
TH} to Community Business ~C-3} of 5.8 acres.
PRGPGED LAND USE:
A single family residential subdivision, with a minimum lot size of I~,oOO square
feet, is planned on that portion of the property for which R-1 ~ zoning 1s
requested. The remainder of the property, for which C~3 zoning is requested,
could be developed for any permitted or restricted C-3 use.
PLANNING C~MMr~sr~N R~COMMENDATI~N
RECQMMEND APPRQ~AL AND ACCEPTANCE ~F THE PROFFERED CGNDITIGNS GN
PAGES ~ AND 3.
sTA~~ ~~ECOMMENDATr~N
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
A, The proposed zoning and Iand uses conform to the Chester 'Village, Plan, which
designates that portion of the property for which R~ I2 zoning is requested for
residential use of l , o l to S. ~ units per acre, and the remainder of the property for
general commercial use.
B. The proposed zoning and land use conform to existing and anticipated area
residential and commercial development patterns.
~N~TES: A. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE 1MPCSED I A BUFFER
CONDPI'1DN. THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER OTHER
CONDITIONS .
B. THE COUNTY WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING
THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ZN PROFFERED CONDITION ~,
ONLY THAT THEY BE RECORDED . ONCE THE COVENANTS
ARE RECQRDED, THEY MAY BE AMENDED AS PROVIDEI] FOR
IN THE COVENANTS . }
PROFFERED C~NDITI~NS - R~1~ AND C-3 TRACT
(STAFF/CPC) Z . Public water and sewer shall be used.
~STAFFICPC~ Z. with the exception of timbering to remove dead ar diseased trees
which has been approved by the '~irginia State Department of
Forestry, there shall be no timbering until a land disturbance
permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering
Department.
PROFFERED C~ND~TI~N'S - ~- l2
~STAFFICPC} 3. The fallowing declaration of restrictions shah be recorded in
conjunction with the recordation of any subdivision plat:
a. The foundation of all residences shall be constructed of
~~ ~~ brick only on all exposed exterior walls,
.. ~ b. All residences shall conform to a Colonial or Traditional
Architectural style.
c. No one-story residence shall be built on a lot adjacent to
another one-story residence.
d. No fence shall be permitted between the residence and the
street line. Split rail fences yr other wooden fences maybe
built between the rear of the hawse and the real lot line.
The split rail fences may be backed with were to provide
animal retention. No metal or chain-link fence shall be
permitted.
e. where passible, except far the physical house site and ~a
feet adjacent, na trees with a diameter of six ~~} inches ar
mare, measured two ~~} feet from the ground, may be
cleared from any lot. Smaller trees and brush may be
cleared at the Builder's discretion.
~ 95SN~1~31wPI~CT2~L
~ ~
f'
r ,
{STAFFICPC} 4. The minimum grass square footage for Names shall be 1 Gaa square
feet of heated livable space, exclusive of garages and porches,
~N~TE; The term "livable'" shall not require the space to be
"finished, "}
(STAFFICPC} 5, All lots abutting the northern property line shall conform to the
residential ~R~ 1 S} requirements.
STAFFICPC ~ ~, All r4 ert owners ad'acent to the entire ro ert shall be mailed
~ } P p y J P P y
notices by the ownerldevelaper of tentative subdivision plan
submission to Chesterfield County. Prior to tentative subdivision
plan approval, the awnerldeveloper shall provide the Planning
Department with evidence of such mailings.
~STAFFICPC} 7. The fatal number of lots shall not exceed ninety-nine ~~9}.
~ENE~AL__INF~RMAT~ON
Location;
off southern terminus of Cedar Lane and the south line of ~sbarne load. Tax Map ~~-
13 ~ 1 } Part of Parcel S and Tax Map I 1 b-1 ~ 1 } Parcel $ ~S beet 3 Z} .
Existing caning;
R~ 15 and R-TH with Conditional Use Planned Development and A
Size:
47,E acres
Existing Land Use;
Single family residential or vacant
Ad'acent Bonin & Land Use;
North - R-15 and C-~; Single family residential or vacant
South - A and R-7; Single family residential or vacant
East - C-3, and C~5 with Conditional Use; Commercial or vacant
Vest - R-15; Single family residential
3 955Na 123~wP~~CT2bL
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Public water $ stem
There is a sixteen (1G} inch water main along Perdue Avenue, atwenty-four {~4} inch
main along the east side of Jefferson Davis ~Iighway, and an eight ~$} inch main along
the west side of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 5aa feet from the eastern
property line of the request site. The applicant has proffered the use of the public water
system {Proffered Condition 1}. The results of a computer simulated fire flaw test
indicate sufficient flow and pressure should be available to meet the domestic and fire
flow needs of the proposed use.
Public wastewater S stem
There is a twelve {I~} inch wastewater Tine crossing Jefferson Davis Highway,
approximately ~Sa feet from the eastern property line of the request site. extension of
the twelve {iZ} inch line must be designed to allow future service to properties southwest
of the request site. The request site lies within the "Route Il3al Sewer Assessment
District', Annual assessments far properties w~th~n the drstr~ct began in June ~99I. Ta
date, no payments have been received an the request site, At the time of property
ownership transfer, the current owner will be required to either pay all applicable
assessments bath past and future, ar pay all overdue assessments up to the time of
ownership transfer, and transfer the responsibility far all remaining assessments to the
new owner. The applicant has proffered the use of the public wastewater system
Proffered Condition 1}. The results of a computer simulated hydraulic analysis indicate
that sufficient capacity should be available to accommodate the domestic flaws of the
proposed use.
environmental;
Draina a and ~rosian
The ma~arity of the request property drains east, into a wetlands area adjacent to
Jefferson Davis Highway, then to Red Water Creep and ultimately to the James River.
The southernmost portion of the property is located within ~; floadplain that might contain
additional wetlands. No existing ar anticipated on- ar off site drainage or erasion
problems. ~f~ site easements and drainage irnpravements may be required due to
increased runoff generated by the proposed development. Development must conform
to the Chesapeake Bay Act relative to wetlands and other matters of water quality. To
insure that proper erosion control devices are in place prior to any land clearing activity,
4 95~NO1~31wP1~CT~GL
~ ~
~ ~
the applicant has proffered that there will be no timbering of the property until a land
disturbance permit has been issued. ~Praffered Condition 2~
Fire Service:
Dutch dap Fire Station, Company #14. County water flows and fire hydrants must be
provided for fire protection purposes in compliance with nationally recognized standards
~i.e., National fire Protection Association and Insurance Services Officey.
