HomeMy Public PortalAbout03_17_16 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urg in Virginia
Leesburg Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2016
The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, March 3, 2016 in the Town Council
Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Susan
Berry -Hill, Debi Perry, Scott Parker, Brian Boucher and Shelby Caputo
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Baines, Burk, Harper,
Kidder, and Robinson and Vice Mayor Burk
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Commissioner Harper
Second: Commissioner Robinson
Vote: 7-0 (Burk absent)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 3, 2016
Commissioner Harper noted that she had spoken with Karen Cicalese, Commission Clerk,
regarding corrections about concerns she had expressed about traffic impact analysis during the
Commission's discussion of two -over -twos found on the bottom of Page 4. These edits had been
completed prior to tonight's meeting.
Motion: Commissioner Harper
Second: Commissioner Robinson
Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk abstained as he was absent from the meeting)
DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS
None
Com: G7i'i►T/ll�fi.X`111IYY flu 1 �1►11y
Chairman Welsh Chamblin thanked all for attending as well as whoever was responsible for
leaving the St. Patrick's Day goodies on the dais and wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick's
Day.
PETITIONERS
None
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING
TLSE-2015-0014, Ugarte Home Daycare Public Hearing, Scott Parker, Assistant Town
Manager
Chairman Welsh Chamblin opened the public hearing at 7:05 pm.
Scott Parker, Assistant Town Manager explained that this was a special exception request for
a family day home to be located at 187 Alpine Drive, SE, in Evergreen Meadows. Over the
last few years, due to different Virginia State licensing requirements, it is necessary to have
local zoning in place prior to state licensing daycare centers for 6 to 12 children. This use is
allowable by special exception in residential zoning districts and Staff has analyzed the
proposed use at this location. No new building improvements are proposed with this
application. The interior and operational aspects of the daycare center are licensed by the
State of Virginia through the Virginia Department of Social Services. Mr. Parker discussed
the site conditions which include a. 18 acre single family detached lot; two neighboring
homes on either side; homes across the street; and an HOA open space behind the house
which is a storm water management facility otherwise known as the Stower's Pond, typically
not containing water. The Town Plan has designated this area as low density residential and
is zoned PRC (Planned Residential Community) in the Zoning Ordinance. There are two
specific use criteria for child care facility under Section 9.4.7.0 (TLZO 9.3.4 was formerly
used and is referenced in the Staff Report). Section 9.4.7.0 defines family day home and
parallels language used by the State. General approval criteria for special exceptions under
TLZO Section 3.4.12 include the following:
1. The Family Day Home shall comply with any and all requirements of the Town and
State Codes, including without limitation, obtaining a Home Occupation Permit,
maintenance of a Town Business license, and obtaining a State Family Day Home
License in accordance with the State Code as applicable. — Once the special exception
has been approved, the Applicant will update as required.
2. The Family Day Home shall comply with any and all requirements of the County and
State Building Codes. - The Applicant has acknowledged this requirement
3. If the proposed location of the Family Day Home is subject to a Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for a Homeowners Association (HOA), then
prior to the issuance of the Home Occupation Permit, the Family Day Home provider
shall provide the Town with documentation whether or not the use is allowable under
applicable HOA Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. - The Applicant has
provided HOA documentation and there are no issues related to the HOA.
4. The Family Day Home lot must be at least 6,000 square feet in size. — The
Applicant's lot size is .18 acres or 7,840 square feet.
5. There shall be no more than two employees for a Family Day Home. The Applicant
shall demonstrate availability of employee parking onsite or along the street. — The
Applicant has one employee and parking is provided on the street.
6. Child drop-off and pick-up locations shall be designated to enhance the safety of
children as they arrive and depart. A designated arrival and departure zone shall be
located adjacent to the Family Day Home Center in such a manner that children do
not have to cross the street to enter or exit the home. - Children will be dropped off
in the driveway and arrival/departure areas are adjacent to the home. No street
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
crossings are necessary.
7. Family Day Homes shall stagger pick-up and drop-off times such that there are never
more than two vehicles picking -up or dropping -off at one time. — The Applicant has
indicated that her pick-up and drop-off times are staggered.
8. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the Family Day Home or lot
nor other visible evidence of the conduct of a Family Day Home other than what may
be required by the State Family Day Home License or provisions elsewhere in this
Zoning Ordinance. — There will be no changes to the outside appearance of the home.
