Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves two accessory‑dwelling permits and a proffer amendment after dispute over enforcement in Old Dominion Industrial Park
Summary
The supervisors granted two conditional use permits for detached accessory family housing units on Mannequin Road and approved a proffer amendment for a lot in Old Dominion Industrial Park that retains screening requirements but removes an unenforceable developer-approval clause; the industrial‑park debate focused on alleged inconsistent enforcement.
The Board of Supervisors approved two conditional use permits for detached accessory family housing units and approved a proffer amendment at the Old Dominion Industrial Park after discussion about consistency of enforcement.
Planning & Zoning Director Jamie Sherry presented CU2026003 for a proposed detached accessory family housing unit by Stephen and Karen Dash on Mannequin Road. Staff described recommended conditions limiting occupancy to family members, prohibiting separate rental, requiring smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and notification to future owners. The Planning Commission had recommended approval on a 5'0 vote, and the board granted the permit after no public speakers appeared at the hearing.
The board also considered a similar conditional‑use request for Jose Carmen Carrera Arellano and Anna Elizabeth Ramirez Arellano; staff described site constraints and recommended screening and a 10‑year expiration on the permit. After applicants identified themselves and no additional public testimony was offered, the board approved that permit subject to the Planning Commission's recommended conditions, including access improvements and a privacy fence.
The meeting then addressed a request by Big Daddy's Oilville Office Land Holding Corporation to amend proffers that apply to a lot in the Old Dominion Industrial Park (motion described as RZ202053 in the meeting). Assistant Director Ray Cash explained two proffers the applicant asked to remove or revise: one (proffer 3) requires screening for outdoor storage; another (proffer 5) required approval by specific developers who are now deceased and therefore is effectively unenforceable. Staff noted the development contains varying proffers from different rezoning cases and that enforcement is complaint‑ and development‑driven.
Applicant Evan Weiner said he purchased the property after prior POD approvals and argued enforcement had been inconsistent across lots. "I didn't think it was prudent to walk away from a deposit... I'm being asked to comply with a law that staff has not even asked other developers to comply with," he said, urging either park‑wide compliance or allowance for his requested amendment. The board discussed fairness, enforcement mechanics and the need for screening, and ultimately approved retaining the screening requirement while removing the obsolete developer‑approval proffer. The vote was recorded in roll call with affirmative votes from members present.
What happens next: The conditional use permits will be processed under the conditions the board approved; the proffer amendment applies to the single lot and staff will monitor compliance with screening requirements and plan‑of‑development obligations.
