02-09-2005 Work Session1
L~~
ea~~ 23 -~~~ ~
WORK SESSION OF THE ISLE OF .WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HELD THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR
TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman
Thomas J. Wright, III, Vice-Chairman
Stan D. Clark
Richard K. MacManus (Arrived at 6:10 p.m.)
Also Attending:. Mark C. Popovich, Assistant County Attorney
W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator
Donald T. Robertson, Assistant
County Administrator/Operations
E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Assistant County
Administrator/Development
Anne F. Seward, Assistant County .Administrator/
Administt~ation
Carey Mills. Storm, Recording Secretary
Chairman Bradshaw called the meeting-to order at 6:00 p.m.
Chairman Bradshaw noted that the Board .had previously taken action
to set work sessions to review the proposed Zoning Ordinance in detail;
however, after further thought, it is the Board's consensus that it would not
be advantageous to spend the next two (2) months reviewing a document that
the Planning Commission, has already spent. three (3) years critiquing. He
stated that the Board now recommends returning the proposed ordinance to
the Planning Commission for 30-45 days.
Chairman Bradshaw advised that his concerns.. were related to
group/transitional homes and existing rural automobile repair shops. He
noted that staff is currently working on these issues outside of the proposed.
ordinance.. He suggested that staff wait until the outcome is known on the
ongoing group/transitional homes. legislation at the General Assembly. }
Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, advised that
staff had also met with representatives of Western Tidewater Community
Services Board to discuss its needs with respect to the type of needed
facilities. He stated .Chairman Bradshaw's concerns with respect to
group/transitional homes and existing rural automobile repair shops will be
addressed later in the Ordinance. He requested that the Board advise staff of
their concerns, so that those .issues may be taken back to the Planning
..Commission for discussion.
Supervisor Clark recalled. that. when the Board held its public hearing.
on the proposed Zoning Ordinance, certain.. developers and realtors came
forward at that time to voice .certain technical concerns. He stated that the
Board does not .have the Planning Commission's expertise, which has `been
L
acquired by developing the .proposed ordinance over a period of time. He
stated the County has one of the most qualified and dedicated planning
commissions in the State of Virginia, and he would recommend sending the
ordinance back to the Planning Commission to .discuss the concerns of
developers and realtors and make their own determination on whether such.
concerns are valid. •
Supervisor Wright stated the Planning Commission developed the
ordinance, not this Board. If a problem did arise; it could be addressed by
revising the ordinance in the future. He commended the members of the.
Planning Commission for developing such a good •working document to be
utilized by staff.
Supervisor Clark commented that the Planning Commission might
want. to appoint a subcommittee to address the concerns of developers and
realtors.
Planning Commissioner, James O'Briant suggested that the Board relay their
specific concerns tonight to .those Planning Commission members in
attendance; so that they can be addressed.
Supervisor MacManus arrived at the meeting at 6:10 p.m. He noted
that he had specific. questions on many of the sections contained in the
proposed ordinance. He stated he would like to be part of the Planning
Commission's discussions so that he can better understand the issues, and the
thought process behind the Planning Commission's actions.
Assistant County Attorney Popovich advised the Board that it should
amend its agenda if the Board wished to discuss specific. issues which have
not specifically been listed on the agenda for the work session tonight.
Supervisor Clark moved the Board amend the regular order of the
agenda in order•for the Board to discuss how it will generally proceed on the
proposed Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with the Planning Commission.
The motion was adopted (4-0} with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, MacManus
and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the
motion; and, Supervisor Bradby absent from the meeting.
Chairman Bradshaw commented that Supervisor. MacManus had
indicated that he wishes to attend the work sessions .held. by the Planning
Commission, and he called for concerns by Board members.
Supervisor Clark requested that the Planning Commission address.
landscaping in the Development Service Districts and the Highway Corridor
Overlay Districts, specifically with respect to the size of trees to be planted.
He noted his concern was based on the Eagle Harbor Subdivision and the
inadequate size of the trees :that were planted. He requested .that the
ordinance specify the type,. size and: diameter of trees to be planted, as well as
2
_. _ ..