9. Seventy -Five (75) square feet of outdoor play area must be provided on-site per child
except as follows: No outdoor play area shall be required on-site when the applicant
can demonstrate the Family Day Home is located within 1,000 feet of an existing
park or play lot that is at least twice the area otherwise required for the home care
service. The park or play lot must be public or owned by the homeowners'
association to which the residence belongs and must be accessed without crossing an
arterial or collector road. The outdoor play area must be shown on a plat to scale
submitted at the time of application for the permit. — Per the ordinance, 900 square
feet is required on site. The Applicant provides 3,200 square feet within the rear
yard.
10. Fencing: Outdoor play area must be enclosed by a fence with a minimum height of
four (4) feet. — The outdoor play area is completely enclosed by a wooden fence that
is six (6) feet in height.
11. Play Equipment Location: No play equipment shall be located within the required
yard setbacks. — There is no play equipment within the side yard setbacks.
12. Pathway to Facility: There must be a continuous hard -surface pathway/sidewalk
connecting the drop-off and pick-up location to the entrance of the Family Day
Home. The pathway shall be kept free of any snow or ice. — A pathway to the home
is provided.
Special Exception Approval Criteria TLZO Section 3.4.12 have all been met as there is no
adverse impact to neighboring properties; the uses comply with Zoning and Town Plan;
development of nearby lands is not hindered; and traffic generation does not create a
problem.
Conditions of Approval outlined in the Staff Report dated March 17, 2016 have been met and
include substantial conformance; no implied waivers; recreational fencing maintained in
good repair; maximum number of children (12); no play equipment located within setbacks;
drop-off and pick-up times are staggered; hours of operation: 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday
thio Friday; and termination of use clause indicating that this special exception use does not
stay with the property should the Applicant move.
Mr. Parker concluded with Staff s recommendation that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of TLSE-2015-0014, Mary's Daycare, subject to the conditions of
TLZO Section 9.4.7, Family Day Homes and TLZO Section 3.4.12, Special Exception
Approval Criteria, as well as other conditions of approval contained in the March 17, 2016
Planning Commission Staff Report.
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked the Applicant if she had anything that she wished to
present.
Mary Ugarte, the Applicant, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be a child care
provider. She noted that she had her next door neighbors with her this evening that can
speak on her behalf and answer any questions the Commission may have.
Amy Rodrigues, 126 Balch Springs Circle, Leesburg, came forward to share her experience
with Mary's Daycare. Her 7 month old son goes to Mary's Daycare. Mary is a neighbor and
had been recommended to her by several other neighbors. Mary is very loving and
compassionate and is wonderful with children. She requested that the Planning Commission
send their approval of this application.
Heather Woods, 187 Alpine Drive, Leesburg, came forward and noted her support of this
application. She explained that her daughter goes to Mary's Daycare and the neighbor's
child who lives across the street does as well. Mary is an excellent provider.
Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification on the termination of use. Mr. Parker
explained that it is in the zoning ordinance and has been included in a number of
applications. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning further
explained that Family Day Home applications are of such a personal nature and that often the
use in a particular residential neighborhood depends somewhat on how it is being operated
under Virginia Department of Social Service rules. These special exceptions will
automatically terminate and don't run with the land. Typically special exception approvals
run with the land; i.e. a fast food restaurant can be replaced with another fast food restaurant
in that same location.
Commissioner Babbin noted that she had spoken with Mr. Parker earlier in the day regarding
one of the conditions being that there would be no disturbance to the neighbors in terms of
the Leesburg Noise Ordinance and asked why it was not included in the list of conditions.
Mr. Parker explained that this condition is covered in TLZO Section 3.4.2, Use Standards, as
the first one states no adverse impact to neighbor properties. There are provisions where the
noise ordinance does apply and he researched this after they spoke earlier. There have been
no noise complaints, to his knowledge, with home based child care centers. Going forward,
if there is a problem; it will be treated as a zoning violation as it will not be in compliance
with the special exception approval. If the violation were to continue; action could be taken
and the special exception use could be revoked by Town Council.
