ZONING WORK SESSION
Wednesday, October
9, 2002
Present: Mr. Wood, Ms. Brennan, Mr. Brush, Ms. Proulx, Ms. Russell, Dr. Walker, Mr. Hoffman (Absent: Mr. Giles and Mr. Harvey)
Staff Present: Mr. Cox, Mr. Carter, Mr. Boger
Mr. Boger began by announcing that the Board of Supervisors had officially adopted the Comprehensive Plan and by thanking the Commissioners for their hard work. Mr. Cox introduced the four chapters to be discussed:
Mr. Cox also gave each Commissioners and Supervisor a disposable camera and asked that each take half a roll of film of what they considered good and bad development. He indicated that the best way for him to understand what they perceived as good and bad development would be through pictures.
During discussion of the procedures for rezoning, Mr. Cox noted that the draft procedures would “beef up” the list of items that may be required from an applicant. Mr. Wood said that he did not want to set something up that would extend the process for the small project. Mr. Cox said that the requirements would be based on the level and depth of the proposed development. He noted the Pre-Application Process, which would include a preliminary review by the Planning Director and the Staff Review Committee. He indicated that the county would need to determine who would constitute the Staff Review Committee. Mr. Cox also noted that the county could give Staff authority to waive requirements that should not apply to smaller projects. He said that great wisdom must be used to avoid penalizing the small, local person. Mr. Cox stated that none of the localities he has worked with have been able to attribute a loss of property value to revising the zoning ordinance and that they typically end up with better quality developments.
Ms. Russell, noting that the Commissioners are not experts, expressed concern with large developers bringing in experts. She said that she would like a way to have developers pay for the county to work with their own experts on the proposed project. Mr. Cox said that that could be done with the developer and the county agreeing on the experts. Mr. Cox also said that it would be a good idea for the county to move to the mentality expressed in the Comp Plan of managing small communities.
Mr. Boger, noting the requirement that a rezoning request include a current survey, said that he agreed with the requirement, as under the present ordinance, the county really has no idea what is actually being rezoned since the maps are not always accurate. Mr. Wood said that he would like to see information on the rezonings done in the past year with an estimate of the expense to the applicant with the proposed required survey. Mr. Brush said that he would agree that each rezoning request should include a current survey. Mr. Cox said that the information would help the county build their database. Mr. Carter said that it was important that the ordinance be well defined to protect both the county and the applicant. He said that the ordinance would put the burden on the applicant to provide information to allow the county to make a good decision. Mr. Cox pointed out that if the final zoning map was done carefully, there should not be a lot of rezoning requests.
Ms. Proulx asked how the county would handle a property that had been rezoned based on a specific development plan when the developer then pulled out. Mr. Cox said that a proffer should be included to bind the rezoning to the specific project with any change in the project requiring an amendment to the rezoning and a return to the Planning Commission. Ms. Brennan asked whether the property could just be returned to the old zoning and Mr. Cox said that it could, but that the wise use of proffers would be a better option.
Ms. Russell asked whether there would be discussion about when a project has been modified enough for the Board of Supervisors to send it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boger suggested that the procedure for changes in the proffers should be included in that discussion. Mr. Cox suggested that any change in the proffers should send the project back into the system but that it would be a protocol that should be worked out between the two boards.
Mr. Wood asked that the requirement for a statement addressing the adequacy of public services and infrastructure to serve the proposed land uses include a list of possible services including schools, emergency services, water and any others that might be applicable. He said that he would prefer to be specific and then eliminate any that did not apply to the individual project.
Mr. Cox noted that the purpose of the Lighting Regulations would be to provide adequate lighting for a property without lighting the neighbor’s property. He indicated that the regulations presented were based on Albemarle County’s lighting ordinance. Mr. Wood, noting that lighting at special events was listed as exempt, said that he would prefer that the county review the lighting in the special event permit process. Ms. Proulx said that she would prefer some standards for lighting a flag rather than have that lighting exempt from the ordinance.
The next Work Session is tentatively set for Wednesday, October 23. Rural Nelson will send out a notice as soon as the final date is confirmed.