..~,,,~
,~,R„...._,.,...,~~~..~~~..~... ,. _ . _......, . ,.. __ ,. ... . _... .,. . , . _.
agnit. ~J A. ~~
when the trees are to be planted, and who is .responsible for their upkeep and
maintenance, once planted.. He further expressed concern with .existing off-
premises governmental church and civic. organizational signs, .and how the
ordinance will allow for. the replacement. of those signs that are removed by
theft, weather, or other acts of God in the Highway Corridor Overlay District.
He sta±ed these signs are now nonconforming, and allowance. for their
replacement needs to be addressed if they are down for a specific period of
time. He stated architectural controls are-also necessary on how those signs
are replaced so that the nature of the signs also change with the times.
1
Supervisor Clark recalled that the development community had
expressed concerns with side and rear parking, and he directed Mr. Hartley to
consult with those individuals to address their specific concerns..
Mr. Hartley advised that an exception process is needed. in the Highway
Corridor Overlay District and the Newport .Development Service District,
unless the Board. or Planning Commission decides that no exceptions are
wanted.
3
Chairman Bradshaw requested that the Planning Commission provide
clarification inthe language that applies to the cluster rule.. He stated if a
landowner has 100 acres, currently that landowner can sell three (3) lots, and
the remaining 97 acres count as the fourth lot. He stated the cluster rule was
originally developed to protect the integrity. of the agricultural land in the
County, and. to provide widows of farmers, who are on fixed incomes,. an
opportunity to sell lots, as necessary, but not the entire farm. He stated his
concern is that widows can create four (4) new lots out of x.100 acre tract of
land, and still retain 96 acres for themselves. He further voiced a concern
with the lack of clarification of buffers, specifically: what is the length; who
is responsible for maintenance and what that maintenance involves; and, how
damaged or destroyed buffers are to be replaced. He noted that the current
ordinance does not specifically define buffers or how they will be controlled
and .maintained during their lives. He encouraged the Planning Commission
to develop strong language in the proposed. ordinance with respect to signs,
stating he is not sure if signs in the Newport District are even needed. He
stated the es of available housing in the various districts, such as
tYp
apartments, for working and. middle-class citizens,.. needs to be defined. He
expressed concern that staffdoes not currently utilize a database to keep track
of proffers and conditions .imposed on rezonings, and he recommended that
funds be allocated to bring the technology up-to-date in the upcoming
Operating Budget. He stated there should be follow-ups and inspections to
.ensure adherence to certain conditions. He requested that. Mr. Hartley
provide the Board with a report every ..quarter versus .the .annual report he
currently provides.
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Board had any comments on the
commercial side. and rear. parking requirement versus the no-front building
parking.
~~r,~ ~3 .~r ~~
Supervisor Wright commented that the public should always have a
.method of recourse.
Supervisor MacManus noted that traditionally the Board had site plans
come back to the Board for final approval. He inquired if the Board had any
comments with respect to that tradition being carried on in the new Zoning
Ordinance..
Supervisor Clark noted that. all procedures are currently working well,
and he directed that staff advise the Board of any differences in the authority '
and decision-making process in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Hartley advised that there is a formal preliminary site plan review
process. that goes to the Planning Commission only in the proposed
ordinance, unless the developer makes an appeal to the Board.,
Supervisor MacManus recommended that all site plan approvals come
before the. Board which are located in the Highway Corridor Overlay District,
and that other site plans come before the Board on a preliminary basis until
the Board feels more comfortable.
Mr. Hartley suggested that when staff sends site plans to the Planning
Commission, that they also send a copy to the Board for its comments.
Supervisor Clark requested that staff list all site plans in the Consent
Agenda so that the Board can make comments, if desired.
Beverly Walkup, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, advised
that the Highway Corridor Overlay District, as proposed, extends outside of
.the development service districts. She stated currently the, Board only
reviews the sites that are located along the arterial roads within the
development service districts; however, under the proposed ordinance, the
Board will be reviewing .all primaries. She stated the Newport Development
Service District encompasses the entire development service district, and all
non-residential site plans, to include commercial and residential multi-family,
will be routinely reviewed by the Board.
Supervisor Clark .stated: he will .feel more comfortable when the time
comes that the Board is satisfied with the way projects .are being landscaped
by applicants, without the Board having to intervene. He noted. that the
Planning Commission may wish to formulate a site plan subcommittee in the
meantime.
