Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order and Mr. Fedors took roll call.

Transcription

1 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -1- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 05, 2016, AT 7:00 P.M., IN THE COLONIAL COURTHOUSE, 6504 MAIN STREET, GLOUCESTER, VIRGINIA: I. Call To Order and Roll Call Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order and Mr. Fedors took roll call. THERE WERE PRESENT: THERE WERE ABSENT: ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: John C. Meyer, Jr., Chair Phillip N. Bazzani, Vice Chair Ashley C. Chriscoe Christopher A. Hutson Andrew James, Jr. Robert J. Orth Michael R. Winebarger None Edwin Ted Wilmot, County Attorney J. Brent Fedors, County Administrator II. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance - Pastor Calvin Griffin - Singleton United Methodist Church Mr. Meyer called for a moment of silence in honor of Trooper Chad Dermyer. After the moment of silence, Pastor Griffin of Singleton United Methodist Church gave an invocation and then all in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Mr. Meyer encouraged all to remember to thank our Sheriff s deputies and first responders for their service as they put their lives on the line every day. III. Approval of the Minutes - March 1 and March 15, 2016 Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to approve the minutes of the March 1 and March 15, 2016, Board of Supervisors meetings. The motion carried and was approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. IV. Adoption of the Agenda Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to adopt the agenda. The motion carried and was approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. V. Approval of the Consent Agenda Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve the consent agenda. The motion carried and the following consent agenda items were approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. A. Open Board Directed Action Items J. Brent Fedors County Administrator

2 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -2- By approval of the consent agenda, the Board was notified of the updates on open action items. B. Acknowledgment of Abstract of Votes J. Brent Fedors County Administrator By approval of the consent agenda, the Board acknowledged the following abstracts of votes:

3 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -3- C. Resolution of Appreciation for William Blair for Service on the Clean Community Committee Christi Lewis Director, Community Education RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION AND RECOGNITION FOR WILLIAM BLAIR FOR SERVICE ON THE LOCAL CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, Mr. William Blair was appointed and has been a Clean Community Committee member and advisor to the program, staff, and Gloucester Board of Supervisors since 2006; and WHEREAS, he has dedicated himself to attending and participating regularly in committee meetings, special events and clean-up projects; and

4 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -4- WHEREAS, Mr. Blair has been instrumental in, and championed, regular cleanups of the Carters Cove and Aberdeen Creek Road areas in Gloucester; and WHEREAS, Mr. Blair has been a faithful and committed committee member whose tireless efforts enhanced the lives of citizens and the beautification of our county; and WHEREAS, his dedication and commitment to the community is greatly appreciated and we thank him for his 10 years of exceptional community service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors does hereby offer its deepest appreciation and extends a tremendous thank you to Mr. William Bill Blair for his dedication and commitment to Gloucester County. D. Resolution of Appreciation for Edward Drechsel for Service on the Clean Community Committee Christi Lewis Director, Community Education RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION AND RECOGNITION FOR EDWARD DRECHSEL FOR SERVICE ON THE LOCAL CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, Mr. Edward Drechsel was appointed and has been a Clean Community Committee member and advisor to the program, staff and Gloucester Board of Supervisors since 2004; and WHEREAS, he provided leadership to the Clean Community Committee serving as Chairman in the year 2008; and WHEREAS, Mr. Drechsel has dedicated himself to attending and participating regularly in committee meetings, special events and clean-up projects; and WHEREAS, he was instrumental in initiating and assisting in Gloucester County s first battery recycling program; and WHEREAS, Mr. Drechsel has been a faithful and committed committee member whose service enhanced the lives of citizens and the beautification of our county; and WHEREAS, his dedication and commitment to the community is greatly appreciated and we thank him for his 12 years of exceptional community service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors does hereby offer its deepest appreciation and extends a tremendous thank you to Mr. Edward Drechsel for his dedication and commitment to Gloucester County. E. Update to Local Emergency Management Planning Committee/Citizen Corps Council Membership C. Creig Moore Emergency Management Coordinator LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE/CITIZEN CORPS COUNCIL (LEPC/CCC) WHEREAS, the Virginia Emergency Response Council is responsible for maintaining an active and current Local Emergency Planning Committee membership list for state liability coverage; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Local Emergency Planning Committee and the Gloucester Citizen Corps Council have been consolidated; and

