Loading...
DRRC 04-27-17 Meeting MinutesDRRC Meeting Summary for 04/27/2017 Members Present: Unger, Kenney, Ambrogi, Stowe, Shenk, Oates, Wilmot, Banks Members Absent: Thomas, Wagner Staff Present: M. Tyler Klein, AICP Others Present: Jeremy Tweedie, Patrick Sowers, Brooke Middleton, Chris Damewood The meeting called to order at approximately 7PM. Item #1 – Residential Separation Buffer Waiver. Discussion of a request to include a waiver opportunity for residential separation buffers in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. Staff provided an overview of the proposed ordinance amendment to allow a waiver, reduction, or removal of the required residential separation buffer requirement between dissimilar housing types pending certain conditions were satisfied. Staff noted this request was initiated by Jeremy Tweddie, who was present to offer any additional comments. Staff also noted Patrick Sowers was present, and he also proposed a subsequent amendment to allow for the buffer requirement to be waived entirely if the buffer on an adjacent property satisfied the Zoning Ordinance requirement. The DRRC discussion focused primarily on buffer maintenance and up keep; the DRRC expressed concern that the owner of the buffer already in place should be notified and come to some mutual agreement with the Applicant for the waiver regarding buffer maintenance. Mr. Tweedie and Mr. Sowers expressed concern with having to get that type of agreement, noting it may be prohibitive and/or they may not be able to reach a resolution. Staff noted a desire to maintain the requirement for adjacent owner consent to protect the County from having to enforce buffer up keep. The DRRC agreed to remove the cap on the number of lots in a development that could request a buffer waiver and also recommended allowing the Zoning Administrator, rather than the Board of Supervisors, approve the waiver to allow a more timely approval of the modification request. The DRRC requested staff take the feedback from the discussion and revise the proposed ordinance amendment and bring it back to the committee in May 2017 for further discussion. Subsequent to the discussion regarding the residential separation buffers request, Staff noted Mr. Sowers also sought an amendment that was not included in the Agenda to allow encroachment of townhome decks into the active portion of a required buffer area. Mr. Sowers noted that sheds, parking areas and drive-aisles were already allowed to encroach into these areas. Staff expressed concern with the request, noting decks increased the intensity and massing of the structure into the buffer; the DRRC agreed and was not supportive of the request. Staff noted that the inactive portion of the buffer typically functions as open space/common area and townhomes with their already limited rear yards would be further diminished by allowing encroachment. The DRRC did not recommend sending the requested amendment to allow extension of townhouse decks within the active portion of residential separation buffer to the Planning Commission for discussion. Item #2 – Recreation Facilities Waiver. Discussion of a request included a waiver opportunity for recreation facilities (units) for subdivisions containing less than 25 lots in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. Staff provided an overview of the proposed ordinance amend to include a waiver opportunity for recreation facilities (units) for subdivisions containing less than 25 lots in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. Staff also shared a letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation, dated April 27, 2017, expressing concern with the request, which would place additional burden on the County to provide recreational facilities to residents at the County’s expense. Staff further noted the County has been successful in having every development provide recreational amenities that are within walking distance of almost every household. Mr. Tweedie noted that the reason for this requested amendment was concern over liability and costs for smaller infill-type communities (and Homeowners Associations – HOAs) which would be at risk with these types of facilities being required. The DRRC noted that giving limited funding for capital improvements by the County necessitated the need for developers to put in these types of facilities. The DRRC did not recommend sending the requested amendment, to allow for a waiver of the recreation facilities unit requirement to the Planning Commission for discussion. Mr. Tweedie was instructed to speak with the County Attorney’s office and the Department of Parks and Recreation to identify if other solutions may be on the table. Item #3 – Slaughterhouses as a CUP in the RA District. Discussion of a request to include “slaughterhouses” as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Staff provided an overview of a request to add “slaughterhouses” as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District; staff noted they had provided a new definition and additional supplemental use regulations as part of this request. Staff further noted inclusion of a table comparing other Virginia localities ordinances that address slaughterhouse-type uses. The applicant for the request, Brooke Middleton and his associate Chris Damewood, were present and explained they were currently operating a slaughterhouse as a “non-conforming use” (former DeHaven Farm) and had plans to expand this facility and/or relocate to a new property, which would discontinue their non-conforming use. Staff noted that currently there is not slaughterhouse use in the ordinance other than “Meat Products” allowed by-right in the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning District. Staff stated this use was supported by the County’s policies to encourage and further agribusiness in the RA district. Given the use would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) staff noted they would consider each request on a case-by-case basis. The DRRC requested revisions to the supplemental use regulations including: removal of the requirement to fully enclose structures, but still requiring them to be under roof; and capping the maximum building square footage at 20,000 square feet (SF). This would allow for flexibility but also ensure it would not become an industrial-type facility. The DRRC further expressed their support for allowing this use type pending it did not create a “noxious” use disruptive to adjacent property owners. The Applicant for the requested amendment was in agreement with the proposed changes; and noted their future facility would be no more than 12,000 SF. The DRRC recommended sending the requested amendment, to allow slaughterhouses as a conditional use in the RA district, including those changes discussed to the supplemental use regulations to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Staff noted this item would go to the Planning Commission in June 2017. There were no other items discussed. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 25, 2017. The meeting adjourned at 8:40pm.