Commissioner Harper asked if the maximum number of 12 included the owner/operator's
children. Mr. Parker answered that it did not; however there were no children residing in the
home. Commissioner Harper asked how many children were currently at this child care
center. Mr. Parker answered that there are 5 children currently. Commissioner Harper asked
if they were all under the age of two. Mr. Parker answered that there are 3 children under the
age of 2.
Commissioner Babbin noted that she was really impressed with the letters of
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
recommendation sent by the neighbors and asked if any objections, either oral or written, had
been received. Mr. Parker answered that he had not received any objections
Chairman Welsh Chamblin closed the public hearing at 7:26 and solicited Planning
Commission discussion and comments.
Commissioner Barnes commented that it was a straight forward application and had no
comments or concerns.
Commissioner Kidder commented that she thought this was an excellent application.
Commissioner Babbin commented that she had a basic problem with home daycare for this
many children; however the ordinance allows it and the State has allowed for it. This is an
unusual application; and she noted that she was very impressed by the letters from the
neighbors. She expressed concern regarding the impact on the neighbors. She referenced a
recent application for a day care center at the Village at Leesburg and noted that the
Commission had expressed concerns regarding the noise impact on the apartments above the
play lot. It was her opinion that the noise impact in this situation would be minimal because
of the geographic setting of this house. She noted that she would be voting for this
application; however she will do so with some hesitancy and would like to stress the
uniqueness of this application. Future applications should be looked at very carefully in
terms of potential noise impact.
Commissioner Harper stated that it was a great application and appreciated the neighbors'
encouragement. She expressed concerns regarding the number of children; limited help and
state regulations regarding assistance for children under 2; enforcement of staggered drop-off
and pick-up; noise; and traffic. Due to her concerns she could not support a daycare center
for 12 children.
Commissioner Kidder made the following motion:
I move that special exception application TLSE-2015-0014, Mary's Daycare be forwarded to
the Town Council with a recommendation of conditional approval, subject to the conditions
contained in the staff report dated March 17, 2016 on the basis that the approval criteria of
Zoning Ordinance Sections 3.4.12 and 9.3.4 have been satisfied and that the proposal would
serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.
Commissioner Burk seconded the motion.
Commissioner Robinson proposed an amendment to replace Section 9.3.4 with Section 9.4.7.
Commissioner Burk explained that this was a correction and not an amendment.
Vote: 6-0-1 (Nay—Harper)
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
None
ZONING
None
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
None
COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT
None
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
STAFF DISCUSSION
None
OLD BUSINESS
Bylaws Discussion and Action
Chairman Welsh Chamblin noted that they had not received the updated code references and
wished to defer action until that information had been updated in the bylaws.
Commissioner Burk noted that on Page 3, Section 1.3.5 currently reads "Vacancies in any office
shall be filled by the above election procedures". The proposed change to that is "Vacancies in
any office shall be filled as set out in Section 2-194 of the Town Code." Section 2-194 of the
Town Code refers to filling vacancies on the Planning Commission; however this section of the
bylaws refers to vacancies of the officer positions. He was under the opinion that Section 1.3.5
should remain unchanged. Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney agreed that the language
should remain the same and explained that she had mistakenly read it as vacancies on the
commission.
Commissioner Babbin wished to discuss Section 2.5. It was discussed at the last meeting and
both she and Mr. Boucher had proposed language. She had spoken with Mr. Boucher earlier and
both were in agreement of keeping the language simple. There is a revised sheet that was handed
out at the dais with the revised language to Section 2.5.
Mr. Boucher explained that the purpose of the revised language is to give certainty to the
development community of what is expected of them when resubmitting materials to the
Planning Commission.
After further discussion the Planning Commission agreed to replace "3 weeks" with "twenty-one
days" and to add the following proposed language:
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
"Notwithstanding the above, the Commission authorizes staff to substitute a more reasonable
time frame to consider submitted materials based on the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the particular case."
Commissioner Barnes inquired about the code reference changes.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin explained that that was what she had referred to in her initial
comment. There are a number of comments where updates are needed; however the language
had not been provided and she would like to postpone voting until the updated language has been
provided. Ms. Caputo explained that not all the code references are recent, and for whatever
reason, were not included in previous bylaw updates. The Zoning Ordinance itself still refers to
the old Chapter 13 of the Town Code. That will be updated during the next Batch so she is
unable to provide an amended zoning ordinance provision. The next Batch will include Chapter
2 and take out Chapter 13.
