DOCSLIB.ORG

Comprehensive Plan King and Queen County, Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comprehensive Plan King and Queen County, Virginia COMPREHENSIVE PLAN KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA Adopted by the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 13,2006 Prepared by the KING AND QUEEN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Technical Assistance PMA Consulting Services BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Keith Haden, Chairman Shanghai District Doris Morris, Vice-Chairman Stevensville District Sherrin Alsop Newtown District J. Lawrence Simpkins St. Stephens Church District H. Lee Busick Buena Vista District COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Ron Hachey PLANNING COMMISSION Robert T. Ryland, Chairman Kempton Shields, Vice-Chirman Robert Alsop David Campbell Helen Carlton Donna Graham Richard Greene R. P. Hart, Jr. Larkin Hill Margie Longest PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Holly Lewis PMA Consulting Services Community Planning Consultants Project Director: A. Jack Stodghill, AICP Preparation of Plan began with former Zoning Administrator, Paul Koll. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION PAGE NO. 1.1 Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan 1 1.2 General Description of the County 1 1.3 Comprehensive Plan Update Process 1 CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY OF POLICIES 2.1 Rural Atmosphere 2 2.2 Tax Base Balance 2 2.3 Housing Diversity 2 2.4 Quality and Adequacy of Services 2 2.5 Water Quality 2 2.6 Ecological Resources 3 2.7 Historical Resources 3 CHAPTER 3 LAND USE PLAN 3.1 General 3 3.2 Agricultural, Livestock, and Forestal Activities 3 3.3 Commercial and Industrial Development 3 a. Route 33 Economic Development Corridor 4 b. Route 360 Economic Development Corridor 4 3.4 Residential Development 4 a. Non-subdivision Residential 5 b. Minor Subdivision 5 c. Major Subdivision 5 d. Family Subdivision 5 e. Cluster and Planned Unit Development 6 3.5 Rural Village Center 6 a. Newtown 6 b. Walkerton 6 c. King and Queen Courthouse 6 d. Little Plymouth 7 e. Cologne 7 3.6 Commercial Corridor Centers 7 a. St. Stephens Church 7 b. Mattaponi/Airport Road 7 c. Shacklefords/Shacklefords Fork 7 3.7 Special Overlay Zones 8 a. Airport Safety District 8 b. Utility Districts 8 c. Flood Plain Districts 8 d. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area District 8 e. Dragon Run Conservation District 8 f. The Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan 8 CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SERVICES PLAN SECTION PAGE NO. 4.1 Government Administration 8 4.2 Public Safety 8 4.3 Schools 9 4.4 Parks and Recreation 9 4.5 Telecommunications 9 4.6 Public Water and Sewer Utilities 10 4.7 Solid Waste Disposal 10 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5.1 Roads 10 a. Primary Roads 10 b. Secondary Roads 10 5.2 Airport 10 5.3 Rail 10 5.4 Water 11 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION INSTRUMENTS AND STRATEGIES 6.1 Land Use Regulations 11 6.2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 11 6.3 Availability and Visibility 11 APPENDICES Appendix A: Analysis of Physical Conditions Affecting Development Appendix B: Demography, Housing, and Economy Information Appendix C: Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan Appendix D: Maps Map 1: Land Use — Existing Development (3.1, Al) Map 2: Land Use — Rural Villages, Commercial Corridor Centers, and Economic Development Corridors (3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6) Map 3: Historic Resources — Location of Historic Landmarks (2.7) Map 4: Facilities — Courthouse Complex (4.1) Map 5: Facilities — Fire and Rescue Station Locations (4.2) Map 6: Facilities — School Locations (4.3) Map 7: Facilities — Recreation and Cultural Areas (4.4) Map 8: Facilities — Access to Public Waters (4.4) Map 9: Facilities — Solid Waste Disposal Locations (4.9) Map 10: Transportation — Road System with Traffic Counts (5.1) Map 11: Physiographical/Ecological — Steep Topography (A2) Map 12: Physiographical/Ecological — Chesapeake Bay Protection Areas (A3) Map 13: Physiographical/Ecological — National Wetlands Inventory (AS) Map 14: Physiographical/Ecological — Flood Plain Areas (A6) Map 15: Physiographical/Ecological — Major Watersheds (A8) Map 16: Physiographical/Ecological — Highly Erodible Soils (A2, A9) KING AND QUEEN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a general guide for the future development of land, services, and facilities in the County. It is not a detailed plan for the development of individual parcels of land. It is to be used as a basis for development of regulatory land use ordinances, and as a guide for public decisions on specific proposals, private investment decisions, and for the development and location of needed public facilities. This plan is designed to maintain the quality of life in the County while allowing a reasonable amount of well-managed growth. It is designed to be a fair and equitable balance between individual property rights and the public good. 1.2 General Description of the County: King and Queen County is recognized for its natural beauty and rural atmosphere. It was formed in 1691 