Fiscal Impacts:
The number of lots that will be developed under the proposed zoning amendment is less
than the number of lots that could be developed under the existing zoning. Based upon
an ex~5t~ng Master Plan, 22I units could be developed under existing zoning while a total.
of ninety-nine X99) units is proposed. Consequently, the proposed zoning and land use
will not have a fiscal impact an capital facilities,
Schools:
The proposal would reduce the overall number of lots that could be developed ~ on the
property from approximately ~~ 1 to ninety~nine X99}; thereby reducing the total number
of school age children which could be generated by the development.
Approximately fifty-seven ~5~} school age children will be generated by this
development. The site lies in the Curtis Elementary School attendance zone: capacity -
~95, enrollment - ?9S; Chester Middle School zone: capacity - 72~, enrollment - 91~;
and Thomas Dale High School zone; capacity -1,325, enrollment rt 1,42.
Trans ortation:
The proposed C-3 portion of this request must be provided with access to Jefferson Davis
Highway through adjacent property to the east, which lies within the Jefferson Davis
Highway Enterprise done. Based on the Board of Supervisors' policy regarding
develaprnent within the Enterprise done, road improvements will not be required,
Development of the proposed C-3 property must adhere to the honing Ordinance relative
to access and internal circulation Article ?}, As noted herein, access to this part of the
property must be provided through adjacent property to Jefferson Davis Highway. Due
to the vertical alignment of Jefferson Davis Highway in this area, sight distance is
limited. selection of an acceptable access location will be limited based on available
sight distance,
Access to the proposed R-12 portion of this request can be provided via Cedar Lane and
Perdue Avenue. Perdue Avenue intersects Osborne Road at two ~2~ locations, Part of
Perdue Avenue franc its westernmost intersection with Osborne Road eastward is not in
5 95SN~1231wPIOCT2bL
the State Secondary System. In order for this development to use the western portion
of Perdue Avenue, this road must be brought into the State System, and the westernmost
intersection of Perdue Avenue, with ~sbarne Road, must be realigned with Shady Lane.
An approximate 1.4 acre adjacent agriculturally zoned parcel is surrounded by proposed
R-~~ zoning request, but is not included in this request. In developing the proposed
residential property, public road access must be provided to the 1.4 acre parcel.
r .A~n ~T~F.
general Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Chester villa e Plan, which designates the majority of
the property far residential use of 1.01 to S.~ units per acre, and the easternmost portion
of the property far general commercial use.
Ar Develo meat Trends:
Development to the north, south and west is characterized by residential zoning and land
uses. Properties to the east, northeast and southeast are zoned agriculturally and
commercially and are developed commercially or remain vacant. The request property
surrounds an agriculturally zoned property occupied by a single family residence, which
has an access easement across the request property to ~sbarne Road.
~onin~ History:
~n February ~5, 19$1, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by
the Planning Commission, rezoned the majority of the request property plus property to
the north, between ~sbarne Raad, Perdue Avenue and Cedar Lane, from Agricultural
~A} and Residential ~R-l5} to Residential Townhouse ~R-TH}, Residential (R-15} and
office Business ~C}, with Conditional lJse Planned Development Case 8DS l~9}, subject
to conditions that were designed to address land use compatibility issues. A single farr~ily
and townhouse residential complex was planned, with an office use permitted on the
office Business ~~} tract, Subsequent to this rezoning, a portion of the property was
developed as warf~eld Estates, a single family subdivision; however, the majority of the
property has remained vacant.
Site Design:
The proposed C-3 portion of the request property lies within the Jefferson Davis
Highway Post Development Area. New construction must conform to the development
standards of the honing ordinance which address access, parking, landscaping,
architectural treatment, setbacks, signs, buffers, utilities, and screening of dumpsters and
loading areas.
~ 95SN~1~3lwPI~CT~bL
~ ~
~ ~
The proposed ~-l~ portion of the property must be developed in accordance with the
requirements of the Zoning and subdivision Ozdinances, Further, the applicant has
agreed that all lots abutting the northern property line will conform to Residential -15}
requirements to insure compatibility with adjacent development. Proffered Condition
5}
The applicant has also agreed to notify adjacent property owners of subdivision plan
submission. Proffered Condition G}
Architectural Treatment:
Within Post Development Areas, no building exterior located an the C-3 tract which
would be visible to public rights of way can be constructed of unadorned concrete, black
or corrugated andlor sheet metal. Mechanical equipment, whether ground-level or
rooftop, must be shielded and screened from public rights of way, Neer construction on
the proposed C-3 portion of the request property must adhere to Post Development
requirements. zn the residential tract, the applicant has agreed that the minimum pause
size will be 1,~0o square feet Proffered Condition 4}. further, the applicant has agreed
to record restrictive covenants which address architectural style ~Praffered Condition 3}.
It should be noted that the County will not be responsible for enforcing restrictive
covenants. .~ .
Buffers & Screenina:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that solid waste storage areas ~i. e, , dumpsters, garbage
cans, trash compactors, etc.} located an the proposed C-3 position of the property be
screened from view of ad jacent property and public rights of way by a solid fence, gall,
dense evergreen plantings or architectural feature, be separated from any residentially
zoned property or any property being used far residential purposes by the principal
building, and that such area within I,OOO feet of any residentially zoned property or
property used for residential purposes not be serviced between the hours of 9:~0 p.m.
and G:~~ a.rn.. In additions sites must be designed and buildings oriented so that loading
areas are screened from any property where loading areas are prohibited and from public
rights of way.
V~ith the approval of this request, outside storage would be permitted as a restricted use
on the C-3 portion of the property. Outside storage areas must be screened from view
of adjacent properties which has no such areas and public rights of way, The Zoning
Ordinance requires a minimum seventy-five {7S} foot buffer along the western property
boundary of the proposed C-3 zoning, adjacent to the proposed R-12 zoning. At the time
of site plan review, the Planning Camn~issian may modify this buffer if adequate
screening can be provided in a lesser width. In addition, at such time that adjacent
residential property is zoned ar utilized for anon-residential use, the buffer can be
further reduced or eliminated.
7 ~S~N~ I ~3~'PIOCT2bL
Conclusions:
The proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester villa e Plan, which
designates the request property for residential use of l.~l to $.~ units per acre and
commercial uses. In addition, the proposed zoning and land use conform to existing and
anticipated area residential and commercial development patterns. Therefore, approval
of this request is recommended,
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting ~811b194};
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case far thirty ~3~) days
to allow the applicant to meet with area residents and attempt to address their concerns,
Staff ~SI1~1~4~:
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than August ~3, 194, for consideration at the
Commission's September Z1~,1994, public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that
a $5~.4~ deferral fee rrxust be paid prior to the Camrnissian's September public hearing.