Commissioner Kidder wished to include language that would require the Commissioners to
address additional information requests to the Chair so that all Commissioners had an
opportunity to opine on the request to determine its' appropriateness. Should direction be given
to the applicant or staff, it would be given from the Planning Commission as a whole and not
from an individual member. She suggested the following language be inserted into the bylaws:
"Individual commissioners may make suggested changes or request additional information from
applicants or staff during the discussion of land development applications or other agenda items.
If a majority of the Commissioners agree that such a request is reasonable and appropriate, the
Chair will give the direction to the applicant or staff to consider the suggestion or obtain the
additional information."
The majority of the Planning Commission members were in support of adding this language to
the bylaws.
Commissioner Robinson referenced Page 8 of the bylaws and asked if the Town has any
designated corridors of State significance. Susan Berry -Hill, Director, Department of Planning
and Zoning answered that she thought Route 7 / East Market is a corridor of State significance.
Commissioner Robinson noted that when she looked at the map she didn't see a corridor of State
significance listed and felt that section could be eliminated.
Commissioner Robinson referenced Attachment Three of the bylaws regarding recommendations
on rezonings and asked if any proffer amendments were relevant on rezonings. Ms. Berry -Hill
explained that the section she was referring to related to Ordinance Text Amendments and not
applicant initiated land development applications; however she would review to determine if this
section should remain in the bylaws prior to the next meeting.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if there were any other changes to the bylaws that needed to be
discussed. Seeing none, she noted that the Commission would vote on adopting the bylaws at
their next meeting on April 7, 2016.
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
NEW BUSINESS
Planning Commission Annual Retreat
General Assembly Actions — Senate Bill 549 — Brian Boucher, Deputy Director,
Department of Planning and Zoning
Mr. Boucher gave an overview of the new proffer legislation. On March 7, 2016, Senate
Bill 549 was signed into law by Governor McAuliffe. This will become effective on July
1, 2016 and is generally intended to protect residential developers from unreasonable
proffers inflicted upon them by the locality. This legislation applies only to residential
development. In a mixed use development; it will only apply to the residential
component of that development. The legislation defines two types of unreasonable
proffers; one is an on-site proffer which is a proffer addressing an impact on the property
to be developed and does not include cash proffers. The other is off-site proffers which
address an impact outside the boundaries of the property and includes all cash proffers.
The legislation also defines when a proffer is unreasonable under this statute. An on-site
proffer is deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically
attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use
applied for. An off-site proffer is deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact to
an off-site public facility such that (a) the new residential development or new residential
use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility
improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or
proffer condition amendment and (b) each such new residential development or new
residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with
respect to any such public facility improvements. One of the significant changes in this
legislation deals with the burden of proof. Through time, in case law, when legislature
acts; i.e. Town Council, it was presumed reasonable. Which meant that if someone was
challenging a land use decision that the Town Council had made, that person had the
burden of proof to demonstrate that it was unreasonable. This legislation reverses that
presumption. If a claim is made that a rezoning was denied because the developer failed
to comply with what they consider to be an unreasonable proffer; the burden of proof is
on the Town to demonstrate that the reason for denial was reasonable. A second
significant change deals with remedies. If a locality loses a legal action, the applicant
may be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. Also, the locality may be ordered
by the courts to approve the rezoning without inclusion of the proffer found to be
unreasonable; and will have no more than 90 days to approve the rezoning from the date
of the court's order to do so. This law, which becomes effective July 1, 2016, is not
retroactive and will only apply to residential rezoning applications submitted after July 1,
2016. There are a number of rezonings in the land development application process
currently and this law does not technically apply to those; however, should they get
approved and in the future an amendment is proposed, the Town will be held to the new
standard.