5 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -5- WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors is the nominating authority for membership on the Gloucester County Local Emergency Planning Committee and the Gloucester Citizen Corps Council. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that the following individuals be hereby recommended for appointment on the Gloucester County Local Emergency Planning Committee/Gloucester Citizen Corps Council to represent Gloucester County in the capacities as indicated. TODD CANNON HAZMAT VDEM COORDINATOR LEPC/CCC MEMBERSHIP ROSTER FOR APPOINTMENT MATTHEW CARPENTIER THREE RIVERS HEALTH DISTRICT EMERGENCY PLANNER J.D. CLEMENTS GLOUCESTER FIRE & RESCUE REP... JIM FLYNN AMERICAN RED CROSS REPRESENTATIVE ANITA PARKER SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE... JAMES DAWSON PUBLIC UTILITIES REPRESENTATIVE... DOUG SMITH RIVERSIDE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. REESE WILLIAMS WXGM REPRESENTATIVE... SHERIFF DARRELL WARREN GLOUCESTER COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE F. Application for the Establishment of No Discharge Zones in Sarah Creek and Perrin River Phil Olekszyk Go Green Gloucester Advisory Committee Member By approval of the consent agenda, the Board authorized the submission of the Sarah Creek and Perrin River No Discharge Zones application to the Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency for approval. VI. Citizen Comment Period - (Speakers should provide 10 copies of handouts if any) DON MITCHELL YORK DISTRICT Mr. Mitchell stated that it was almost enough to revitalize his faith to see a thousand people standing on Route 17 to pay tribute to someone willing to sacrifice for his country. In reference to submitting an application to the Hazard Mitigation Program, he recommended against that item. He stated that when money was borrowed for the utility, there were supposed to be rate increases to the users to cover

6 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -6- the cost. He noted that has not happened. He stated that the users should be asked to pay their fair share. VII. Scheduled Presentations A. Presentation on National Crime Victims' Rights Week - Holly Smith - Commonwealth's Attorney Ms. Smith thanked the Board for allowing her a few minutes to recognize National Crime Victims Rights Week. She noted that no one is immune to this, and it has become all too real with the killing of Trooper Chad Dermyer. She expressed her deepest sympathy to his wife and family and the County s deepest gratitude for his service. She stated that this year s theme for National Crime Victims Rights Week is Serving Victims, Building Trust, and Restoring Hope. She noted that the message to victims and their families is you are not alone. She reviewed activities and efforts in the County to support National Crime Victims Rights Week. She stated that the kick off was this evening with the presentation of the Sally Kerns/Kent Johnson Award for Outstanding Service to Victims. She advised that the award recipient this year was Becky Slattery. She reviewed Ms. Slattery s achievements throughout her career serving victims of all crimes. She asked everyone to join her in congratulating Becky Slattery as she presented the award. Ms. Slattery thanked everyone. wonderful job serving victims and their families. She stated that Gloucester County does a Mr. Meyer thanked Ms. Slattery for all that she does for all the citizens. VIII. Regular Agenda A. Request for Public Hearing to Amend Chapter 18 - Vehicles and Traffic - Ted Wilmot - County Attorney and Holly Smith - Commonwealth's Attorney Mr. Wilmot advised that the Commonwealth s Attorney had recently suggested that the County consider adopting two new provisions to Chapter 18 of the County Code. He noted that the first dealt with reimbursement of expenses incurred in responding to DUI (Driving Under the Influence) and related incidents. He stated that State law allows localities to pass ordinances which allow for the collection of expenses incurred in responding to DUI and other incidents. He noted that State law also allows localities to collect for costs associated with the cleanup of Meth labs. reviewed the two suggested provisions. He stated that he also had previously reviewed Chapter 18 and has included some additional recommendations for minor changes to track the amended language of State Code. After a brief discussion, Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Dr. Orth, to authorize the public hearing to consider amending Chapter 18 of the County Code. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. He

7 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -7- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors desires to set a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapter 18 to add Sections reimbursement of expenses incurred in responding to DUI and related incidents and methamphetamine lab cleanup costs; charge for reimbursement and to amend Sections pertaining to unattended, abandoned and inoperative motor vehicles to update those sections pursuant to State code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that the Clerk is directed to advertise, in a newspaper of general circulation, a public hearing notice for a public hearing to be held in the Colonial Courthouse located at 6504 Main Street on Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:30 p.m., to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Gloucester County Code. B. Request for Public Hearing to Amend Chapter 19 - Water, Sewers, and Sewage of the Gloucester County Code to Revise Certain Utility Fees, Rates and Charges - James C. Dawson - Director of Public Utilities Mr. Dawson advised that this request is to hold a public hearing at the May 3 meeting to add one meter size to the utility fee schedule. He noted that this is a meter size that has been missing in the past. He stated that they are starting to see development projects that are appropriate for this meter; however, since the department does not have that size, the developer has to move to the next higher meter size. He reviewed that the proposal would insert the three quarter inch meter into the schedule and correctly label the smaller meter as the five-eighths by three quarter inch meter. Mr. Winebarger clarified that the public hearing would only be for the change in the meter size and no other fees. Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Dr. Orth, to authorize the public hearing to consider amending Chapter 19 of the County Code. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 19, WATER, SEWERS AND SEWAGE OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE, TO REVISE CERTAIN UTILITY FEES, RATES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors desires to set a public hearing to consider an Ordinance to amend Chapter 19 Water, Sewers and Sewage of the Gloucester County Code to revise certain utility fees, rates and charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that the Clerk is directed to advertise, in a newspaper of general circulation, a public hearing notice for a public hearing to be held in the Colonial Courthouse located at 6504 Main Street on May 3, 2016 at 7:30 p.m., to consider an ordinance revising certain utility fees, rates and charges imposed by Gloucester County Code Chapter 19, Water, Sewers and Sewage. C. Discussion/Decision on Submitting an Application to the Unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grant Program - Brian Lewis -