Applicant {S1~S194}:
The applicant paid the $SD.~O deferral fee.
Applicant, Bermuda District Commissioner, Area Residents and Staff ~$1~3194):
A meeting was held to discuss the proposal, Concerns were expressed relative to lot
sues; development density; access; traffic; house sues; and development standards for
the residential pardon of the request. In addition, area residents stated that rezoning the
residential pardon of the request to R-15 would be more in beeping with area coning and
development patterns. Yt was agreed that another meeting was needed to reach a
consensus for a compromise that would address these concerns.
Applicant, Bermuda District Commissioner, Area Residents and Staff ~SI~Q~94~;
S 95SNO z ~31wP1~CT26L
~ ~
~ ~
A rneeting was held to discuss the proposal. The applicant agreed to submit additional
proffered conditions and~or restrictive covenants to address concerns about lot sizes
adjacent to Warfietd Estates and Coyne's Subdivision; density; house sizes; and
development standards for the residential portion of the request property. However, the
applicant continued to express a desire to have R-1~ zoning an the enure residential
portion of the request.
Staff {8/31/94):
Staff discussed the submission of additional proffered conditions a,nd~or restrictive
covenants with the applicant's representative, if these conditions or restrictions are
finalised prior to the September public hearing, staff will forward them to the planning
Commission in an addendum.
Staff has expressed concern about the warding to proffered conditions, as well as the
advisability of incorporating development standards such as fencing and foundation
materials into proffered conditions rather than restrictive covenants. Specifically, such
conditions could be difficult to administer and enforce and, depending on the wording,
difficult to interpret
Applicant ~9l g19~}:
The applicant submitted additional proffered conditions,
Applicant ~91Z0194}
The applicant submitted an additional proffered condition,
Planning Commission Meeting {9/20/94):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was opposition present who
expressed a desire for R- l 5 zoning versus R-1 ~ coning .
Nir, Cunningham Hated that the proposed zoning would substantially reduce the total
number of dwelling units permitted on the property and, therefore, the impact an schools
would be reduced. He further noted that the applicants had agreed to limit the
development to a total of ninety-nine X99} lots which is substantially less than the number
of lots permitted in an R-12 District. In addition, he noted that the proffered conditions
require lot sizes of comparable size adjacent to area developrr~ent to the north.
9 95S~VO1~~lwPl~C'61:,
On motion of Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Commission recommended
approval of this request and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages ~ and 3,
AYES: unanimous.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, October 2~, 1994, beginning at ~: ~0 p. m. , gill take
under consideration this request.
~ 0 955N~ 1231'~VIOCT~G~
~ ~
` w G'
~~
L.:.
'Y ~?~.
~ iE .
~~ ~
~~
~'
w
i
^
~f ~
~~~ / Q
•~ ~. ~
'La
. ~
~1 .
~~f
1~ L
r
~~
~~
~*
.~
' ~~
9 ~~
i ~~ ~p
~ ~~
0
a
as
~ar~eu~r
~~~~~
`+ ~ ~' ~
~~~ # +
1"
' ;~
~ * *~
~ ~
~ ~~
+ y/.
C
;~
~ {
~ ~
#f
~ +
w
~~
j
r
.~
~~~~~_ '~
--- - ,
--
~ - = _ ~-
~ ---
m ~ -
v
--_ - ----
_ ~~~ -
--+,~--
- ~~_
~-~ ==~ =-
..~ ,-~
~~1,i
~~
^ ~
~ 4
'~` ~ f
V
~.~
~~
ti
f
.~
-, ,
A
iM~~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
- v
- # •y r
' ~~ ~ ~ '1
r ~ ~~
1
y
J
~~~~~~~
~ = ~ = ~1 •
~ ~ 4~4{ •
1
i~~~~ = ~ ~
VV
~~` ~
~~ ~ ~ _ _
- ~ • `
~~ ~_ _ ~1
~~
- ~~
~~
M~
~
~~~ .•...
~ . •" .. _
.rr•~
~~ '.~ara :4aa
•!ra •+• ,
r /ri• •lara.•r+ ~
4 a i r•rr• i i •e ra•aa - •`~~/ 3J
a••~ .` •/a•ar • . / . ~r~a ~
+ Sara . : .r~ -: .r•`.-• ~~
~ ` ..area / • r •: / : ••~i :.~.~
~ :a4r4: ••.•• .••.• ar
+a•raa••••r4/•.r•+. ^•••rr a;a a~ ra r••••~ ~~~///
.aa •.•..••.rr: a+ ~••a•a/•• +: • • :gal: •irw _ ~= _ ,
/rrra••rra. :ara /....... , arr• ..., Y•
i r : :r4a/`4' • ': i : r•a : /r• :+a /'• :aaia•// i : •a4 +~
+•-• • • r r. •• •• arara••a~~
//a •4r• • •r • •-• •!ra
. + . / +.+rtra + :aa ~ i .: a+ r . .. / -•r / r + r • - ai i : I~4f
r.aa rrr •4ra•
• /•.
Q + ! •. r . a+• ~ •i . • a4/! •a•+ w•i i a•a : •a` i : r~ ~ ~ ••
.a• ^• •' .rrrr• rrt ! ^
• rra
w'rri .: + ~ a . . • r i • + • + +`• ••i •ri aa•`• .fr+
•.+`+r 4.4• ..-• ••rr• rr•a.rr.r. ~ ^ 1.
r .`.•.•i •'w'44i/a.•: wawaa/.. : • .~+•'• r ..+.':. • . r .:•a .. •~r .. • .. • • .. ~~ .