from New Kent County and originally included what is now King William and much of Caroline. The County is close to 70 miles long and averages about 10 miles wide. Approximately three fourths of the land area is covered by forests. The population is relatively small, less than 7,000 in the 2000 census, and continues to grow very slowly. (The population is actually less now than in the first census in 1790.) There are no towns or significant concentrations of people. The rapid growth of adjacent counties has not yet reached King and Queen, but is approaching. The two main traffic arteries, routes 360 and 33, are across the short axis of the County. There is relatively little through traffic along the long axis on routes 14/72 1, which have recently been designated a scenic by-way. Except through County government, schools, and a few County wide civic organizations, there is relatively little contact between citizens at the two ends of the County, which makes it sometimes difficult to create a County wide cohesive community. Current commercial and industrial activity is growing slowly, but is still relatively small. Most shopping is done in the towns of adjacent counties, and about 75% of County residents who are employed commute to jobs outside the County. In spite of the modest tax base, County finances have been well managed in recent years and taxes have been maintained at a low level. 1.3 Comprehensive Plan Update Process: This plan is an update of the plan adopted in 1994, which was reviewed and readopted without change in 2001. This updated plan was prepared by the King and Queen County Planning Commission and Planning Staff, with the technical assistance of Mr. Jack Stodghill of PMA, Inc. The general objective was to make the plan concise, complete, and user friendly for citizens, potential developers, and County employees. Policies and planning guidance have been put up front, with demographic data, maps, and other background information contained in appendices. Substantial citizen input was obtained through a comprehensive survey sent to all resident holders of drivers’ permits and through seven volunteer citizen committees involving about 100 volunteers. The seven citizen committees were Land Use, Economic Development, Recreation and Parks, Education, Transportation, Community and Government Services, and Housing. This updated plan draws concepts and policies from the plan being updated, from the citizen surveys and committees, and from individual commission and staff members. Survey returns and citizen committee reports have been particularly useful in getting a feel for where King and Queen residents want to see the county go in the next five to fifteen years. 1 Chapter 2. SUMMARY OF POLICIES 2.1 Rural Atmosphere: It is the general policy of the County to maintain and preserve the rural atmosphere and scenic beauty of the County while allowing moderate and carefully managed growth. The preservation of existing agricultural and forest lands by protecting them from excessive fragmentation, development, and incompatible uses is essential, as is innovative and attractive design and thoughtful placement of both residential and commercial development. Cluster housing, village development, open space requirements, attractive landscaping, vegetative buffers, conservation easements, and effective outdoor lighting and sign policy are among the tools and concepts which can make this possible. Preservation of the rural atmosphere and beauty was a major theme of both the citizen survey responses and the citizen committee reports. 2.2 Tax Base Balance: It is the policy of the County to work toward a balance between residential development and commercial/industrial development. Historically, most residential development does not produce tax revenue commensurate with the cost of required services and must be balanced by commercial/industrial development, which is usually revenue positive. This will require a special effort to provide a business friendly environment and to actively seek and encourage commercial and industrial investment and development in order to help balance the County tax base and provide employment opportunities and services for County residents. Significant effort by current or additional County staff will be required to plan for and focus on this economic development task. 2.3 Housing Diversity: It is the policy of the County to encourage development and availability of housing in a variety of styles and price ranges. Although upscale development is usually the most advantageous from the point of view of the tax base, mid range and affordable” housing are also needed to encourage home ownership by those with a more modest income. Inclusion of apartments and other rental housing in the mix is desirable, especially to encourage newly recruited teachers and other young workers to live in the County and become a part of the community. The County should develop policies, including possible adjustment of cash proffers, which will encourage development of affordable housing. Development of assisted living housing for the elderly is encouraged, but should preferably be located in areas closest to medical services. 2.4 Quality and Adequacy of Services: It is the policy of the County to provide adequate public services of the best quality that available revenue will support, especially with regard to public safety and educational opportunities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Virginia Coastal Zone Management Magazine Is Funded Through a Grant from the U.S