Mr. Boucher discussed the impacts of this legislation. Major concerns regarding the bill
were summed up in a letter sent by the Town to Governor McAuliffe before the bill was
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
signed into law; a copy of which was included in their packet. Specifically, the bill
prohibits a constructive and collaborative development process for rezonings; eliminates
the ability of localities and developers to adequately mitigate impacts of development;
shifts the costs of necessary public facilities from new developments to existing
taxpayers; and reverses the longstanding presumption of reasonableness that otherwise
attaches to local legislation, by creating and imposing a new presumption of
unreasonableness with respect to local governing body's rezoning decisions. Another
concern is that some of the language is open to interpretation. The Town, as a locality,
will err on the side of caution when dealing with the developer and proffers. The ability
to negotiate proffers will be more limited after July lst. Proffers that have been accepted
recently or are in the process of negotiation may, under the law, not considered to be
reasonable. For example, Crescent Place which was approved several years ago; has a
proffer for capital facility improvements to be used for whatever public improvement the
Town deems necessary. The proffer does not specifically state that it goes to schools or
off-site transportation, or parks. The proffer, as written, lacks a connection to a specific
impact from the development. When a developer proffers a cash contribution; it must be
linked to a specific capital facility improvement and it needs to demonstrate a plausible
connection. This is the process generally practiced by the Town. What is troublesome
about this legislation is that sometimes an applicant will voluntarily offer a proffer, such
as an amenity, that may not link but is thought to be a good idea. For example, Crescent
Place proffered to extend the trail through Raflo Park and add some art to improve the
park. Under this legislation a connection to impacts resulting from the project is not
made. Should the developer decide not to develop the park; and a future developer
doesn't want to develop the park; it would be difficult to make that connection.
Commissioner Babbin asked Mr. Boucher to go into more detail regarding how this law
affects mixed use development such as Crescent Place which is a vertical mixed use
development. Mr. Boucher explained that he was unsure of what the answer was. This is
one of the things that the localities will be discussing at their meeting in April. This
meeting will be between the locality attorneys and planners as they work to figure out
what this law means and how will it apply to cases like Crescent Place.
Commissioner Babbin asked for an example of an on-site unreasonable issue. Mr.
Boucher answered that an example would be the Town not approving the application
unless the applicant gives the Town a statue on the site. If the applicant did not agree this
could be considered unreasonable even though the Town can argue that it gives benefit to
the site.
Commissioner Robinson asked if a development was on a two lane road and the
developer offered to make it a four -lane road; could that be considered to be
unreasonable. Mr. Boucher explained that clearly this would be a benefit everyone; but
it's not really required to handle the transportation solely by this developer. We have a
rezoning now where the applicant is proffering a park. If the rezoning is approved and
the land is sold; the new owner can come back and say that that proffer is unreasonable.
The new developer would look to see what the Town normally gets as a proffered
contribution to Parks & Recreation in more dense developments that may not supply all
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
their open space. In this case it exceeds what the Town has asked other developers to do
and the developer can challenge the proffer. The burden of proof falls on the Town to
demonstrate that this proffer is reasonable. A rezoning approved today can be challenged
in the future.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if this law would be retroactively applied to
applications the Planning Commission sees and acts on prior to July 1st. Mr. Boucher
answered that the law would not be retroactively applied. Commissioner Babbin wished
to comment on this issue and explained that this law was not as drastic in change as one
might think. In 2013 the US Supreme Court said almost the same thing in their review of
a Florida case. It gave some very broad language saying that the proffer has to have an
essential nexus in proportionality to the effects of the proposed new use of a specific
property. She felt it was important to keep all the issues in mind when acting on current
applications. Mr. Boucher agreed that there had to be a nexus; however the proffer
language a few years ago dealt with unconstitutional proffers; the new legislation has
language that speaks to unreasonable proffers.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if the Town was going to evaluate the required
contributions in light of this new legislation. Mr. Boucher answered that it had been
discussed but feels more technical data is needed to support the suggested contribution
amounts.
Commissioner Kidder noted that the Zoning Ordinance guidelines and standards become
more important with this type of legislation. Mr. Boucher agreed and explained that
proffers in the past have been more of a wide open negotiation. The Koontz case talks
about that nexus connection; the State Code has some language that speaks to a nexus as
well. With this new legislation, localities are going to need to have more basis for their
proffer recommendations than previously.
Commissioner Babbin noted that it is going to be important to create an evidentiary trail
to support the burden of proof shift; a well as to not create any negative evidence.