• / a • .. r + 4 • r • ` f r .. . +raa//a• . + .: i : • r•ra+*•+: • ~r .•i i .... ` ~ ~
• . . r r + • + • a•4rrr•* ./r ~ • • ': r . • :: ...~ rta/aar '.•• w r .4a ~
. r~.~a; a/a : 4a• •~rra' // r/4. ~.~ ••~a+ ~.~ ~ ~.: +ra • •~ ~:.+. •4 :.. •~- raaa•:: r : ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~
•+r• •• •/• aa!^r •ria • •!/ /a• •rr a r ./raaai ~~' ~
•r4"rr - . . r a•art•i 4 . ! . • • •~r+•• . rt r i ~• ^ . r r •. •r ••s•a•i ~i • ~ i If~ra~r ' ~ ... ~ ... ~
/•+,• ••4~a1e • ••+ : :ar r'4 ;. • ~+. r raa' ••r • r +•/a •• .•a•~ /~. •~rarr . ! ~r~
`: ±• • =a+r •• .++/+ a`r • r a • rt •` f • ++/• / • • r i'•r a • • a - r • • '•rrar•a • ••• • r • •~ y ~. ~ ~r y w~
^ • •.•ryr .a4•, a~ • a • {arwra.a a*4raa•+ • ! . • • r ' • • r 4 • • r . r ~~ s
•• • • • •rr••• /•~r~r/aa+ K
• r ^ • • + r / r !a • a•r4•r • • /'. / ' • r a +f• ~ r a /•.. • • raa • ~ ~_ ~ +•• Y~ ~ ~ ~
• • / • e rt f 4 / • r + a • a ~ ^ 1 • • • •rrt + • • • • - r r . • • • + i + ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ y ~
as re •i . a / a44a • w ra/• • rrr4r •Irr r•4r ~/•
• •^ • •+a• •^ a • r •i+ ~_
^•rw i ~.~ ~•..~
~ i w ~{
~ ~
r• - ' .r 7
~ _
T ~j ~~ ~ '_ -' ' -_ ~'
f * + ~~ - --
t t ~ - -
+ ~' ,. _ _
~. + -_ _ 4 gwTF~E~~
t + +
{ * * ~
a ~
t • ~
~ t
t
~ ~ +; A f
,{
* ,. .
~~ ' ~'~`~
aoooao ~ ~ r,,
~ ''- = •
~~~~ ~~ #
~ * * + ~ ~. _ ~~ rt T
1~~ ~ ~'~ ~1 r ~ -
~~, i
~=
~~~;
c~ 3
_ ~ i gss~~~3
TIDE U~DLRSI~N ABJECT fi~ TEL PRDPI~ED RE~I~NING AS I~UTLINED IN
TIC ATTAC~~D LIST
~. f
~ RESPONSE TH THE REZONIlVG REQUEST BY DWAL fIEVELOPMENT ON CASE NUMBER
95SN4123 IN THE EERM~IDA MACLSTERIAL DISTRICT. THE ATTACHED LIST DF RESIDENTS
DD,IET TH THE PROSED REZHN~NG DUE TO THE FULLOWIl~G REASHNS.
* 2 AREAS ARE REQUESTED FRaM AGRICULTURAL TU RESIDENTL4I, R-I2.
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FOR THE SAML~ REASONS AS LISTED~UNDER THE IG.4 ACRES
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATED BACK TO
THE,CIVIL WAR . AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE IS ~NO OB~'ECTION TO
RF.~ONING OF THIS ONE AREA TO R-1 S , THE 2ND AREA BELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESII]ENT
WHO WILL EXPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON RE~ONIIJG OF THIS AREA.
* l ~.4 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R- 15 TO R- t 2
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARC ALL
ON A R-1 S SITE, MAST HOMES ARE LOCATED QN LOTS MUCH LARGER THEN THE
R- i 5 OR R-7 ZONiNG~ IN WARFIELD ESTATES THE CURRENT ZONING OF R- I S WOULD
ALLOW FOR 4S HOME SITES BUT ONLY 33 SITES WERE DEYELaPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES 'THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FOB. ,ANEW ZONING OF R-~~ WOULD ALLOW ~ FOR
DEVELOPMENT SMLAR TO MINEOLLA OR CHIP CHASE. THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND ~ iN
THESE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA.
* 22.8 ACRESREQUESTEDFROM R-TH TO R- 12
THE REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
IF THIS AREA IS TO BE REZONED IT SHOULD BEREZONED TO R- l S FOR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, UNDER THE EXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM JEFFERSaN DAMS HWY.
CURRENT ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A 25' BUFFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R, I S~ THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS IN THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY. A R- I S ZONING OVER THE PROPOSED R-l 2 WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING, IF OUR aNLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R-12 AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO ]EFFERSON DAMS HWY.
* UPON REZONING aF ANY OF THE A TO R-1 S OR THE R-TH TQ R- I S THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. .
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY MIM. I SQ FT DATED
2 STORY MIN. 18~U SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TO BE OF A BRICK VENEER aR EQUAL
* FENCES TO BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NUT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
EXISTING HOME SITES.
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IMPROVED ~ EXTENDED TG SHADY LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT
* CEDAR TREES aN CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED . ,
* NBNIlI+[CrM DEMOLITION OF MATURE TIlViBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
* COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM Ta EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEARS
~ 4 ~
~E THE UNDER~I QBJ~~'T T~ THE PR(]p~~ED REZ[]N~NG AS ~~JTI~INEII IN
THE ATTACHED ITT .
NAME enn~~c~ ~ ~~~~r~,
1
IN RESPONSE TO THE RETANIlVG REQUEST BY DUVAL DEVELOPMENT ON SASE NUMBER
9SSN0113 Il~ THE BERMUDA MAGISTERIAL DiSTRICT4 THE ATTACHED LUST DF RESIDENTS
DB~EC~' TH THE PRHPIlSED RE~ONIAII'~ DUE TO THE FHLLO~V~NG REARONS.
* 2 AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TORESIDENTIAL R-1~,
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FDR THE SAME REASONS AS LISTED UNDER THE 1~,4 ACRES
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATED BACK TO
THE.CIVTL WAR . A.S THE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO
REZONING DF THIS ONE AREA TO R-15 ~ THE AND AREA BELONGS TU A PRIVATE RESIDENT
W~ IO WILL EXPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON REZONING OF THIS AREA,
* I ~.4 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R- I S TO R- 12
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL
ON A R-15 SITE, MOST HOMES ARE LOCATED ON LOTS MUCH LARGER THEN THE
R-1S OR R-7 ZONING, IN WARFIELD ESTATES THE CURRENT ZONING OF R-15 WOULD
ALLOW FOR 45 HOME SITES BUT ONLY 33 SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FDR. ANEW ZONING OF R*1~ WOULD ALLOW FDR
DEVELOPMENT ~ SIMILAR TO NIINEOLLA OR CHIP CHASE, THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
TI~SE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA.