8 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -8- Director of Engineering Mr. Lewis stated he was requesting direction from the Board on whether the County should submit an application to the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Program. He noted that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) had recently announced application periods for the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. He reviewed that since 2004 the County has been awarded fifteen HMGP (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) grants totaling over $13.8 million to either elevate homes or acquire properties in flood prone areas. He stated that 56 homes have been elevated and 24 were in the process of elevation. He also stated that there was a memo in the packet indicating the advantages and disadvantages of the program. He noted that the County currently has 45 applications 33 for elevation and 12 for acquisition. He advised that based on previous indications by the Board, only elevation projects would be considered going forward. He noted that the grants likely would not be awarded for a year after application. Board members asked questions regarding language to exclude acquisition; whether homes could be excluded if they are not suitable for elevation; and how many elevations are completed within a year. Mr. Lewis noted that the County has the choice to apply for elevation or acquisition and could apply for acquisition only. He stated that the County could determine which homes would go forward based on a cost benefit analysis and lessons learned. He noted that three elevations were completed in the last year; however he advised that the goal is to complete the remainder of the projects by next summer. After further discussion, Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Bazzani to not pursue the grant application this year, but to bring the grant opportunity to the Board in 2017 when it opened again. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. Regular Agenda suspended for Public Hearings to begin at 7:30 p.m. XIII. Public Hearings - 7:30 p.m. A. Public Hearing for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new Residential Mixed use (RMX) Zoning District - Anne Ducey- Ortiz, AICP, CZA - Director of Planning and Zoning Ms. Ducey-Ortiz advised that this is an ordinance amendment that has been in the works for many years. She reviewed the adoption of the Gloucester Point/Hayes Village Plan and the Courthouse Village Plan. She noted that based on the success of both of those efforts the Economic Development Authority hired a consultant to work with the Planning Department on the zoning amendments. She advised that some of the benefits of the amendment from an economic development point of view include more flexibility, fewer missed opportunities, adequate ordinances in place to allow the development envisioned by the village plans, achievement of many of the Business

9 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -9- Development Focus Group s recommendations, and achievement of many of the Board s strategic objectives. She reviewed the timeline of the development of the ordinance. She noted that the ordinance is based on traditional neighborhood design principles. She advised that these types of ordinances are fairly complicated and one of the reasons is that they are trying to create a sense of place. She stated that the idea is that the private buildings and public spaces work together to create the synergy and economic vitality desired. She noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing in March and voted to forward to the Board with a recommendation for approval. Ms. Ducey-Ortiz summarized the proposed ordinance. She reviewed the intent of the ordinance, lot area and density, lot coverage and building setbacks, parking and sidewalks. Board members asked questions about the sidewalk requirement and whether the RMX (Residential Mixed Use) districts would just be in the village districts or anywhere. Ms. Ducey-Ortiz noted that sidewalks would be required but the requirement can be waived in certain situations with a fee in lieu being paid into a sidewalk construction fund. She advised that the intent of the district is to be within walking distance of commercial areas. She continued reviewing the ordinance to include accessory buildings, building requirements, parking and landscaping, and the schedule of fees. After brief discussion by the Board, Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing for public comment. RAYMOND SUTTLE, JR. ATTORNEY FOR YORK RIVER CROSSING ASSOCIATES Mr. Suttle thanked Ms. Ducey-Ortiz for keeping him abreast of the process. He stated that if this ordinance is passed, his client intends to file a rezoning for a project that would meet the residential district. He noted that the Planning Commission had some concerns on the idea of density. He stated that the density allows for amenities and qualities of improvement that you may not have otherwise. He asked that the Board support the ordinance to give the County some flexibility in certain areas for this type of development. DON MITCHELL YORK DISTRICT Mr. Mitchell spoke in opposition of this ordinance. He stated that high density means homeowners pay more because people demand more services. He further stated that there should be a total economic analysis of what this will do to the people in the County. He noted that the Board will have to answer in the future for the decisions they are making for these developments. There being no additional speakers, Mr. Meyer closed the public hearing and turned the matter over to the Board.

