A significant portion of the meeting focused on the application by Carlen and Dominic Lombardi, who sought a variance to build a pole barn on their property on Leville Road. The barn, intended for storing an antique truck, required variance approval due to its proximity to wetlands and the property’s sub-one-acre size, which necessitated additional scrutiny. The board’s engineer confirmed the property’s details and raised concerns about the presence of wetlands, advising that the Lombardis obtain verification to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. The applicants agreed to this condition, and after deliberation, the board approved the application, allowing the Lombardis to proceed with their plans.

In tandem with the Lombardi application, the board examined a case involving the replacement of an existing chain link fence on a property located on Georgian Boulevard. The applicant sought to replace the non-conforming fence to enhance safety and privacy for their children. However, the board determined that the existing chain link fence was improperly positioned in the right-of-way, complicating the approval process. The applicant was advised that the proposal must be adjusted to comply with zoning regulations, specifically the requirement for fences to be set back at least six feet from the property line. This prompted a discussion about setback requirements, particularly for corner lots, and the need to ensure visibility and safety. The board ultimately decided that the fence and an accompanying shed, which was also encroaching over the property line, needed to be repositioned to comply with zoning laws.

Another notable discussion involved the proposal for a mobile concrete batch plant within the light manufacturing (LM) zone. The plant, which would operate under the name Richmond Ready Mix, was presented as an extension of the site’s existing industrial use. However, the board debated whether the proposed changes constituted a new use, which would require a D1 variance, as opposed to an intensification of the existing use, which would only necessitate a D2 variance. Concerns were raised about the environmental impact of the plant, particularly its proximity to wetlands and the potential for cement dust contamination. The applicant’s representative provided assurances about dust control measures and the plant’s design to prevent environmental harm. Despite these reassurances, board members expressed skepticism about the plant’s compliance with zoning regulations, particularly in light of increased traffic and additional employees.

The meeting also addressed the logistical and environmental challenges posed by the proposed plant, including water usage from a well on-site, storage of materials like sand and stone, and the adequacy of restroom facilities for employees. The board requested further clarification on these issues and suggested that the applicant consider installing a septic system to accommodate the anticipated workforce.