* X2.8 ACRES REQUESTED FRONT R-TFI TO R-12 t
THE REQUEST IS APPOSED BECAUSE + ~„ ' ' ~'
IF THIS AREA IS TO BE REZONED IT SHOULD BE REZONED TD R- l S FOR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. UNDER THEEXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOULD BE REQUIIZED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM JEFFERSON DAMS HWY,
CURRENT ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A ~5' B[1FFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R-1 S. THE STAFF REPORT ADVISEI] THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS IN THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY. A R-1S ZONING OVER THE PROPOSED R-12 WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING, IF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R-1~ AS A RESR]ENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TD JEFFERSON DAMS HWY. .
* UPON REZONING OF ANY OF THE A TO R-15 OR THE R-TH TOR-15 THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED,
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY IM. Ifs SQ FT HEATED
~ STORY MI,1~1. 18U~1 SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TO BE OF A BRICK VENEER OR EQUAL
* FENCES TO BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
EXISTING HOME SITES.
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IIVIPROVED ~ EXTENDED TO SH~-DY LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT
* CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
* DEMOLITION OF MATURE TIMBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
* COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEARS~~
/~
WE THE UNDERSIGN OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING AS OUTLINED IN
~~ti THE ATTACHED LIST
~~
' 'r
~ r ,
Il~ RESF~INSE TD THE RET~NlNG REQUEST BY DUVAL DEVE~APNIENT HN CASE NUMBER
~SN~I~3 IN THE BERM~JBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. THE ATTACHED FIST OF RESIDEN'T`S
GDJECT TG TIDE ~ROPI~SEI~ REZONING DUE TQ'FHE F{~LLGW~N~ REASGN3.
* ~ AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL R-1 ~~
THIS REQUEST I5 OPPOEDI] FOR THE SAME REASONS AS LISTED~UNDER THE 1G.4 ACRES
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATED BACK TO
THE.CIViL WAR . AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO
REZONINGr OF THIS ONEAREA TG R- I S , THE AND AREA BELONGS TG A PRIVATE RESD]ENT
WHO WILL EMPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON RETANiNG OF THIS AREA:
* I G.4 ACRES REQUESTED FROM R- l 5 TO R-1 ~
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSEDSUBDIVISION ARE ALL
ON A R-15 SITE. MOST HOMES ARE LOCATED C}N LOTS MUCH LARGER THEN TIC
R- l S OR R-'~ ZONING. IN WARFIELD ESTATES THE CURRENT ZONING ~F R- l 5 WOULD
ALLOW FOR 45 HOME SITES BUT ONLY 33 SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FOR. A NEVV ZONING OF R-12 WOULD ALLOW FOR
DEVELOPMENT SIIVID~AR TO MINEOLLA OR CHIP CHASE. THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
THESE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN DUR AREA.
* X2.8 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R-TH TD R-1 ~
THE REQUEST I5 OPPOSED BECAUSE
IF THIS AREA IS TO BE REZONED IT SHOULD BEREZONED TO R- i 5 FOR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, UNI]ER THE EXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM JEFFERSON DAMS HWY.
CURRENT ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A zS' BUFFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R- Z S. THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS IN THI5 DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY. A R-15 BONING OVER THE PROPOSED R-1 ~ WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THIS POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING. IF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R-l~ A5 A RESII]ENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO JEFFERSON DAMS HWY.
* UPON REZONING OF ANY OF THE A TO R-15 OR THE R-TH TO R-1 ~ THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY iVII.1600 SQ FT HEATED
~~ STORY MIIJt 1~1D SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TD BE DF A BRICK VENEER OR EQUAL
* FENCES TO HE V~OODEN
r * HOMES SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING-ANY
E~CISTING HOME SITES.
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IMPROVED ~ EKTENDED TD SHADY LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT h ~ .
* CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
* DEMOLITION DF MATURE TIMBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
* COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEAR-5
~,
~~
4~E THE UNDERS~~N ~~IECT T~ THE PR~E~SED ~EZQNIN~ A5 I]UTLI~ED IN
,,
~~ THE ATTACHED LIST
~..
1
~, 5 i
IN RESPONSE TD THE REEONll~G REQUEST BY DUVAL DEVELOPMENT ON CASE NCJM.BER
9SN01~3 IN THE BERMITDA MAGLSTERIAL DISTRICT. THE ATTACI~D LIST OF RESIQENTS
OBJECT` TO THE PROPOSED REZONING DATE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
* Z AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TORESIDENTIAL R-1 ~.
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS LISTED UNDER THE 16.4 ACRES
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HCSTORY DATED BACK TO
THE.CIVIL WAR . AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO
REZONING OF THIS ONEAREA TO R-1 S ~ THE 2ND AREA BELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESIDENT
WHO WII,L EXPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON REZONING OF THIS AREA.
* I6.4 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R-1 S TD R-1 Z
THIS REQUEST xS OPPOSED BECAUSE ~ .
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL
ON A R-1S SITE. MOST HOMES ARE LOCATED ON LOTS MUCH LARGER THEN THE
R-1 S OR R-"1 ZONING. IN WARFIELD ESTATES THE CURRENT ZONING OF R-15 WOULD
ALLOW FOR 45 HOME SITES BUT ONLY 33 SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FOR. ANEW ZONING OF R-I~ V~OULD ALLUV~ FOR
DEVELOPMENT ~ SIMILAR TO MINEOLLA OR CHIT' CHASE. THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
THESE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA,
* X2.8 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R-TH TO R-1 ~ ~ .
THE REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
~' THIS AREA IS TO BE REZONED IT SHOULD BEREZONED TD R- I S FOR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, UNDER THE EXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOU1,D BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM JEFFERSON DAMS HWY.
CURRENT ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A 25' BUFFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R-1S~ THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS BV THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY. A R-1S ZONING DYER THE PROPOSED R-t~ WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING. IF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R-1~ AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO JEFFERSON DAMS HWY.
* UPON REZONING OF ANY OF THE A TO R-15 OR THE R-TH TO R- l 5 THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED..
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY MIM. i 640 SQ FT HEATED
2 STORY MIN. 18U0 SQ FT HEATED ~ .
• * FOUNDATION TD BE OF A BRICK VENEER DR EQUAL
* FENCES TD BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NOT EE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
EXISTING HOME SITES. ~ ,
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IMPROVED & EXTENDED TO SHADY, LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT '
* CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
* 5 DEMOLITION DF MAT[JRE TIMBER SHALL EE ENFORCED. '
* COLOR DF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM TD EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF,THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEARS
t ~.