10 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -10- After questions by the Board to Mr. Suttle on the specifics of the proposed project, Mr. Meyer reminded the Board that the ordinance itself is under consideration this evening and not the specific development. further discussion on the ordinance. He called for a brief recess before After the recess, Mr. Chriscoe stated that adding this ordinance will allow the County to accomplish the Board s strategic vision and to potentially see some economic growth. Mr. Meyer stated that he was against the proposed zoning text amendment fee in the schedule of fees. He noted that he was concerned about creating the RMX without the opportunity to have ground floor retail with apartments above. He stated he was in favor of approving the RMX with the understanding that we are working on getting high density mixed use retail residential implemented. After further discussion by the Board, Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Dr. Orth, to adopt the ordinance as amended to remove the zoning text fee. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX B ZONING OF THE CODE OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS, SECTION 2-2 DEFINITIONS; AMENDING ARTICLE 5 DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 5-1 COMPLIANCE WITH DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ADDING SECTION 5-5 RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT PROVISIONS; AND AMENDING ARTICLE 15- ENFORCEMENT BY AMENDING SECTION SCHEDULE OF FEES, CHARGES, EXPENSES AND REQUIRED MATERIALS AND ADDING SECTION FEES IN LIEU OF REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors adopted the Gloucester Point/Hayes Village Development Area Plan on October 18, 2011 as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, Gloucester County adopted the Gloucester Court House Village Sub- Area Plan on February 5, 2013; and WHEREAS, both plans were based on extensive community outreach, collaboration and input regarding future development in the County s village areas; and WHEREAS, both plans aim to promote economic vitality and a sense of place, while preserving essential community, cultural and historic resources; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Economic Development Authority, in collaboration with the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors and the Main Street Preservation Trust, retained consulting assistance to work with County staff and community partners to develop new and revised ordinances to implement the village plans; and WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance allows a mix of residential densities and uses, while providing appropriate building setbacks, height limitations, frontage standards and amenities to accomplish the goals outlined in the adopted village plans; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission reached consensus on a draft ordinance amendment and held a public hearing on March 3, 2016, voting 5-1

11 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -11- (with one absent) to forward the ordinance amendment to the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has held a duly advertised public hearing, and is of the opinion that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice will be furthered by such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED, by the Board of Supervisors of Gloucester County, Virginia, this 5 th day of April, 2016, that the Gloucester County Code, Appendix B, Article 2 Definitions, Section 2-2 Definitions; Article 5 District Regulations, Section 5-1 Compliance with District Regulations; Article 5- District Regulations and Article 15 Enforcement, Section Schedule Of Fees, Charges, Expenses and Required Materials and Article 15, be amended as follows: APPENDIX B ZONING Add and amend the following definitions in Appendix B Zoning Article 2 Section 2-2 Definitions as follows: Acreage, net: A unit of measure; gross acreage less the land area for (1) existing or proposed street rights-of-way; (2) ponds, lakes, or other impounded water bodies; (3) wetlands; (4) areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent; (5) existing or proposed utility and storm water management easements greater than twenty (20) feet in width; (6) existing or proposed sites for utility and storm water management facilities; and (7) other property reserved or dedicated for public ownership (parks, school sites, etc.) provided that the reduction for this purpose shall not exceed ten (10) percent of gross acreage. When determining net acreage, the land area to be deducted for proposed street rights-of-way shall be thirteen (13) percent of the gross acreage. Fenestration: The arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors on the exterior of a building fronting on a road, street, drive or parking area intended to establish traditional neighborhood design and pedestrian oriented environment within the county s designated village areas. Amend Appendix B Zoning Article 5 District Regulations Section 5-1 Compliance with District Regulations as follows: Sec Compliance with district regulations. The regulations for each district set forth by this ordinance shall be minimum regulations, except as otherwise specifically provided, and shall apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure or land, except as hereinafter provided: (1) No building, structure, or land shall be used or occupied and no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with all of the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located; (2) No building or other structure shall be erected or altered: a. To provide for greater height; b. To accommodate or house a greater number of families; c. To occupy a greater percentage of lot area; or d. To have narrower or smaller yards or other open spaces than herein required, or in any other manner be contrary to the provision of this ordinance; (32) Except as otherwise permitted, Nno yard or lot existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced in dimension or area below the minimum requirements set forth herein. Yards or lots created after the