    Virginia Coastal Zone Management Spring/Summer 2007 IN THIS ISSUE: Living Shorelines Coastal GEMS The Rap on Oysters CZM & Land Conservation 400 Years of Change Protecting, restoring, strengthening our coastal ecosystems & economy Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program The Virginia CZM Program is a network of state and local government agencies working to create more vital and sustainable coastal communities and ecosystems. Virginia’s coastal zone includes the 29 counties and 17 cities of Tidewater Virginia and all tidal waters out to the three mile territorial sea boundary. The Virginia CZM Program includes state and local laws and policies to protect and manage Virginia’s coastal resources, implemented by: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality– lead agency Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Virginia Department of Health Virginia Marine Resources Commission Tidewater Local Governments The Program is guided by the Coastal Policy Team which provides a forum for managing cross-cutting coastal resource issues.The Coastal Policy Team is comprised of the partner agencies listed above as well as: Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Virginia Department of Forestry Virginia Department of Historic Resources Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Economic Development Partnership Virginia Institute of Marine Science Virginia Planning District Commissions (8 Tidewater regions) The Virginia CZM Program is part of the national coastal zone management program, a voluntary partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. coastal states and territories authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The Virginia Coastal Zone Management magazine is funded through a grant from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Thurston Haworth Recreation Area Management Plan
    THURSTON HAWORTH RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by: MIDDLE PENINSULA CHESAPEAKE BAY PUBLIC ACCESS AUTHORITY In cooperation with: Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program (Department of Environmental Quality) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dragon Run Steering Committee The Nature Conservancy This work was funded by the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program at the Department of Environmental Quality through Grant # NA07NOS4190178 Task 95 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. Although this report has been used by the Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the MPCBPAA as to the accuracy or application of datasets and related material, nor shall the fact of distribution constitute any such warranty; and no responsibility is assumed by the Authority in connection therewith. Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority P.O. Box 286 Saluda, Virginia 23149 804-758-2311 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS __________________________________________________________ Executive Summary 4 Section One: Management Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 7 Introduction and Legislative Authorization 7 Establishment of the Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority 7 Ecological Value of the Dragon Run Watershed
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund Projects Catalog 2012
    CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION FUND PROJECTS CATALOG 2012 CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION FUND SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROJECTS CATALOG 2012 PROJECTS CATALOG 2012 Issue I The Division of Legislative Services of the Virginia General Assembly publishes this catalogue. The information contained in these pages is current as of May 2012. Thank you to all of our partners and to all grantees of the Foundation who have provided text and materials for this catalogue. This catalogue was developed for all agencies, organizations, and individuals interested in environmental education and restoration projects on the bay and its rivers. General Assembly Division of Legislative Services Compiled and Edited by Theresa Schmid Research Associate iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION FUND HISTORY II. CHESAPEAKE BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE III. SUMMARY OF CBRF ACTIVITIES IV. APPLYING FOR A GRANT A. CRITERIA B. APPLICATION PROCEDURES GRANT ACTIVITIES FROM 2000-2012 V. GRANT PROJECTS LIST A. 2000 INDEX B. 2001 INDEX C. 2002 INDEX D. 2003 INDEX E. 2004 INDEX F. 2005 INDEX G. 2006 INDEX H. 2007 INDEX I. 2008 INDEX J. 2009 INDEX K. 2010 INDEX L. 2011 INDEX M. 2012 INDEX VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROJECTS A. SCHOOLS B. ORGANIZATIONS - EDUCATIONAL FOR: 1. YOUTH 2. COMMUNITY v VII. RESTORATION/CONSERVATION PROJECTS A. MONITORING B. EASEMENTS VIII. FINANCIAL SUMMARIES IX. INDEX vi I. HISTORY In 1992, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation, co-patroned by Senator Frederick Quayle and Delegate Harvey Morgan, which established the Chesapeake Bay preservation license plate. The design included drawings of bay grass, oysters and crabs, and read “Friends of the Chesapeake." The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) began issuing the specialty plates in December 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • North American Wetlands Conservation Act Proposals