Supervisor MacManus clarified that the Board wants to keep the
process it currently has, which is that within the Highway Corridor Overlay
District,. as a procedure requirement, site plans be reviewed by the Board,
which is informal now,. and make. other reviews informal for a while to see if
4
,.,~. _. _ .. a... _:....., . v _ , _...
~;.,
1
1
1
9o~~~K 23 .~ fi3
the Board is comfortable .dropping out and .not put it into. the Zoning
Ordinance as a review process requirement.
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Board .had any comments on
setback increases in the Highway Corridor Overlay District,
Chairman Bradshaw inquired how setback ` requirements in the
Highway Corridor Overlay District are predicted to affect industrial sites.
along Business. 58.
Patrick J. Small, Director of Economic Development, advised that all
property along the railroad .track would utilize the. exception process..
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Board had any concerns to relay
to the Planning Commission concerning. Conditional Use Permits for. drive-
through .facilities.
Supervisor Clark stated Conditional Use Permits should be required for
drive-through facilities.
Supervisor MacManus recalled that a concern was expressed on .the
density per acre for multi-unit homes going from 16 units to 14 units. He
inquired if the. Board .had any corr~ments. .
No comments were offered by the Board members.
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Board had any comments with
respect to a garage being located in front of a front door... He stated the
recommendation was .not to support garages being located in :front of the
front door.
Supervisor Clark commented. that the .Board. would be asking the
Planning Commission for its recommendation on garage placement issues.
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Board had any comments relative
.o design compatibility in the Newport Development Service District..
Supervisor Clark stated that while a compatible use may not always be
evident, incompatible uses will always be apparent. He stated that there
should be some flexibility on what is compatible and what is not compatible.
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Board had any comments on the
slope change increase.
Chairman Bradshaw suggested staff contact the Army Corps of
Engineers to determine slope references utilized by the Corps..
5
~a~K 23 ;:;.~~ 64
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Board had any `feedback to
provide to the Planning Commission on the footprint size limitation.
.Supervisor Clark noted his concern is not with the County having "big
box" stores, but rather that they be located far enough off the main
thoroughfares and landscaped properly,. 'to the design and architectural
specifications of the County. He stated he preferred not to make any policy
decisions regarding market forces. He stated it is not the Board's job to
prevent these .facilities from locating in the County because of what they
might do to existing businesses. He stated it is a design and aesthetic
concern, and not any policy. or market force statement that the Board is
making about the impact of a big box store on the .community.
Supervisor Wright suggested that if a big box store locates in the
County, and for whatever reason it must vacate, that it be required. to restore
the site to its original appearance.
Supervisor MacManus commented that he would meet with Mr.
Hartley to discuss his individual concerns. He noted that any- concerns he
could not get resolved with staff, he would bring to the Planning Commission
for further clarification.
Mr. Hartley stated this matter will come back to the Board at its April
21, 2005 meeting for consideration.
Supervisor Clark .moved that the Board refer the proposed Zoning
Ordinance back to the Planning Commission; that the Planning Commission
continue to follow the schedule outlined by staff; that the specific concerns of
the Board tonight be addressed by the Planning Commission; :that the ,
Planning Commission meet with the development community to address its
concerns; and, that staff .bring the proposed Zoning Ordinance back to the
Board at its April 21, 2005 meeting. The motion was adopted (4-0) with
Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, MacManus and Wright voting in favor of the
motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and,. Supervisor Bradby
absent from the meeting.
E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Assistant County
Administrator/Development, inquired if another public hearing would be
required if the Planning Commission made any significant changes as it goes.
back through the ordinance.
Assistant.. County Attorney Popovich .advised that making any
significant .changes would necessitate the need for an additional public
hearing on the ordinance.
Supervisor Clark moved the Board cancel the remaining advertised
work sessions on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The motion was .adopted
(4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, MacManus and Wright voting in
6
~~~~{ 2,3 ~= ~5
favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the .motion;. and,
SupervisorBradby absent from the meeting.
Supervisor Clark moved the Board .adjourn its work .session. The
motion. was adopted (4-0} with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, MacManus and
Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the
motion; and, Supervisor Bradby absent from the meeting.
P ip A. Bradshaw, Chairman
W. Dougla Ca -ey, Clerk
i
7 s
j