12 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -12- effective date of this ordinance shall meet at least the minimum requirements set forth herein. Add the following section to Appendix B Zoning Article 5 District Regulations: Section 5-5. Residential mixed use (RMX) district regulations. (1) The intent of the Residential Mixed Use (RMX) district is to encourage the orderly development of a residential-oriented, mixeduse neighborhood environment in or adjacent to the village areas as shown in the comprehensive plan. This district is intended to be served by an interconnected network of streets, walkways and bikeways, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and a balanced mixture of supportive higher density, multi-family residential uses adjacent to and/or integrated with limited amounts of commercial and institutional uses. Pedestrian activity and convenience is encouraged through a mix of pedestrian-oriented buildings, streetscapes, and walkways that create a sense of place and vitality, as called for in the comprehensive plan. Development in this district is intended to be served by public water and sewer; rezoning to this district is appropriate only if public water and sewer service to the proposed site exists or is available. (2) The following uses shall be permitted in the RMX district: Singlefamily, two-family, multi-family, and townhouse dwellings, home occupations type I, community recreation facilities, parks, playgrounds, greens and squares, schools, churches, and similar institutional uses or places of assembly, parking lots and parking structures, and accessory uses and structures associated with the principal uses. (3) The following shall constitute the minimum lot area and maximum residential density in the RMX district: a. Minimum lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Maximum density for residential uses: sixteen (16) dwelling units per net acre. c. Minimum lot width: twenty-four (24) feet measured at the minimum allowable front setback. (4) The following shall constitute the lot coverage requirements in the RMX district: a. Maximum lot coverage for total building footprints and paved surfaces: none other than that imposed by green space, storm water and other requirements. b. Maximum footprint of any one building shall not exceed 15,000 square feet; multiple buildings on a lot may be connected by enclosed walkways or subordinate connective building sections; distinct but connected buildings are considered separate buildings. c. At least ten (10) percent of the total lot area must be in green space. The zoning administrator may waive this requirement

13 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -13- and instead accept from the applicant a fee in lieu, as established by the board of supervisors. (5) The following shall constitute the yard and building setback requirements in the RMX district: a. Building setbacks shall be measured from the edge of sidewalk or the existing or proposed lot line establishing the right of way design as shown in Figures 5.4(5) (a) and 5.4(5) (b). Setbacks and streetscape requirements shall be measured based on the lot configuration after dedication of right of way required as part of the subdivision or site plan review process. No area within the front yard setback may be used for parking, including individual driveways. b. The setbacks required by this section shall apply to all parcels within the RMX District; however where an RMX District abuts another residential district, the principal and accessory setbacks applicable in the adjoining residential district shall also apply to the structures in the RMX District only along the shared property line(s) between the RMX District and adjoining residential district. c. The following setbacks are required for principal buildings that front on a public or private, road, street, drive or parking area: (i) Setbacks from undivided street or highway, drive-aisle or parking area: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Minimum front setback: five (5) feet. Maximum front setback: twenty (20) feet. Up to thirty (30) percent of the front façade may be recessed an additional twelve (12) feet (total of 32 feet) from the front lot line if the additional space is used for greens, squares, courts, plazas or other civic features, including outdoor eating areas. Where existing buildings or structures occupy lots comprising at least fifty (50) percent of the lots within a block, and the average front yard depth of the existing buildings or structures is more than the maximum allowed by this ordinance, the average so established may be taken in lieu of that which is normally required. For the purpose of this calculation, lots on the same side of a street on either side of the lot in question for a distance of six hundred (600) feet or to the nearest street intersection, whichever is less, shall be considered. Minimum side setback: none when lots on either side are in common ownership; otherwise five (5) feet or pursuant to section 5-5 (5) (b). Minimum rear setback: twenty (20) feet or pursuant to section 5-5 (5) (b). (ii) Setbacks from divided street or highway:

14 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -14- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Minimum front setback: twenty (20) feet. Minimum setback from lot access road, whether public or private: five (5) feet. Maximum setback from highway: none. Minimum side setback: none when lots on either side are in common ownership; otherwise five (5) feet or pursuant to section 5-5 (5) (b). Minimum rear setback: twenty (20) feet or pursuant to section 5-5 (5) (b). (iii) (iv) (v) A paved sidewalk, for public use, at least five (5) feet in width, and a planting strip of at least six (6) feet, must be provided together across the lot frontage, either on the lot or within the public right-of-way, whichever matches existing conditions or the provisions of the comprehensive plan or any applicable county-approved plans. If the county has no specific plan or design for such streetscape improvements, the zoning administrator may waive this requirement and instead accept from the applicant payment of a fee in lieu as established by the board of supervisors. Refer to Figures 5.4 (5) (a) and 5.4 (5) (b). Parking shall not be located within the yard of the front setback. Not more than one row of head-in or angled parking may be located along each side of the private street or drive aisle serving the lots in the development. d. The following setbacks shall be required for all accessory buildings including attached or detached garages, carports and other accessory parking structures: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Minimum front setback: must be located to the rear of the principal building either partially or fully within the principal rear yard setback. Minimum single side setback: none within the RMX District; however, when the yard abuts the yard of another zoning district, the setback of the adjoining district shall apply. Accessory structures exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall meet the principal setbacks of an adjoining residential district. Minimum sum of two side setbacks: none except as required above. Minimum rear setback: five (5) feet or pursuant to section 5-5 (5) (b) except that lots served by rear access roads or alleys shall have no minimum rear yard setbacks for accessory structures. Accessory structures exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall meet the principal

