ZONING WORK SESSION

Wednesday, October 23, 2002

Supervisors Present: Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Harris, Ms. Brennan,

Mr. Wood

Commissioners Present: Mr. Brush, Dr. Walker, Ms. Proulx

Staff Present: Mr. Boger, Mr. Frank Cox (Consultant)

Mr. Cox began with a review of his Comprehensive Plan Commentary regarding the Rural Residential and Rural/Farming Districts. He said that the county, while designating growth areas, could be presented with proposals for development in areas of the county that had not been anticipated. He suggested developing a proper framework to allow the county to consider such proposals.

Ms. Proulx said that assuming that the Comp Plan had been developed with citizen input and Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission input, allowing such a development outside the growth areas would appear to “gut the Plan”. She suggested that that would allow exactly what the citizens said they did not want to see in the county. Mr. Wood said that he did not think the county should simply close the door to any planned development. Mr. Harris said that whether such a proposal ever came or not, it would be better to have guidelines in place. Mr. Cox suggested that the Board and Commission should work to develop a policy to allow the county to consider any application for a rezoning proposal, noting that the county would get very unique pressures in the future. Mr. Brush said that he thought the Comp Plan should be flexible enough to allow the county to look at a project that would benefit the county – although the process of amending the Comp Plan should be not necessarily an easy one. Mr. Cox said that he would be presenting a “floating” overlay called a Planned Community Overlay that would be designed for this type of development and require the applicant to understand the process, do the market analysis and provide the necessary infrastructure.

Proffers and Conditional Zoning –

Mr. Cox noted that encouraging applicants to use proffers (voluntary conditions offered by an applicant concerning the use and development of a property and/or to benefit the public welfare) can be in the form of restricting the uses allowed or easing the burden on the county and taxpayers by creating road improvements or infrastructure or by creating parks or public areas.

Mr. Harris questioned the requirement that any change to an applicant’s proffers would require an application to be referred back to the Planning Commission. He said that that was not the current procedure. Mr. Cox said that the ordinance was written so that if the applicant made changes to the proffers in a way that significantly weakened the county’s position in the project, the application would go back through the process. Mr. Brush said that he thought the Board of Supervisors should make the decision as to whether the change was significant enough to refer the application back. Language was amended to give the Supervisors the option to send the application back to the Planning Commission with a change in proffers.

Site Development Plan Requirements –

Supervisors and Commissioners agreed that the Planning Director would handle minor site plans (based on the scope and nature of the planned project) administratively. This includes a change or addition to any non-conforming use, structure or site. Major site plans would go through the county’s Plan Review Committee and then to the Planning Commission for approval.

Mr. Cox said that the county would have to decide which parts of major site plans needed to be reviewed by an engineer. He suggested establishing a sliding-scale plan review fee to offset those expenses.

Mr. Harvey disagreed with requiring minor site plans to be prepared by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect or land surveyor, noting the expense to the applicant proposing a small project. Supervisors and Commissioners agreed.

Mr. Boger noted that the Plan Review Committee could include a representative from the following:

Planning Commission

Soil & Water Conservation District

Director of Planning

Virginia Department of Health

Virginia Department of Transportation

County Administrator

County Building Official

Plus 3 others to be determined

In addition, Mr. Boger suggested the inclusion of language that the site plan is perpetual and stays with the property for which it was approved.

The next Zoning Work Session was scheduled for THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14 at 7:00pm at the Courthouse.