PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING WORK SESSION 
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 

Present: Mr. Brush, Ms. Proulx, Mr. Bruguiere, Dr. Walker, Mr. Hoffman, 
Ms. Hunt 
Absent:  Ms. Russell, Mr. Giles 

Chapter 13:  Board of Zoning Appeals 
"This ordinance endeavors to create a process by which the Planning 
Director, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors can address and 
implement zoning and land use in such a way as to reconcile the desires 
of the applicant with the health, safety, and general welfare interests 
of the County."  Variances and special exceptions are necessary when 
unique circumstances do not allow straightforward application of the 
zoning ordinance.  The standard for obtaining a variance requires proof 
of hardship and is largely determined by adhering to the requirements of 
the State code.  A special exception is a modification of standards and 
regulations when in the interest of sound development in the County. 

Mr. Boger pointed out that the draft ordinance differs from the existing 
ordinance in that the draft ordinance adds a new category called special 
exceptions, in addition to the category of variances in the old ordinance. 

Mr. Brush stated that the new category of special exceptions in Section 
G should be used for reference by the Planning Commission, not the Board 
of Zoning Appeals.  Since the entire section was considered confusing, 
Ms. Proulx made a motion to delete the section and the rest of the 
Commissioners agreed. 

Section H lists conditions that the Board may impose when granting 
variances (or special exemptions).  The current Board of Zoning Appeals 
will review this section before it is finalized. 

Chapter 6:  Special Use Permits 
Special use permits are authorized to provide for certain uses, which, 
by their nature, can have an undue impact on adjacent lands.  Standards 
for granting special use permits shall include compliance with the 
Comprehensive Plan, harmony with the district zoning, and harmony with 
the character of adjacent properties.  Under the new ordinance, all 
special use applications will be reviewed by the Planning Commission 
before going to the Board of Supervisors. 

Mr. Boger mentioned that the State does not define the term "conditional 
use permit," and it was now included under the term "special use permit" 
to avoid any future confusion. 

Ms. Proulx pointed out that special use permits are important for new, 
not existing, situations. 

Mr. Brush noted that adequate and appropriate public services must be in 
place for any proposed special use to be approved. 

Ms. Hunt asked for a clarification as to the transferring of a special 
use permit to a new landowner when a property is sold.  Mr. Boger said 
that both his office and that of the County Administrator do not favor 
transferring any special use permits to new owners, and that new owners 
should reapply so that each situation can be reviewed individually. 

All present agreed that special use permits should be recorded with the 
Clerk of the Circuit Court within 30 days of their being granted so that 
any title search by potential buyers would uncover this information. 

Mr. Bruguiere questioned why the number of employees for a business 
mattered in a special use permit application.  Mr. Brush and Ms. Proulx 
responded that when someone requests permission for an activity not 
normally allowed, all questions are important and must be answered 
truthfully and completely. 

Chapter 9:  Landscaping Regulations 
The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate the protection of the 
County's existing character - environmental resources, agricultural 
areas, open spaces, and corridors. 

Mr. Boger noted that together with Corridor Overlay districts - 
especially along US 29 -- landscaping can have a huge impact on the 
overall appearance of the County.  A good example of the need for 
landscaping requirements is the Food Lion area.  Parking lots with trees 
are far more attractive than open, concrete expanses, and even small 
trees are in high demand for shoppers due to the shade they provide. 

Dr. Walker asked for a clarification of sections B3 and B5 regarding 
landscape specifications and the use of a qualified professional.  Ms. 
Proulx responded that most developers of commercial property work with a 
surveyor, but if not, then they will have to contract the services of a 
Certified Landscape Architect so that site plans will be reliable when 
it comes to landscaping.  Mr. Boger said there can be problems when an 
applicant has no knowledge of plants or trees. 

Ms. Proulx supported the requirement for developers to avoid removing 
trees unnecessarily and to replace trees destroyed in road building by 
planting trees on internal streets and as a buffer along existing roads. 

Mr. Hoffman commented that it is easy to make a road through an area to 
be developed without clear-cutting the entire area, and that "there is 
no reason to clear-cut" in a housing development. 

Mr. Bruguiere said that clearcuts are acceptable and that if the buyers 
of new houses in a clearcut area want trees, they can plant trees 
themselves. 

Mr. Boger gave the example of the housing developer in the Avon area who 
did not replace any trees and is not required to do so under current 
zoning, causing neighbors in the surrounding area to complain.  A 
clearcut area in the Shipman area is also causing complaints by neighbors. 

Ms. Proulx pointed out that property rights have never been "absolute" 
and that they are defined within a society to serve the needs of that 
society as a whole. 

Meeting continued to December 10.