15 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -15- residential setbacks requirements of an adjoining residential district. e. If ambiguity exists regarding the road frontage or setback requirements of a lot, or where double frontage conditions apply, the zoning administrator shall determine the frontage type and applicable setbacks based on the predominant site and surrounding conditions in accord with criteria established above and existing and planned site conditions. Established setbacks shall be shown on the approved zoning permit, final plat or site plan. Figure 5.4(5) (a): Typical Right of way Width and Design for Non-major public roads and private streets in the RMX district* Figure 5.4 (5) (b): Typical Right of Way Width and Design for Major public roads and private streets in the RMX district (Half-Section)* (6) The following shall constitute the building requirements in the RMX district:

16 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -16- a. The maximum height of any building shall be forty-five (45) feet, except as otherwise provided herein. b. The following shall constitute the requirements for all principal buildings: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Minimum thirty (30) percent of the front facade surface shall be in fenestration on ground floor for residential uses and fifty (50) percent shall be in fenestration for nonresidential uses. Minimum twenty (20) percent of the front facade surface shall be in fenestration on upper floors. The front façade shall have at least one ground floor entrance. Multiple entrances along front façade must be spaced to have a least one entrance every forty (40) feet. Maximum height of a principal building is sixty (60) feet if facades above a height of forty-five (45) feet are set back at least fifteen (15) feet from any lot line or the principal applicable yard setback of adjoining residential zoning district, whichever setback is greater. The front façade must have a horizontal recession in the wall surface of at least three feet horizontally, occurring at least every fifty (50) linear feet, such that there is vertical split in the wall where one place of the façade is located farther from the front line than the adjacent plan and the break creates the visual appearance of separate building masses along the frontage, with a readily visible change in the plane of the wall along the street, and changes in roof heights/masses. Loading areas and refuse receptacles must be located at the rear of the site and screened from view from the public right-of-way. (viii) Mechanical equipment, whether ground-level or rooftop, shall be shielded and screened from view from the public right of way, and shall be designed to be perceived as an integral part of the building. d. If ambiguity exists regarding the road frontage condition of a lot or the required setbacks, the zoning administrator shall determine the frontage type and applicable setbacks based on the predominant site and surrounding conditions in accord with criteria established above and with existing and planned site conditions. (7) Other Requirements. a. Where no other landscaping is required, a buffer, meeting the requirements of article 9, section 9-8 shall be provided between the RMX district and other residential districts. The side and rear yard buffer requirements may be reduced or modified by the zoning administrator based on existing or proposed site

17 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -17- conditions that offer equivalent screening and noise abatement to adjacent residential properties. b. Off-street parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the off-street parking requirements of article 11 of the zoning ordinance or as approved by the zoning administrator based on a parking analysis of the proposed development provided as part of the traffic impact analysis or submitted with the proposed subdivision or site plan. (i) (ii) On-street parking and joint parking with non-residential uses may be used to satisfy the parking requirements for residential uses in the RMX district provided that the hours of use of the non-residential parking areas do not normally overlap with the residential uses. A written agreement for residential use of public and private parking areas shall be filed with the administrator prior to approval of the zoning permit, site plan or subdivision development plan for the proposed residential use and/or recorded as part of the deed or covenants and restrictions for the proposed residential development. c. Signage shall be in accordance with article 12. Amend Appendix B Zoning Article 15 Enforcement Section 15-11, Schedule of fees, charges, expenses, and required materials as follows: Sec Schedule of fees, charges, expenses, and required materials. Prior to processing any application under this zoning ordinance, the department of codes compliance shall collect fees shall be collected from the applicant in accordance with the following schedule: All zoning permits (excepting signs): Thirty-five ($35.00). All zoning permits for signs: Fifty dollars ($50.00). All applications to the board of zoning appeals: Two hundred seventy-five dollars ($275.00). All applications to rezone: Base fee of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00) plus fifty dollars ($50.00) per acre, or any fraction thereof. Proffer amendment provided that such amendment does not change density or conditions of use beyond those that would be permitted by-right as a result of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance adopted after the acceptance of the proffer: Three hundred dollars ($300.00). Such zoning permit fees may be waived by the board of supervisors, pursuant to resolution, in appropriate circumstances. Add the following section to Appendix B Zoning Article 15 Enforcement Section Fees in lieu of required public improvements. (1) When a pedestrian or streetscape accommodation is otherwise required by this ordinance and would be substantially damaged or need to be replaced as a result of a fully engineered roadway

