Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campground Sewage Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middlesex supervisors table request to convert Dockside Drive motel site to six-site campground
Summary
The board voted to table Special Exception 202503, a request to allow a six-site campground at 70 Dockside Drive (tax parcel 41-25-A-3), pending health-department review of sewage and operational details. The Planning Commission had recommended approval with screening conditions, but the board sought more information before final action.
The Middlesex County Board of Supervisors voted to table Special Exception 202503, a request by applicants listed as Sean Adair, Randy Snyder and Anna Sovine to allow a campground of up to six sites at 70 Dockside Drive in Deltaville (tax map Parcel 41-25-A-3).
The motion to table was made by Supervisor Bill Harris and seconded by Supervisor Williams; the roll call produced votes of Bill Harris — yes; Mr. Crittendon — no; Mr. Jesse — no; Mr. Williams — yes; Mr. Don Harris — yes, and the motion to table carried. County staff and several supervisors cited outstanding questions about sewer/dump-station arrangements and operational details that the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) must address before the board takes final action.
David Kretz, county planning staff, said the property is roughly 4.27 acres, is zoned waterfront commercial and currently operates as a motel; the county’s future land-use map designates the parcel as waterfront commercial. Kretz told the board that the Planning Commission recommended approval at its Aug. 14 meeting (vote 7-0 with one abstention and one recusal) and suggested a condition of six evergreen “needlepoint holly” shrubs adjacent to the proposed RV parking area (one shrub per space). Kretz and staff stressed that final commencement of campground use would be conditioned on site-plan approval and any agency comments, including VDOT and the health department.
An applicant representative (not identified by name in the transcript) told the board the motel had been rehabilitated after earlier disrepair, said the proposed campground sites were primarily intended as overflow for sailors and short-term visitors, and asked the board for flexibility on the choice and placement of screening plants. “It’s not our intent to have more than 6,” the representative said, adding that the operation is not intended as a long-term campground business but to provide overflow and limited short-term stays.
Board members and members of the public raised several concerns during the public hearing. James W. Evans spoke at the public hearing urging caution about the precedent that approving campgrounds could set in the county and raised broader questions about county services and taxation. Several supervisors said they wanted more detail about how sewage and gray/blackwater would be handled; staff confirmed the site-plan package had been routed to the Virginia Department of Health and that VDH comments would determine required sewer/dump-station measures. Staff warned that obtaining and responding to VDH comments could take several months.
During board discussion, applicants and staff agreed to modify the Planning Commission’s recommended screening condition so that the final language allowed the owner to work with county staff on suitable evergreen screening rather than mandating a specific species; staff suggested language such as “sufficient screening as determined by the zoning administrator” or similar flexible verbiage. Several supervisors reiterated that the board could legally approve the use subject to agency approvals but chose to table the item to receive VDH input and operational detail first; the board directed staff to return the item within the county’s 12-month processing timeframe once sufficient information is available.
Key clarifications recorded in the meeting: the proposed campground would be limited to six sites if approved; a site-plan application has been submitted and routed to agencies (VDH and VDOT) and staff cannot sign off on final site-plan approval until VDH and other agency comments are satisfied; the Planning Commission recommended approval with screening but the applicant sought, and staff supported, more flexible screening language.
The item was tabled to the next meeting (motion made by Bill Harris and seconded by Williams); roll call on the tabling motion was Bill Harris — yes; Mr. Crittendon — no; Mr. Jesse — no; Mr. Williams — yes; Mr. Don Harris — yes. Staff said it may take several months to receive and process health-department comments and to prepare a full response package for the board.
