Thursday, January 16, 2014

In Home Day-Care

There was a time, not too long ago, when applications for a conditional use permit to operate a family day-care home breezed through the Chesterfield Planning Commission with little controversy and no opposition. If any neighbors showed up at a community meeting or the public hearing, it was to express support for the applicant.

This article on CBS 6's web pages, Daycare dilemma; owner fights to keep doors open,  about an application for a family home day-care in Brandermill is an example of the controversy and opposition that some of  these cases are now generating.

There is a lot that could be said about this issue but this post is about one specific sentence in the linked article. The sentence reads, "The county is looking to the BCA for guidance." That is not precisely accurate because the implication is that the contents of restrictive covenants on residences in Brandermill will determine the recommendation of the Chesterfield Planning Commission. Some members of the Commission do hold the opinion that we should consider restrictive covenants when making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. I do not agree with that view. 

In my opinion, it is not the role of the Planning Commission to consider contractual relationships in making its decisions. Restrictive covenants are contracts among home owners. If disputes arise among the parties to a contract, those disputes are properly resolved by the parties themselves or, as a last resort, by the courts. Neither the Chesterfield Planning Commission nor the Chesterfield Planning Department has the expertise or the resources to make judgments on contracts. Due process, rules of evidence, and a host of other legal requirements are likely to be violated if a bunch of amateurs (even intelligent, highly motivated amateurs) start trying to act as judge and jury in legal disputes between adversarial parties. Our job is to determine whether such things as applications for rezoning and conditional use (among others related to land use) are in the best interest of Chesterfield County and its citizens.


Therefore, when this, or any other case, comes up for a vote by the Planning Commission, I will not consider opinions or assertions on what contracts require the applicant or other interested parties to do or not do. I'll make my decisions on the merits of each case related to land use in Chesterfield County and on the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the county.

No comments:

Post a Comment