18 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -18- construction project implemented by the county or VDOT, the zoning administrator may request dedication of sufficient right-of-way for pedestrian and streetscape accommodations related to the road project in lieu of construction of the pedestrian requirement. The requirement to dedicate right-of-way shall be based on existing rightof-way, the design of the engineered project, and additional right-ofway that is needed; (2) In circumstances where topographical conditions make construction of pedestrian and streetscape accommodations impractical, the zoning administrator may approve an alternative alignment that is accessible by the public that differs from VDOT design standards or the streetscape Figures 5.4 (5) (a) and 5.4 (5) (b). The alternative alignment shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for the Accessible Design and shall link with adjacent pedestrian accommodations; (3) If an exception is granted for (1) or (2) above, the applicant shall be required to pay into the pedestrian accommodation construction and maintenance fund in an amount determined by the director of engineering or his/her designee based on: a. projected engineering costs; b. projected material costs; c. projected labor and mobilization costs; d. current topographical conditions of the site; and e. linear feet of frontage. (4) The fees collected by the county shall be specifically identified and maintained as a separate account within the General Fund and may only be used by the county in coordination with VDOT for the construction of public sidewalks in furtherance of the county s adopted plans. B. Public Hearing on an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Remove "half-stories" and Maximum Number of Stories - Anne Ducey-Ortiz, AICP, CZA - Director of Planning and Zoning Ms. Ducey-Ortiz reviewed the current definitions related to building stories and half stories. She noted that the maximum height of residential buildings was previously modified to 50 feet; however, the number of stories was left at 2.5. She stated from the staff perspective it is micromanaging the number of stories. She advised that the Planning Commission agreed the stories should be removed and just the maximum height should remain. The Planning Commission voted to send to the Board with a recommendation for approval. After a brief clarification that the height of the structure is measured from the ground, Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing to public comment. NATHAN BROWN WARE DISTRICT

19 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -19- Mr. Brown stated that he was concerned about the height of some of the buildings. He recommended that the Board limit the number of stories and the height. He stated he did not think Gloucester needed any houses over two stories. There being no additional speakers, Mr. Meyer closed the public hearing to public comment and turned the matter over to the Board. Mr. Chriscoe asked about changing the height in B4. Ms. Ducey-Ortiz advised that B4 is the rural business district. She noted that the only change being recommended to B4 is removing the number of stories and the height is not being changed. Board members discussed changing the height in the B4 district. Mr. Wilmot reviewed the current maximum height in the B4 district, noting that it is either 35 or 50 feet depending on the kind of the structure. He stated that the ordinance before the Board tonight is just an omission of the stories. He further stated that if it is the Board s desire to increase the maximum allowable height of any principle structure that could be an issue to consider in the future. There being no further discussion, Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve ordinance as presented. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX B ZONING OF THE CODE OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS, SECTION 2-2 DEFINITIONS; AND AMENDING ARTICLE 5 DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 5-2 OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS ADOPTED WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Department of Planning & Zoning, having recognized that some language in the zoning ordinance presents unnecessary regulatory oversight for both citizens and staff, has requested the Gloucester County Planning Commission consider an idea for an amendment to the Gloucester County Code which would eliminate the maximum number of floors for principal structures in Gloucester County; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission and staff examined the ordinance relative to the definitions of floors and the height limitations in Gloucester County s various zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission discussed and reached consensus that the deletion of the definition of half-story and removing the maximum floor requirements for principal structures (other than in a town house development) from the official schedule of district regulations in Gloucester County Zoning Ordinance, but keeping the height restrictions as currently listed, would not adversely impact the health, safety, and/or welfare of the citizenry; and WHEREAS, the adoption of an ordinance that removes an unnecessary regulation is consistent with several objectives in Gloucester County s Comprehensive Plan, including streamlining review and approval processes; and WHEREAS, this amendment is specific in its intent to address those instances where the current zoning requirements have unnecessarily impacted development plans; and