Commissioner Robinson asked what the alternatives would be if a Council or Board of
Supervisor member did not feel, that under the new legislation, the impact is fully
mitigated. Mr. Boucher answered that is now more important to judge the dividing line
between the impacts that the developer is being asked to address and what the actual
impacts are. Commissioner Robinson asked if Council has the right to say that in their
opinion; the impact is not mitigated. Mr. Boucher says Council does; however if an
applicant feels that their rezoning was denied because of an unreasonable proffer, they
can file suit and the burden of proof falls to the Town. Council's opinion should be based
on more concrete evidence. If a developer decides to file a suit against a locality, the
locality has to be able to provide solid evidence as to why an application was denied. It
is fair to say that this legislation will change how we do things. One of the solutions may
be that we have to become more sophisticated about what we are asking applicants for.
10
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
4 Commissioner Babbin suggested a change in the approach to proffers could be to do it as
a contract. One way to avoid retroactive litigation is to do a separate contract with the
developer with a condition that the contract would be null and void if the application is
not approved. She requested that this possibility be explored when the localities meet in
April. Mr. Boucher answered that getting a separate document outside of the application
has been discussed and will be discussed at the meeting in April.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if there was any additional questions and/or discussion
on this topic and seeing none she moved to the next Retreat topic.
Comprehensive Planning
Commissioner Kidder explained that she requested this topic as it is one her pet projects.
She would like to revisit form based code to see what is and isn't working. She would
also like to look back at plans that have been completed and problems associated with
those plans such as designating areas for office use that are not supported by the current
market.
Commissioner Harper asked how many applications have utilized form based code. Ms.
Berry -Hill answered that the Town has approved one; Patriot Self Storage on Fort Evans
Road. There are other applications that are under review which include Crescent Parke;
Leesburg Plaza, and Big T on Old Sycolin Road.
Commissioner Harper commented that a lot of time and money was spend developing the
Crescent District Master Plan and expressed concern that it had already been changed
with the first application that came in. The Crescent District Master Plan took over 5
years to develop and utilized a lot of staff resources and was intended to maintain the H-1
District and its surrounding environment.
Commissioner Barnes expressed concern that the Town was too quick to approve Town
Plan Amendments and rezonings and asked how it would be possible to control proffers
without putting the Town at risk. Mr. Boucher explained that zoning can be changed and
the Comprehensive Plan needs to be reviewed every 5 years and amended at any time.
There is no real way to determine; that once a rezoning is approved; how it will be
developed. The possibility for change is always there.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked the Commission members if they had further
discussion on form based code.
Commissioner Kidder explained that she used form based code as an example. At one
time, there had been a Comprehensive Planner on Staff which she found to be very useful
in terms of helping the Commission make decisions. She wished to develop a
Commission policy to routinely do a review of planning instead of having all the
meetings be about zoning.
11
Leesburg Planning Commission
March 17, 2016 Minutes
Commission Babbin requested clarification. Commissioner Kidder explained that State
law requires that the Town Plan be reviewed every five years; however the Planning
Commission and Town Council are often called upon to change the plan. She is
suggesting that the Planning Commission take sections of the Town Plan and review
them on a more regular basis. This will ensure that the Plan would be more up to date
and eliminate approving Town Plan Amendments that may not be appropriate.
Ms. Berry -Hill commented that she was glad they were having this conversation as work
has begun on a comprehensive planning project known as Envision East Market and
noted that information on this project was included in their agenda packets. Staff has
started work on research/data collection and work will begin soon on public engagement.
Once the information is gathered the intent is to bring this project to the Planning
Commission to get feedback and direction. The project is focused on three main areas;
(1) Land Use — The key factor in this process is to revise, update, and/or change regional
office land use policies; (2) Transportation — There are two interchanges; Fort Evans
Road at Edwards Ferry Road and Route 7 at Battlefield. Both changes impact this
corridor and Route 7 will be restricted access. (3) Design and H-2 Guidelines — need to
be reviewed and revised as part of this process. Council initiated repeal of H-2 and we
need Planning Commission input; mainly if the H-2 Guidelines are repealed; should it be
replaced by other guideline.
All the Planning Commission members supported Commissioner Kidder's suggestion
and discussion was held regarding forming a sub -committee to review the Town Plan. It
was determined to discuss comprehensive planning issues amongst the Planning
Commission members at their regular meetings and should they choose to delve more
deeply into a specific topic, a sub -committee would be formed.
Commissioner Robinson requested that an updated briefing on Bill 549 by Town and
County staff be scheduled for December.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 PM.
4re
roved by,
n Cicalese, Commission Clerk
L ndsay Welt Chamblin, Chairman
12