Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors grant special‑use permit for two‑family unit in Country Club Drive neighborhood after neighbor support
Summary
After extensive questioning about process and enforcement, the Board approved a special‑use permit allowing a two‑family dwelling at 135 Country Club Drive — an outcome driven in part by neighbors' support and the owner's explanation that a planned screening wall proved aesthetically and functionally problematic.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board approved a special‑use permit to allow a two‑family dwelling at 135 Country Club Drive, a property whose owner and neighbors testified that an originally planned screening wall would have been visually detrimental and raised safety concerns.
Staff explained that the building was originally approved as an attached accessory apartment (a by‑right permit contingent on exterior screening so it retains the single‑family appearance). During inspection staff found the required screening of the exterior stair had not been installed, which changed the appearance and triggered review. The owner and counsel said they pursued the SUP process rather than installing a screening wall they and neighbors believed would create an urban look. Planning Commission recommended approval (two votes referenced: 6‑1 and 7‑0 for a related waiver).
Applicant Rita Rooney described family circumstances and said, "I am requesting that a wall not be built," explaining neighbors had viewed the house favorably in its current form. Board members pressed about intent, enforcement (septic occupancy limits fall to the Virginia Department of Health), and whether the omission was deliberate; the owner denied any intent to circumvent rules. After discussion the Board approved the SUP and recorded the roll‑call vote.
The SUP contains conditions including a cap on the accessory unit at 650 square feet and a recorded condition limiting combined occupancy by septic capacity; enforcement of occupancy was noted as a health‑department responsibility.