4
EVE THE UNDEIi~I~N ~BJE~T T~ THE PRI~P~~ED RENIN~ AS I~UTLINE~} IN
THE ATTA~'HE~ LIST
~~
~I~DRES
PHI~NE
.,
~ ~
IlY RESPONSE TO THE REZONING REQUEST BY DUVAL DEVELOPMENT ON CASE NUMBER
9SSN41~3 IN THE BERMUDA MAGISTERIAL DISTRACT. THE ATTACHED LLST OF RESIDENTS
OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING DUE TD THE FOLLO~VIl~G REASONS.
* Z AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TD RESIDENTL~L R-12.
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS LISTED UNDER THE I6.4 ACRES
TIES AREA WAS ONCE A]V HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATED BACK TD
THII,CIVIL VAR . AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE iS NO OBJECTIDN~TO ~ ` '
REZONING OF THIS ONE AREA TO R-15 . THE AND AREA BELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESII]ENT
WHO WILL, EXPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON REZONING OF THIS AREA.
* 16.E ACRES, REQUESTED FROM R• 15 TO R* 12
THISREQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE ' '
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL '
ON A ~ R-l5 SITE. MOST HOMES ARE LOCATED ON LOTS MUCH IaARGER TIIEN'THE
R* ~ ~ OR i•- I L1~N~N~Ir ~ T\ ~ i.~Y ~LD J..t~Ti }TE~..R T~ iLF~UR~J~ f.J V1~l(~ V C~F R ~ ~ ~V~D
ALLOW FOR 45 HOME SITES $UT ONLY 3~,SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
• CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER,~#OMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL r ~ . .'~ ~ ,
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FIR, ANEW ZONING OF R-1~ WOULD ALLOW FOR
DEVELOPMENT ~ SIlVIIL,A.R TO MINEOLLA OR CIS' CHASE. THE TYPE OF HOMESFOUND yIN
THESE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIHi,E WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA,
* ~ 22, 8 ACRES ~ REQUESTED FROM R-TH TO R-12 ' ~ ~ , , ~ .
. ~ r , y
THE REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE ~ ,
IF THIS AREA IS TO EE REZONED IT SHOULD HEREZONED TO R-~1 S FOR THE SAME
REASONS A5 DESCRIHED ABOVE. UNDER THE EXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR ~ , THIS
AREA ~WOULD,BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS.FRI~M JEFFERSON DAMS HWY„~' , `~ ~ ~ ~ .
CURRENT ZONING ALSO~ALLOWS FORA OF A ZS' BUFFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R-1 S. THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS IN THIS DISTRICT ASE .
BEYOND CAPACITY.. A R-l5 ZONING OVER THE PROPOSED R-12 WOULD FURTHER `,
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY.OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING. IF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R•TH OR R-l1 AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
ti ~ ,
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO JEFFERSON DAMS HWY. ~ ~ - '
* UPON REZONING OF ANY OF THE A TO R- 15 OR THE R-TH TO R- I ~ THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. ' .. ~ .
* ~ HOUSE SITE SINGLE STORY MIM.16~0 SQ FT HEATED ~ ~ .' ~ ` ~~ ~ ` ~~ `
~ STORY MIN. 1 SII[1 SQ FT HEATED .. .
* FOUNDATION TO EE DF A BRICK VENEER DR EQUAL
* FENCES TD BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NDT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACINCx ANY
EXISTING HO1V<E SITES. ,
{
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE PVVIPROVED & EXTENDED TD SHADY LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT ~~
* 'CEDAR TREES DN CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BEREMOVED
* , DEMOLITION DF MATURE TIIVlBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
* COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM~TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL DF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEARS
r ..
r
~ ~
EVE THE UNDER~i~N ~~JECT T[~ THE PR~P~ED RE~aNi~ A ~UTEINEH .ll~i
THE ATTACHED LAST
~ ~
~N RESPONSE TD THE RET~NIlYG REQUEST BY DI]VAI, DEYEL~PMENT DN CASE NUMBER
9SSNQlZ3 IN THE BER1V[I]DA 1HAGISTERIAL DISTRACT. THE ATTACHED LIST GP RESIDENTS
OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONIlVG Dr7E TD THE FDLLD~VING REASONS.
* ~ AREAS ARE REQUESTED FRaM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL R• 12.
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS LiSTED~UNDER THE 1~,4 ACRES
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY~DATED BACK TO
THE,CIVIL WAR , AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TARN DOWN Ti~RE IS Na OBIECTION TD
REZONING OF THIS ONE AREA TO R-15 . THE 2ND AREA EELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESIDENT
WHO WILL, EXPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON REZONIr1G OF THIS AREA.
* 1 G.4 ACRES REQUESTED FROM R-15 TO R-12
TICS REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL
ON A R-15 SITE. MOST HOMES ARE LaCATED aN LaTS MUCH LARGER TI-IEN THE
R- l S OR R,7 ZONING. IN WARFIELD ESTATES THE I~t]RR~NT ZONING OF R- ~ 5 WOULD ,
.. ALLOW FaR 45 HOME SITES BUT aNLY ~3 SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL F~ `
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FOR. A NE'~V ZONING OF R-12 WOULD ALLOW FOR
DEVELaPMENT~SIl41lLAR TO MINEaLLA OR CHIP CHASE THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
THESE AREeAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA.
* 22.8 ACRES REQUESTED FROM R-TH TO R-12 ,
'I'HE REQUEST iS OPPOSED BECAUSE
Ili' TARS AREA I5 TO BE REZONED IT SHOULD BE REZONED TO R-15 FOR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, UNDERTHE EXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM IEFFF,RSON DAMS HWY. '
CURRENT ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A 25' BUFFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R-1 ~. 1 STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS IN THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY. A R~15 ZONING OVER THE PROPOSED R*12 WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITI[INAL OVERCROWDING, i~~ OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R*12 A5 A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
~ViTH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO ~3EFFERSON DAMS HWY.
* UPON REZONIriG OF ANY OF THE A TO R- I S OR THE R-TH TD R~ 15 THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE~iNCLUDED.
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY IM, l b40 SQ FT HEATED ~ ~ ~ j
_
~ 2 STORY MIN. 1800 SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TO BE OF A BRICK VENE~R OR EQUAL '4
* : ;
FENCES TO BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NaT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
EXISTING Half SITES.
