Loading...
07-22-1996 Continued Meeting1 t ~. eooa. ~E ~~ ` ~ ~~ CONTINUED MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY-SECOND. DAY OF JULY IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED 1\TINETY SIX PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman Henry. H. Bradby, Vice Chairman O. A. Spady Robert C. Claud, Sr. Malcolm T. Cofer Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney W. Douglas Casket', County Administrator Carey H. Mills, Assistant Clerk Chairman Bradshaw called the .work session to order at 7:00 p.m. // Robert P. Leber, Chairman, Planning Commission, stated the proposed Zoning Ordinance is being updated to incorporate practices developed over the last severaldecades and to make the Zoning Ordinance user friendly. Mr. Leber stated that while it is not .the desire of the Planning Commission to make the ordinance more restrictive than current practices, there is a more restrictive procedure provided relative to how land is developed for residential development in a rural area, i.e., size of the lot, type of lot and procedure a developer must go through. Mr. Leber stated citizens have expressed a desire to keep the rural nature of the County, which equates to approximately 70% of the land area. Mr. Leber stated the other areas of the proposed Zoning Ordinance may give the .appearance of being .more restrictive, however, they are only incorporating what the County currently does now. R. Bryan .David, Director of Planning and Zoning, began his presentation noting land use is divided into four categories with different subcategories, i.e., two commercial zones, two proposed agricultural zoning districts and the rural agricultural conservation district. As proposed, the agricultural zoning districts would still apply in the development areas and the proposed Zoning Ordinance would not change the zoning of all the existing agricultural land in the development areas. Mr. David stated the h 'f h h 1 intent is t at i a developer wishes to propose a c ange in zoning, t e change in zoning would. be changed to the higher zone within the development area and the land owners would still be able to farm.. Mr. .David stated the change in zoning allows the County to have conditional zoning and all the proffers that go along with it. Mr. David stated the County currently has several residential districts which are proposed for expansion. Mr. David stated the Neighborhood Conservation District holds the County's current standards in place as it relates to subdivisions. Mr. David stated the Community Center District is a special zoning district for community centers which need defining and offers a higher level. of protective zoning. Mr. David stated suburban estates consist of 30,000 square foot lots and suburban residential lots of 12,000 squaze feet with urban residential being the most intensive land use the County has. Mr. 1 BOOK 1V rr::: X20 David stated the County currently has M-1, limited industrial, and M-2, general industrial zoning districts. Mr. David stated planned development districts are new under the proposed Zoning Ordinance and their intent is to allow creativity on the developer's part as to how the lots are laved out. Mr. David stated the County currently does not have anything which addresses the mixed use industrial parks and the proposed .Zoning Ordinance offers more creativity for the developer. Mr. David. stated copies of the proposed Zoning Ordinance were sent to the Tidewater Builders Association and the Peninsula Home Builders Association, both of which support it. Mr. David stated there have been no changes to the special overlay zoning districts, highway corridor districts and the flood plain management district. Mr. David stated the zoning definition list contained in the proposed Zoning Ordinance was .expanded to enable citizens to easily understand their meaning. Mr. David stated the proposed Zoning Ordinance, as it relates to offstreet vehicle parking, attempts. to provide. a minimum necessary parking area which still allows safe, convenient parking for citizens. Mr. David stated the Planning Commission felt there should be a lot of landscaping and buffer yards. Mr. David stated the proposed Zoning Ordinance does contain a formal process for site plans. Mr. David. stated there are no changes in the Board of .Zoning Appeals' duties and conditional uses also remain unchanged. Mr. David stated supplemental use. standards are different in that in certain circumstances residents may revert their garages into apartments for family members rather than applying for a conditional use permit to locate. mobile homes. Mr. David stated adult entertainment establishments and borrow pits. remain the same. Mr. David stated child day care centers have changed to reflect State law. Mr. David stated the Planning Commission- will-.hold a public hearing on communication: antennas next month. Mr. David stated zone regulations lay out lots sizes, widths and setbacks and-.the current Zoning Ordinance requires a certain amount of linear feet along a public street, however, what is being proposed is a required lot width at the setback line. Mr. David stated one significant departure from the current Zoning .ordinance is that the proposed Zoning Ordinance is more .restrictive in the .rural areas because it allows a certain. amount of lots based on the overall tract size. Mr. David stated a family member subdivision situation can be a possible exemption for this situation. Mr. David stated, if adopted, he would prepare a pamphlet which could be distributed to .citizens outlining the highlights of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance. Supervisor Spady asked if the agricultural zone addresses the overwhelming amount of development along rural agricultural roads. Mr. David offered to provide the Board with scenarios illustrating the number of lots which could be developed from a particular tract of .land. Mr. David stated, as proposed, if an individual has twenty acres of land, they would be allowed to subdivide one lot; however, if an individual had fifteen acres, the tract would not be subdividable. Mr. David stated a one hundred acre tract would yield. four lots. which could range in size and still allow some return on the. property. Mr. Spady asked. Mr. David if the Planning Commission addressed the issue of land use assessment. 