The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZTA201200001 Legacy Document 2012-02-17 (4)SpeciID al Exception Process ZTA 2012- 0001 Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors Reason for Urgency • Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless has overturned existing County processes — No administrative or Planning Commission approval of: • Waivers of Zoning Ordinance requirements • Modifications of Zoning Ordinance requirements • Variations with Planned Development • Applications will be delayed until process is fixed Special Exception Process • Resolves Sinclair problem by creating procedure for Board decision on waivers, modifications, variations, and substitutions by staff or Planning Commission, and administrative decisions by Planning Commission • Has no new fee associated with this step, though existing fees for waivers and modification request remain in place and County's costs will increase. (Anticipate fees would be considered with update of Zoning Ordinance fees in 2013.) • Does not require a public hearing or legal advertisement (notices remain as currently required under Zoning Ordinance) Goals for Recommended Process • Legal Compliance — Assure new process will provide consistency with court decision • Minimize Delays and Additional Costs — In keeping with the goal of proposed ministerial process changes, try to avoid adding time and costs (both for County and applicants) to process • Maintain Standards for Quality of Development — In keeping with the goal of the proposed ministerial process changes, maintain current standards • Maintain Opportunities for Public Involvement — As currently exist and proposed with ministerial process changes Staff Recommended Process • Minimize Delays and Costs — Requests go directly to Board's consent agenda when: — Staff is recommending approval and applicant is not contesting recommended conditions — No Board member has asked for this request to be discussed • Planning Commission's Role ? — Two possible paths (next slide) • Staff's Role — Consent Agenda: Provide short summary with request, findings related to decision criteria, and recommendation — Regular Agenda / Planning Commission: Provide report for requests similar to what is now done for Planning Commission (Report add minimum of 2 weeks to process) (Note: Due to urgency, this process was not been vetted with the public ) Process Question Planning Role.? All applications direc to Board If not consent nda and currently PC view, application first P recommendation • Pros P s — Quickest Decisi matc s st mat es existing process required 60 day eline PC reco endation helps Board — Fewer Steps = L r County with co ex decisions — Best matches In nt Minis Red es vetted issues at Board Process Change m ting • Cons — Bigger increase Board's r 0 — Unvetted issues ay aris — maller i rease in Board's work Board meeting ay not able to meet required day ti line ore ste = Higher County cost Anticipated Results of S.E. Process • For consent agenda, limits project delay and additional cost. • For regular agenda, application time and County costs increase, more so with added step of PC review. • Construction related waivers or modifications from not following approved plan could delay C.O.'s • Refinance or sale of property could be delayed where Zoning Compliance is needed and waiver required Staff Recommendation • Planning Commission — Recommend the Board adopt ZTA 2012 -0001 as presented in the report's attachment — Recommend process to Board for Special Exceptions • Board —Adopt ZTA 2012 -0001, Special Exceptions, as presented in the report's attachment — Provide direction on Special Exception process after considering staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations EXISTING COMMISSION WAIVERS • Building site (Section 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4) • Lot access (Section 4.6.6) • Setback based on height of structure (Section 4.10.3.1) • ZA decision considered by PC: Parking max limitation and design improvements for spaces, access aisles, loading and dumpster pads (Section 4.12.2 and 4.12.13 f • Lighting and maximum height of poles for athletic facilities (Section 4.17.5) • Maximum sound levels (Section 4.18.04) • Supplementary regulations (Section 5.1) • Personal wireless (Section 5.1.40) • Farm worker housing (Section 5.1.44) • Small wind turbines (Section 5.1.46) • Home occ, not RA — any standard (Section 5.2) • Home occ, RA — area and traffic (Section 5.2A) • Mobile home parks (Section 5.3) • Temp mobile home permit (Section 5.7) • Temp non - residential mobile home (Section 5.8) • Downtown Crozet District — max setback (Section 2013.3 H) and alternate location parking (Section 2013.3 J) • Commercial buffers (Section 20.7) • Industrial buffers (Section 26.10) • FHOD (Section 30.3.10) • Site plan waiver of details (Section 32.2) • Site plan extension (Section 32.4.3.8) • Site plan Landscaping (Section 32.3.10) • Site plan — min. standards for improvements (Section 32.7) DIRECTOR, ZA or CE WAIVERS • Some critical slopes and bldg site shape (Section 4.2) • Lot access (Section 4.6.6) • Parking design (Section 4.12.4 (a), 4.12.13(f) loading, 4.12.15 design requirements for parking areas, 4.12.16 design requirements for parking within parking spaces or bays, 4.12.17 vehicle access aisles, 4.12.18 loading, 4.12.19 dumpsters) • PD variations (Section 8.5.5.3) • Crozet Downtown District (Section 206) such as max setback, sidewalk width • RPD add'I dwellings (Section 10.3.3.3f) • Commercial buffers (Section 20.7) • Industrial buffers (Section 26.10) • Site plan waiver of details (Section 32.2) • Landscape plan (Section 32.7.9.3) • Street design (Section 32.7.3.1) Anticipated number of requests/ year • Waivers or Modifications= • Variations of Plan =