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IlVIPROVED & EXTENDED TO SHADY LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT
* CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
* DEMOLITION OF MATURE TIlVIBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
* COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEARS
~{
r i i i
a
. ^
.~
VVE THE UNDERSIGN O~JE~'T TO'THE PROPOSED ItEZONiNI~ AS OUTLINED
IN
THE ATTACHED LIST
NAIVIE A~]i]RT.C~ ~ nrln~-r~+
~ ~
IN RESPONSE TD THE RET~NIl~G REQUEST BY DUVAL DEVELI~PMEIVT HN CASE 1~[JMBER
9SSN01~3 IN THE EERIVIUDA 1VIAGISTERIAL DLSTRICT. THE ATTACHED LIST DF RESIDENTS
OBJECT TH THE PRDFD~ED REZDNNING DUE TD THE FHLL01G REASHNS~ ~ "~
* 2 AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROIVI AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL R- l ~,
THIS REQUEST iS OPPOSED FaR THE SAME REASONS As LISTED UNDER THE 1~.4 ACREs
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATEI] BACK TO
THE.CIVIL WAR . AS TAE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE iS NO OB]ECTII~N TO
REZONING OF THIS ONE AREA TD R- l 5 . THE 2ND AREA BELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESII~ENT
WHO WILL EXPRESS HI5 OWN DESIRES ON REZOND~G OF THIS AREA,
* I G.4 ACRES REQUESTED FROM R- 15 TD R-12
THIS REQUEST i5 OPPOSED BECAUSE
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL
ON A R-15 SITE, MAST HOMES ARE LOCATEI] ON LOTS IViLICH LARGER THEN THE
R- l ~ OR R-~ ZONING. IN WARFIELD ESTATES THE CURRENT ZONING OF R-15 WOULD
ALLOW FOR 45 HOME SITES BUT ONLY 33 SITES WERE DEVELOPER. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY ALDER HOMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER is KNOWN FOR. ANEW ZONING OF R-1 ~ WOULI] ALLDVV FOR
DEVELOPMENT ~ SII~III~AR TO NIINEOLLA OR CHIP CHASE. THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
THESE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA,
* 22.8 ACRES REQUESTED FROM R-TH TO R- X 2
THE REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
IF THIS AREA IS TO HE REZONED IT SHOULD BEREZONED TO R- l S FUR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, UNDERTHEEXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM ]EFF'ERSON DAMS HWY,
CURRENT ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A 25' BUFFER BETWEEN R-TFI AND
R- I S, THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS IN THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY. A R-1 ~ ~ON~NG OVER THE PROPOSED R- 12 WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING. iF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R,-1~ AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD~PREFER THE~HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO JEFFERSON DAMS HWY,
* UPON REZONING OF ANY OF THE A TO R-1 S OR THE R-TH TO R- l S THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE IlVCLUDED.
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY MIM, Ib[f0 SQ FT HEATED
~ STORY MIN. 1800 SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TO BE OF A BRICK VENEER OR EQUAL
*
f
FENCES TO BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
EXISTING HOME SITES. :~
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IMPROVED ~ EXTENDED TO sHA.DY LANE
PRIOR TO ~DEVELOFMENT
* CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
* DEMOLITION OF MATURE TIMBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
* COLOR OF HQUSES SHOULD CONFORM TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEARS
• ~
~~ THE ~ND~~tSIG~N ~~JE~'T T~ THE PR~F~~EH ~EZ~I~NG A~ OUTLINED IN
THE ATTAI~HEH LIST
SAME Ann~T.~~ ~ ti~rnnr~+
.~
i
IN RESPIINSE TO THE REZONING REQUEST BY DUAL DEVEL~DFNIENT DN CASE NUMBER
9SSN~I13 IN THE BERMUDA MAGISTERIAL DISTRACT, THE ATTACHED LIST DF RESIDENTS
OBJECT TtI THE PRDP~ED RET,DNIN~ DUE TH THE FDLLDG REASHNS.
~ 2 AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESII]ENTIAL R- I2.
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FaR THE SAME REASONS AS LISTED UNDER THE I~,4 ACRES
THIS AREA VAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATED BACK TO
THE,CIVIL WAR .~ ~AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TARN DAWN THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO
REZONING OF THIS ONE AREA TO R- I S , THE 2ND AREA BELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESIDENT
WHO WILL EXPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON REZOND~G aF THIS AREA,
* I ~.4 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R- 15 TQ R- l 2
THIS REQUEST IS aPPaSED BECAUSE
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE~ALL
ON A 'R- I S SI`Z`E. MOST HOMES ARE LOCATED UN LOTS MUCH LARGER THEN 'THE
R- I S OR R-~ ZONING. IN WARFIELD ESTATES 'THE CURRENT ZONING OF R- l S WOULD
ALLOW FaR 45 HOME SITES BUT ONLY 33 SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FOR. ANEW ZONING OF R-I~ WOULD ALLOW FUR
DEVELOPMENT ~ SIMILAR TO MINEOLLA OR CHIP CHASE: TIIE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
THESE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA.
..
* 2~.8 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R-TH Ta R- l ~
THE REQUEST IS aPPaSED BECAUSE
IF THIS AREA IS TO BE RF~aNED IT SHOULD BEREZONED TO R-15 FOR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. UNDER THE EXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOU1,D BE REQUIltED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM JEFFERSON DAMS HWY,
CURRENT ZONING ALSQ ALi,OV~S FORA OF A ~S' BUFFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R-1 ~, THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS IIv THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY, A R-1 S ~aNING OVER THE PROPOSED R- l ~ VL~aULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILTTY aF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING, IF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R-12 AS A RESII]ENT DF THIS AREA E WOULD PREFER'THE HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO JEFFERSON DAMS HWY.
* UPON REZONING aF ANY OF THE A TO R- l 5 OR THE R-TH TO R- 15 THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED,
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY MIM.1600 SQ FT HEATED
~ STORY MIN, 1 SUS SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TO BE OF A BRICK VENEER OR EQUAL
* FENCES Ta BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
FISTING HOME SITES.
'" PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IlVIPROVED ~ EXTENDED TO SHADY LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT
* CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NQT BE REMOVED
* DEMOLITION aF MATURE TIMBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
~ COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FaRR ~9 YEARS
~ ~
EVE TAE UNDERS~N ~~J~T T~ T~I~ P~OF~SED R~~~NIlY.~S ~UTLIN~D IN
T~[E ATTAC~.~D LIST
i M
r
IN RESPOIVSE TO THE REVIVING REQUEST BY DUVAL DEVELOFMENT ON CASE NUMBER
~SSNDI2,3 IN THE BERMUDA MAGISTERIAL IIISTRICT~ THE ATTACHED LIST OF RESIDENTS
OECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
* ~ AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TDRESIDENTIAL R- ~ 2.