1 1 2 ~I 1 eon ~E ., ; 7~~ Mr. Leber confirmed that ~ the Planning Commission addressed taxation from the- standpoint that sufficient land would be available for industrial use. Mr. Leber stated the farming community expressed concern with conflicting activities and that when they retire they want to be able to sell off the land. Mr. Leber stated his comment to the farmers was as the yellow section needs to expand, same will be done in a logical fashion. Supervisor Claud stated in looking at the provisions that have changed the most or potentially have the biggest impact, is this all that can be done in the rural areas as to how the parcels are divided up .and is this where the greatest impact will be? Mr. David stated it is more restrictive on what citizens can do, however, it is not so restrictive that some return on their properties can be ' realized. County Attorney Crook stated the County will feel the biggest. impact when the next reassessment is performed because the assessment is based on comparable land values. County Attorney Crook stated. the County will no longer allow strip development along the roads when it adopts this ordinance. County Attorney Crook stated the assessors assess front footage on the road and the potential for development into lots, and the farm land in agricultural conservation districts is going to decrease on tax assessments while the land in the yellow (development) areas will go tremendously high on assessments because the County. must have a certain amount of tax revenue from real estate. 1 Supervisor Spady stated land use assessment was put in place in the 1970's to preserve the rural character and provide farm owners a tax break. Supervisor Spady .stated in comparison to other counties that did not implement land use, these farmers have survived just as well as farmers in counties who offered land use. County Attorney Crook stated land use. cuts down on farm sales. Mr. Crook stated land owners today do not receive sufficient- rent to pay the taxes on their farms and they, therefore, need land use to pay their taxes. County Attorney Crook reiterated that land use does preserve farms and keeps them in small ownerships. County Attorney Crook stated the Board will hear from the landowners in the yellow areas when the reassessment is done because their land .values .will increase drastically. Chairman Bradshaw stated .the Commissioner of the Revenue can choose the land use rate. Supervisor Cofer noted the Board will need to spend additional time on the new areas in the .proposed Zoning Ordinance in order to better understand them. 1 Mr. David offered to provide the Board at their next meeting scenarios of how land could be developed given different tract sizes, rnsts involved with building roads, costs for water systems and how same will apply to tracts of land. 3 BOON ~6 >r 7~O Supervisor Cofer requested Mr. David to cover all. the new districts with a report on the intensive. industrial zone mentioned in' the letter from john Woltman, Union Camp. Chairman Bradshaw: requested Mr. David #o take -each district and create scenarios on how they can be developed,. to include detailed information. on the new districts. Chairman Bradshaw asked about the property. which was down zoned in the past. County Administrator Casket' stated the proposed Zoning Ordinance does not. propose changing the current zoning of any parcels of land, however, the Board does have the ability to make such changes. Supervisor Spady asked if the County adopts the proposed Zoning Ordinance, will .the Board designate it as industrial limited or left as agricul#ural zoning. Mr. David stated it would be the discretion of this Board, as any local ' governing body in doing a comprehensive rezoning, to up or down zone a given piece of property. County Attorney .Crook stated at the time the Board adopts the Zoning Ordinance, the Board may wish to revisit whether or not it wants to offer. land use because land values will decrease. Supervisor Spady stated if the Board does choose not to offer land use in the yellow area, the Board is defeating the purpose because once the land use is deleted from that area the. Board is implying this property be developed. County Attorney Crook stated the Board may wish to consider changing the yellow development areas because there is farm land in these areas that should. not be in development districts. 1VIr. Crook further suggested that the Board begin the process to update its Comprehensive Plan which is required every five years. Mr. David stated .the agricultural lands will transition at some point from being farm land to developed land. Chairman Bradshaw expressed a concern with the silvacultural activities protection, 1VIr. David stated the only restriction in this section affects properties along the County's major. corridors in the .growth areas. Mr. David stated the .County's existing Zoning Ordinance states that within seventy .feet of the right-of-.way an individual can clear cut trees or take out 70% of the trees eight inches or more in diameter. 1VIr. David .stated the Planning Commission felt it a better approach. to reduce the .amount to fifty feet off the right-of-way. Mr. David stated if an individual wishes to cut within the buffer area, they can appear before the Planning Commission and Board to 4 1 .•. rl eooN 16 ~~:::-7`31 present a cutting plan.. ~, ~_J Chairman Bradshaw stated the Board could, on a County-wide basis, adopt the Virginia Forestry's recommendations. Mr. David stated a Bill was introduced taking away the ability of localities to keep buffers regardless of location and how` they were administered which was carried over to the next General Assembly session so that VACo and other organizations could have input and seek a common . ground with the forestry. industry.. Mr. David stated a buffer area must be maintained if a property fronts a road or adjoining property and, if not there, it will have to be created. Chairman Bradshaw asked if trees that are fifteen/sixteen inches in diameter -which are thirty-five or more years must be replaced if they die. Mr. David stated there are currently no stipulations that property owners must replace the trees, however, they do have to maintain the buffer area. Chairman Bradshaw stated the proposed Zoning Ordinance will not allow property owners to cut high. value timber located in the buffer area. Chairman Bradshaw asked who will pay the. individual for timber he will not be allowed to cut. 1 1 Supervisor Cofer stated he believes only the overriding effects of the proposed Zoning Ordinance is what the Board needs to review today. Supervisor Cofer stated the buffer issue is an issue which requires -fine tuning. Supervisor Spady requested Mr. David. prepare scenarios -for the Board's agenda in August, or perhaps before, and anything further that comes up in the meantime the Board. members will contact him with questions and by the next Board meeting the Board may determine whether or not they ,need an additional meeting or set a public hearing in September or .October. Supervisor. Cofer moved the Board adjourn the- meeting at 8:43 p.m. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). W. Dou as skey, Cl ;'~~ ~ -, h' A. Bradshaw, Chairman 5 i _ _._ ..