20 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -20- WHEREAS, as time and resources allow, the Planning Commission and staff plan to review the entire zoning ordinance to address other instances where regulatory requirements may be reduced without adverse impact to health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission reached consensus on a draft ordinance amendment and held a public hearing on March 3, 2016, voting unanimously (6-0, with one member absent) to forward the ordinance amendment to the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has held a duly advertised public hearing, and is of the opinion that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice will be furthered by such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED, by the Board of Supervisors of Gloucester County, Virginia, this 5th day of April, 2016, that the Gloucester County Code, Appendix B, Article 2 Definitions, Section 2-2 Definitions; and Article 5 District Regulations, Section 5-2 Official Schedule of District Regulations Adopted, be amended as follows: APPENDIX B ZONING Delete the following definition from Appendix B Zoning Article 2 Section 2-2 Definitions: Story, half: A space under a sloping roof, which has the line of intersection of roof decking and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the top floor level, and in which space not more than two-thirds of the floor area is finished off for use. Amend Appendix B Zoning Article 5 Section 5-2 OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS ADOPTED for all Zoning Districts to remove the maximum number of floors as follows: [See attached tables] Sec Official schedule of district regulations adopted. District regulations shall be set forth in the official schedule of district regulations hereby adopted and declared to be a part of this ordinance, and in Article 9 of this ordinance, "Supplementary District Regulations." District regulations for the H-1 district shall be those specified in Article 6, district regulations for the HCDD district shall be those specified in Article 6A, district regulations for the MH-1 district shall be those specified in Article 7, and district regulations for the PUD-1 district shall be those specified in Article 8.

21 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -21-

22 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -22-

23 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -23-

24 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -24-

25 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -25-

26 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -26-

27 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -27-

28 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -28-

29 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -29-

30 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -30-

31 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -31-

32 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -32-

33 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -33-

34 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -34-

35 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -35-

36 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -36-

37 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -37-

38 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -38-

39 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -39-

40 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -40-

41 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -41-

42 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -42-

43 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -43-

44 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -44-

45 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -45-

46 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -46-

47 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -47-

48 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -48-

49 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -49-

50 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -50-

51 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -51-

52 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -52-

53 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -53- C. Public Hearing to Amend the Sign Ordinance as it Pertains to Signage for Nonresidential Uses in Residential Districts - Anne Ducey-Ortiz, AICP, CZA - Director of Planning and Zoning Ms. Ducey-Ortiz advised that this is a correction of an oversight during an earlier amendment. She reviewed that there was a recent revision of the sign ordinance to allow electronic signs for non-residential uses in residential districts and to allow larger signs in the B1 district. She advised that illuminated signs were defined separately and in a different location in the ordinance and when the modification was done it was overlooked. something that was likely intended. comment. She stated this amendment is to fix After a brief discussion, Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing to public There being no speakers, Mr. Meyer closed the public hearing and turned the matter over to the Board. Mr. Hutson asked if the word and should be added to section 12.7(2) in order to allow a sign to be illuminated and to have an electronic display.

54 April 5, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting -54- After some discussion, Mr. Wilmot advised that the Board could add and to that section without an issue. Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to adopt the ordinance as amended, by adding "and/or" to section 12.7(2). The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Meyer, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Dr. Orth, and Mr. Winebarger yes. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX B, ZONING ARTICLE 12 SIGNS, SECTION 12-7 ADDITIONAL SIGNS PERMITTED WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission s purpose is to promote orderly development and advise the governing body on ways to improve the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the citizens of the County as authorized pursuant to and stated in Virginia Code Section et seq.; and WHEREAS, at their January 19, 2016 meeting, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors directed the Gloucester County Department of Planning and Zoning to modify the permitted signage for non-residential uses within residential districts to allow internally illuminated signs; and WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Gloucester County Comprehensive Plan s goals and objectives, including promoting cultural resources through signage identification; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission reviewed and determined that the proposed changes are compatible with current practices while maintaining Gloucester s rural character; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 3, 2016 voting 6-0 (1 absent) to forward the ordinance amendment to the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has held a duly advertised public hearing, and is of the opinion that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice will be furthered by such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED, by the Board of Supervisors of Gloucester County, Virginia, this fifth day of April, 2016, that the Gloucester County Code, Appendix B, Article 12 Signs, Section 12-7 Additional Signs Permitted, as follows: AMEND APPENDIX B, ARTICLE 12 SIGNS, SECTION 12-7 ADDITIONAL SIGNS PERMITTED AS FOLLOWS: Sec Additional signs permitted. The following signs shall be permitted subject to the permit requirement in section 12-2: (1) Neighborhood identification signs. Residential communities located in any residential, agricultural, or conservation district shall be permitted one (1) community identification sign per community entrance. A residential community in this context shall mean any single-family, townhouse, apartment, condominium, or manufactured housing development. One (1) such sign shall be permitted on each side of an entrance if the sign is attached to and designed to be an integral part of a wall or other ornamental feature. The maximum area for each such sign shall be thirty (30) square feet, and the maximum height shall be six (6) feet. There is no minimum setback requirement for such signs.