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS LISTED UNDER THE I~~4 ACRES
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATED BACK TO
'` THE,CIVTL WAR . AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE IS NO OB,TECTI~N TO
REZONING OF THIS ONEAREA TO R-15 . THE 2ND AREA BELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESIDENT'
WHO WILL EXPRESS HIS DWN DESIRES ON RE~ONIl~G OF THIS AREA.
* Y ~.4 ACRES REQUESTED FROM R-15 TO R-1 ~
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
TITS HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL
ON A R- l 5 SITE. MOST HOMES ARE LOCATED ON LOTS MUCH LARGER THEN THE
R- I S OR R-7 ZONING, IN WARFIET~D ESTATES THE CURRENT BONING OF R• 15 WOULD
ALLOW FOR 45 HOME SITES BUT ONLY 33 SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES THAT REPRESEN"T" THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FOR. A NEW ZON~1G OF R- I ~ WOULD ALLOW FOR
DEVELOFMENT~SMLAR TO MINEOLLA OR CHIP CHASE. THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
THESE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA.
* 22.8 ACRES REQUESTEI}FROM R-TH TO R- 12
THE REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
IF THIS AREA IS TO TIE REZONED IT SHOULD BE REZONED TO R• 15 FOR THE SAME
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. UNDERTHEEXISTING R-TH ZONING ALL TRAFFIC FOR THIS
AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM JEFFERSON DAMS HV~Y.
CURRENT ZONING ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A 25"BUFFER BETWEEN R-TH AND
R-I ~. THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL QF THE SCHOOLS Iii 'THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY, A R- I S ZONING OVER TITS PROPOSED R- I2 WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING. IF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R• I2 AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED TO JEFFERSON DAMS HWY.
* UPON REZONING OF ANY OF THE A TO R- I ~ OR TITS R-TH TO R• 15 THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE IlVCLUDEI].
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY MIM. l SQ FT HEATED
2 STORY MIN. 18i)Il SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TO BE OF A BRICK VENEER OR EQUAL
* FENCES TO BE WOODEN
.,
* HOMES SHOULD NUT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
EXISTING HOME SITES.
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IMPROVED ~ EXTENDED TO SHADY LANE
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT` ,
* CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED ,
'~ DEMOLXTION OF MATURE TIMBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
* COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR ~9 YEARS
~ ~ ~
5 '
~~
VVE THE ~]NDER~IGN ~BJE~"T T~ THE PR~P~~ED RE~[~NIN~ ~ OUTLINED
THE ATTA~HEi~ L15T
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
°2 ~7UV/~i.~[ta 6 ~ 7 ~
7 ~-
Q,w //7l0 ~~ Cn 7i / e> z ~ ~:
~' o, [~1~0 ~ee~,, /.,~ ~5/ o2P5
~~
4
IN RESPONSE TO THE REINING REQUEST BY DUVAL DEVEL~P~+IENT ON VASE NUMBER
95SNU1~3 ~N THE BERMUDA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, THE ATTACHED LIST OF RESIDENTS
OBJECT TO THE PROPUSED RE~DNING DUE TO THE FOLLOW]NG REASONS.
~ ~ AREAS ARE REQUESTED FROM AGRICULTURAL To RE51I]ENTIAI, R-!~.
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS LISTED UNDER THE I6.4 ACRES
THIS AREA WAS ONCE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK HOME WHOSE HISTORY DATED BACK To
. THE.CIVIL WAR , AS THE HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO ,
RE~O~INC OF THIS ONE AREA TO R* 15 ~ THE 2ND AREA BELONGS TO A PRIVATE RESIDENT
WHO WILL EXPRESS HIS OWN DESIRES ON RETUNING OF THIS AREA.
* 1 ~,4 ACRES REQUESTEDFROM R-1 ~ TO R- I Z
THIS REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE .
THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL s ~,
ON A ~ R- I S SITE MOST HOMES ARE LOCATED ON LOTS MUCH LARGER THEN THE
R• t S OR R-7 BONING, IN WARFIELD ESTATES THE CURRENT ZONING OF R- 15 WOULD
ALLOW FOR 45 HOME SITES BUT ONLY ~3 SITES WERE DEVELOPED. THIS AREA OF
CHESTER HAS MANY OLDER HOMES THAT REPRESENT THE QUALITY RURAL
DEVELOPMENT THAT CHESTER IS KNOWN FOR A NEW BONING OF R-l2 WOULD ALLOW FOIL
DEVELOPMENT ~ SIMILAR TO MINEOLLA OR CHIP CHASE. THE TYPE OF HOMES FOUND IN
TI~SE AREAS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES NOW IN OUR AREA,
~ 22.8 ACRES REQUESTED FROM R-TH TO R• 1 Z
THE REQUEST IS OPPOSED BECAUSE
IF THIS AREA i5 To BE RF~ONED IT SHOULD BE REZONED TOR- ~ 5 FOR THE SAID
REASONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. [JNDER THE EXISTING R-TH ZONIND ALL TRAFFIC T'OR THIS
AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE EXCESS FROM JEFFERSON DAMS HV~Y.
CURRENT ~ONi1~1G ALSO ALLOWS FORA OF A 2S' BUFFER BETWEEN R~TH AND
R-1 S, THE STAFF REPORT ADVISED THAT ALL OF 'THE SCHOOLS IN THIS DISTRICT ARE
BEYOND CAPACITY, A R- I S BONING OVER THE PROPOSED R~ 12 WOULD FURTHER
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING. IF OUR ONLY CHOICES
ARE R-TH OR R• 12'AS A RESII~ENT OF THIS AREA WE WOULD PREFER THE HEAVER DENSITY
WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVERTED To JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY.
~ UPON REZONING OF ANY OF THE A To R-~S OR THE R-TH To R-15 THE
FOLLOW PROFFERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
* HOUSE SIZE SINGLE STORY MIM. l frOli SQ FT HEATED
~ STORY MIN. 1 SQU SQ FT HEATED
* FOUNDATION TO BE OF A BRICK VENEER OR EQUAL
* FENCES TU BE WOODEN
* HOMES SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR FACING ANY
EXISTING HOME SITES.
* PERDUE AVENUE SHOULD BE IMPROVED & EXTENDED TO SHADY LANE
PRIOR TG DEVELOPMENT
~ CEDAR TREES ON CEDAR LANE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
* DEMOLITION OF MATURE TIMBER SHALL BE ENFORCED.
~ COLOR OF HOUSES SHOULD CONFORM TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
* ALL OF THE ABOVE PROFFERS SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR 99 YEARS