    I MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. PROGRAM FOR CONSIDERATION ON April 20, 2016 A. Migratory Bird Conservation Act Proposals 1. Neches River National Wildlife Refuge, Texas 2. Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas 3. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Washington 4. Tulare Basin Wildlife Management Area, California 5. Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Maine 6. Willow Creek-Lurline National Wildlife Refuge, California B. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Proposals Canadian Wetlands Conservation Grant Proposals Mexican Wetlands Conservation Grant Proposals United States Standard Grant Proposals ~ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ' ~' 1i~*~ 1NAWCA and MBCA Project Funding Proposals, April 2016 01'1isq11a11y North Oakota Cl1ase Lake Orift Prairie Area Wetland •ProjectV \)11'~3909 Project XII• Oorder 0 • Prairie sc.hooa,c. ~tt' to\ •Wetlands IV fe"'"su\a e,oas~~ . aartf\ers"'" ~a•"e• James River lowlands •1 Missouri Coteau Mukwonago - Project VIII fox River IIVillow Eastern ,1-ocus Area II Cree1.. Nebraska •Upper Iowa ""· ...L Wetlands Prairie 0 •r'Af.4 llrli11e Pothole IV Platte River • 4 Wetlands e5 is,,,, Wetfa ,t •Partnership IV Coflse,-"at;o,, 11It s kRiver h ""oc tiol\ l'a a erVa I ·a ital' e,ol\S rshil' & . ~]'"' . ers 1'tllare rtl\e ""V,, \ R•V • Kansas Prairie pa '(,a o8as;,, IIVAf.4 Wetlands II Si; t;a')'S 1 Proposal Area e,aro\il\a White& wet\al\as \l\i.tiative II Cache Cache Rivers . Wetlands II south Carolina R1ver(1 wet\anas santee• Lower Lanascal'e IV • oe\ta-Wi.n')'ah t;a')' wet\anas111 Mississippi south Carolina I oelta Wetland5e I d Lowcountry • MAVWet an s Wetlands• VII southe,aro\ina coasta\ Rivers .
    [Show full text]
  • CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean
    CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean The Chesapeake Bay Lowlands Plan is a first iteration. The draft report that was distributed in hardcopy for review on 6/27/2002 is included on the CD. No updates were made to that version. CSS is now developing a standard template for ecoregional plans, which we have applied to the CBY ecoregional plan report. Some of the CBY results have been edited or updated for this version. Click on index in the navigation plane to browse the report sections. Note: The Bibliography (still slightly incomplete) contains the references cited in all report sections except for the Marine references, which have their own bibliography. What is the purpose of the report template? The purpose of creating a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic is twofold: — to compile concise descriptions of methodologies developed and used for ecoregional planning in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. These descriptions are meant to meet the needs of planning team members who need authoritative text to include in future plan documents, of science staff who need to respond to questions of methodology, and of program and state directors looking for material for general audience publications. — to create a modular resource whose pieces can be selected, incorporated in various formats, linked to in other documents, and updated easily. How does the template work? Methods are separated from results in this format, and the bulk of our work has gone into the standard methods sections. We have tried to make each methods section stand alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    Middlesex County Comprehensive Plan Adopted December 1, 2009 Revised 4-20-10, 4-14-15, 7-2-19, 3-3-20 Prepared with the assistance of 1 2 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY VIRGINIA Board of Supervisors Robert A. Crump, Chairman Wayne H. Jessie, Sr., Vice Chairman Fred S. Crittenden John D. Miller, Jr. Kenneth W. Williams Planning Commission J. D. Davis, Jr., Chairman Melvin Beverley, Vice Chairman Claude Boyd, III, Sec Theresa Anderson John England Garrison Hart David Johnson Gordon Jones John D. Miller, Jr. Marilyn South Alvin Wake Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Melvin Beverley Carl Bowmer John England John Fleet Bob Henkel Ray Kostesky John D. (Jack) Miller, Jr. Mary Helen Morgan Carlton Revere Keith Ruse Marilyn South John Wake Neil Wake Bob Walker Kathy Wright 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Authority ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Planning Horizon ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Community History ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The State of the Dragon Run Watershed
    Dragon Run Watershed Dragon Run According to the Virginia Natural Steering Committee Heritage Program, the Dragon Run watershed “encompasses some of the most extensive and unspoiled swamp forest and woodland communities in Virginia.” One researcher describes it The State as a 100-year-old time capsule that of the resembles coastal plain streams in Virginia at the turn of the 20th Dragon Run century. The watershed is mostly undeveloped and encompasses Watershed approximately 140 square miles (90,000 acres) of rural landscape – primarily forests, farms, and wetlands. The spring-fed fresh and brackish water stream meanders forty miles through nontidal and tidal cypress swamp in Essex, King and Queen, Middlesex, and Gloucester Counties, emptying into the Piankatank River and Chesapeake Bay. © 2003 Dragon Run Steering Committee This brochure was funded by the Environmental Middle Peninsula Planning Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program District Commission through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, via grant agreement number BAY- P.O. Box 286 2002-20-SR. The views expressed herein are those Saluda, VA 23149 of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DCR. Phone: 804-758-2311 Fax: 804-758-3221 Majestic Baldcypress Email: [email protected] The Dragon Run exhibits moderately low State of the Dragon Run streamflow, most of which originates from groundwater. The watershed has few point sources of pollution and a low nonpoint source pollution potential rating. Nevertheless, it exceeds state The Dragon Run standards for several water quality parameters, watershed including pH, fecal coliform bacteria, mercury, and supports many lead. With the possible exception of fecal coliform, unique resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Coastal Zone Management Magazine Is Funded Through a Grant from the U.S
    Virginia Coastal Zone Management Summer/Fall 2008 IN THIS ISSUE: Climate Change Conserving Coastal Areas Shellfish Aquaculture Watermen and Working Waterfronts Dunes and Beaches Virginia’s Coastal Places - Willis Wharf 2008 Virginia CZM Projects Protecting, restoring, strengthening our coastal ecosystems & economy Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program The Virginia CZM Program is a network of state and local government agencies working to create more vital and sustainable coastal communities and ecosystems. Virginia’s coastal zone includes the 29 counties and 17 cities of Tidewater Virginia and all tidal waters out to the three mile territorial sea boundary. The Virginia CZM Program includes state and local laws and policies to protect and manage Virginia’s coastal resources, implemented by: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality– lead agency Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Virginia Department of Health Virginia Marine Resources Commission Tidewater local governments The program is guided by the Coastal Policy Team which provides a forum for managing cross-cutting coastal resource issues. The Coastal Policy Team is comprised of the partner agencies listed above as well as: Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Virginia Department of Forestry Virginia Department of Historic Resources Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Economic Development Partnership Virginia Institute of Marine Science Virginia Planning District Commissions (8 Tidewater regions) The Virginia CZM Program is part of the national coastal zone management program, a voluntary partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. coastal states and territories authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • King and Queen County, Virginia
    King and Queen County, Virginia 2030 Comprehensive Plan www.kingandqueenco.net Recommendation for approval issued by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors during their public hearing held June 4, 2018. Final draft for public hearing with the Board of Supervisors, on December 10, 2018 @ 7:00 p.m. King and Queen County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan 2030 INTRODUCTION 4 The Purpose of the Plan 4 Comprehensive Planning in King and Queen County 4 The “Ten Commandments” of Planning 5 “The People’s Plan”: The Public Participation Process 5 Goals for the Future Development of King and Queen County 8 CHAPTER 1: COMMUNITY CHARACTER, CULTURE AND HISTORY 10 CHAPTER 2: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 14 Community Strengths 14 Community Challenges 15 Development Strategies 16 Future Strategies 16 CHAPTER 3: TRANSPORTATION 18 Corridors and Gateways 18 Corridor and Gateway Improvements 20 Hierarchy of Highways 20 Transportation Strategies and Initiatives 21 Rail Service 23 Air Service 23 Bus Service 23 Other Services 23 Identified Transportation Needs and Traffic Problems 23 Identified Geometric Deficiencies 24 Traffic Counts 25 Recommended Transportation Improvements 25 Regional and Long Range Transportation Plan 25 CHAPTER 4: LAND USE 27 Future Land Use Categories 28 1 King and Queen County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan 2030 Land Use 29 Agricultural 29 Residential 29 Commercial 29 Industrial 29 Future Land Use 29 Economic Development and Transportation Overlay District 29 Route 360 Corridor 29 Route 33 Corridor 29 Shacklefords 29 Shacklefords Fork
    [Show full text]
  • Realestate•Classifieds•Legals
    10B GLOUCESTER-MATHEWS GAZETTE-JOURNAL THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2020 LEGALS LEGALS VIRGINIA, IN D.B. 107, PAGE 715 AND TRUSTEE SALE OF WHEREON SAID LAND IS DESIGNATED 6501 Gentry Court AS “PARCEL C - 0.21 AC.” PARCEL I AND Gloucester, VA 23061 PARCEL II ARE CONVEYED SUBJECT TO In execution of the Deed of Trust dated A THIRTY (30) FOOT EASEMENT OF October 26, 2016, in the original principal RIGHT OF WAY EXTENDING IN A amount of $195,395.00, recorded as Inst. EAL STATE LASSIFIEDS EGALS WESTERLY DIRECTION FROM STATE 160004927, assigned as Inst. 190005100, LEGALS LEGALS LEGALS LEGALS ROUTE #637 TO LAND NOW OR modified to the amount of $177,090.41 as R E •C •L FORMERLY OF JAMES R. MITCHEM Inst. 190001821, in the Clerk’s Office of the BWW# VA-315659-2 ALL IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, ALL PARCEL II AND STATE ROUTE #637. FOR LYING AND BEING ON GWYNN’S ISLAND WHICH THIRTY (30) FEET RIGHT OF WAY Circuit Court for the County of Gloucester, TRUSTEE’S SALE OF 333 RIGHTS, WAYS, EASEMENTS AND A MORE PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION AS AND CONTAINING 0.21 OF AN ACRE, IS SET FORTH ON THE PLATS OF Virginia, default having occurred in the GWYNNSVILLE RD, GWYNN, VA APPURTENANCES SITUATE IN TO THE METES AND BOUNDS OF SAID MORE OR LESS. SAID LAND IS SURVEY HEREINABOVE MENTIONED payment of the indebtedness thereby 23066. In execution of a certain Deed of PIANKITANK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, LAND REFERENCE IS MADE TO A PLAT SUBSTANTIALLY BOUNDED NOW OR AND DESIGNATED “30 FOOT ROAD TO secured and at the request of the holder of Trust dated August 11, 2010, in the original MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA, LYING OF SURVEY PREPARED BY EDWARD J.
    [Show full text]
  • Complying with the National
    COMPLYING WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PHASE II STORM WATER REGULATIONS: NAVAL STATION NEWPORT STORM DRAIN OUTFALL MAPPING NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND Laura M. Ernst, ESS Group, Inc. Cornelia A. Mueller, Naval Station Newport, Environmental Protection Department Karen M. Hanecak, ESS Group, Inc. Gregory A. Rowe, ESS Group, Inc. Abstract The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has determined that municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are a major pathway for the introduction of pollutants to waterways and are a leading cause of the impairment of ambient water quality, for both fresh and coastal waters. The USEPA has developed regulations governing storm water for MS4s in 40 CFR Part 122. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) has written equivalent regulations in its Regulations for the Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. MS4s are required to develop, submit for RIDEM approval, and ultimately implement a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMPP) that addresses six minimum control measures. ESS Group Inc. performed storm drain outfall mapping for the Naval Station Newport to comply with the Naval Station’s Phase II SWMPP Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination program. ESS personnel used a handheld Global Positioning System unit with 3 ft. accuracy to obtain coordinates for outfalls to Narragansett Bay. With the coordinate locations, ESS then developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) map that includes the storm drain outfalls overlaid on geographic referenced orthophotographs. An interactive ArcView database was created as part of the GIS project which includes details on storm drain outfall, including type and size of pipe, presence/absence of flow, and date of inspection.
    [Show full text]
  • Not Guilty of Misusing Public Funds, Embezzlement
    SSentinel.com Serving Middlesex County and adjacent areas of the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck since 1896 Vol. 118, No. 20 Urbanna, Virginia 23175 • August 16, 2012 Two Sections • 75¢ Abbott convicted of bribery; not guilty of misusing public funds, embezzlement by Tom Chillemi the trial began on August 9. arettes and beer used during under- the check and give him the $120 The Virginia Attorney General’s cover investigations. He added the because he would be traveling. Former Middlesex Sheriff Guy L. Offi ce authorized the investigation in state would not reimburse him for Abbott instructed Ellis to fi ll out Abbott was found guilty in Middlesex 2009, and the case was prosecuted by these expenses. “I was taking it as a time sheet and he would be paid Circuit Court on Wednesday, August assistant attorney generals Shannon repayment,” he said. through the sheriff’s offi ce. 15, of two counts of bribery that Dion, Ann Reardon and Benjamin Sampson testifi ed that Abbott told During his testimony, Abbott said, occurred in 2004 and 2006 and Katz. him he had been working on sheriff’s “I do not deny” the action. Abbott involved two of his deputies. Bribery Charges department cars and not getting paid, explained he transferred Ellis, for Judge Paul F. Sheridan found Judge Sheridan found Abbott and Abbott felt like he was due the accounting purposes, from being Abbott not guilty of 8 charges that not guilty of a bribery charge that $800. “off-duty” to “on-duty” while work- he knowingly misused “asset forfei- involved Michael E.
    [Show full text]